All care, but whose responsibility? Community juries reason about expert and patient responsibilities in prostate-specific antigen screening for prostate cancer
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 4218005 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Chris Degeling (0000-0003-4279-3443, The University of Notre Dame Australia, corresponding author), Stacy M Carter (0000-0003-2617-8694, The University of Sydney), Lucie Rychetnik (0000-0001-6855-2897, The University of Notre Dame Australia) |
| Year | 2016 |
| Volume | 20 |
| Issue | 5 |
| Pages | 465-484 |
| Publication date | 2016-09-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | Health An Interdisciplinary Journal for the Social Study of Health Illness and Medicine (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 1363-4593 • E-ISSN: 1461-7196 |
| Publisher | SAGE Publications Inc (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.1177/1363459316660862 |
| PMID | 27491944 |
| OpenAlex | W2487930310 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 4 |
| References cited | 47 |
General practitioners have implicitly been given responsibility for guiding men's decisions about prostate-specific antigen-based screening for prostate cancer, but patients' expectations of the bounds of this responsibility remain unclear. We sought to explore how well-informed members of the public allocate responsibilities in prostate-specific antigen screening decision-making. In 2014, we convened two Community juries in Sydney, Australia, to address questions related to the content and timing of information provision and respective roles of patients and general practitioners in screening decisions. Participants in the first jury were of mixed gender and of all ages (n = 15); the participants in the second jury were all male and of screening age (n = 12). Both juries were presented with balanced factual evidence on the harms and benefits of prostate-specific antigen screening and expert perspectives on ethico-legal aspects of consent in medical practice. In their deliberations, jurors agreed that general practitioners should take responsibility for informing men of the options, risks and benefits of prostate-specific antigen testing, but arrived at different positions on whether or not general practitioners should also guide screening decisions. Jurors also disagreed on how much and when general practitioners should provide detailed information about biopsies and treatments. These responses suggest that for prostate-specific antigen testing, there is a public expectation that both the allocation of responsibility between general practitioners and their male patients, and the level of information provided will be tailored to individual men. In the presence of expert uncertainty, a well-informed public may have reason to embrace or resist shared decision-making processes
Alternative medicine · Cancer · Family medicine · Gynecology · Informed consent · Jury · Pathology · Political science · Prostate cancer · Prostate cancer screening · Prostate-specific antigen · Healthcare cost, quality, practices · Law · Medical Malpractice and Liability Issues · Medicine · Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare · Psychology · Internal Medicine
Responsibility and Control
Patients' Preferences for Participation in Clinical Decision Making
The impossibility of moral responsibility
Using the framework method for the analysis of qualitative data in multi-disciplinary health research
Power, participation and political renewal
Three Dimensions of Autonomy
Doing Qualitative Research
Assessments of the extent to which health‐care providers involve patients in decision making
Do people want to be autonomous patients? Preferred roles in treatment decision‐making in several patient populations
“I like to be an informed person but…” negotiating responsibility for treatment decisions in cancer care
Which public and why deliberate? – A scoping review of public deliberation in public health and health policy research
Responsibility and Control
The ethics of responsibility and ownership in decision-making about treatment for breast cancer
When the business of sharing treatment decisions is not the same as shared decision making
The consent process
| Unique citing works | 4 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,5 |
| Citation span | 2018 - 2025 (8) |
| Citation velocity | recent |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 4 |