SwePub
Sök i SwePub databas

  Extended search

Träfflista för sökning "WFRF:(Kibel Adam S) ;lar1:(gu)"

Search: WFRF:(Kibel Adam S) > University of Gothenburg

  • Result 1-3 of 3
Sort/group result
   
EnumerationReferenceCoverFind
1.
  • Preston, Mark A, et al. (author)
  • Baseline Prostate-Specific Antigen Levels in Midlife Predict Lethal Prostate Cancer
  • 2016
  • In: Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology. - 1527-7755. ; 34:23, s. 2705-11
  • Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
    • Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) level in midlife predicted future prostate cancer (PCa) mortality in an unscreened Swedish population. Our purpose was to determine if a baseline PSA level during midlife predicts lethal PCa in a US population with opportunistic screening.We conducted a nested case-control study among men age 40 to 59 years who gave blood before random assignment in the Physicians' Health Study, a randomized, placebo-controlled trial of aspirin and β-carotene among 22,071 US male physicians initiated in 1982 and then transitioned into a prospective cohort with 30 years of follow-up. Baseline PSA levels were available for 234 patients with PCa and 711 age-matched controls. Seventy-one participants who developed lethal PCa were rematched to 213 controls. Conditional logistic regression was used to estimate odds ratios and the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve, with 95% CIs, of the association between baseline PSA and risk of lethal PCa.Median PSA among controls was 0.68, 0.88, and 0.96 ng/mL for men age 40 to 49, 50 to 54, and 55 to 59 years, respectively. Risk of lethal PCa was strongly associated with baseline PSA in midlife: odds ratios (95% CIs) comparing PSA in the > 90th percentile versus less than or equal to median were 8.7 (1.0 to 78.2) at 40 to 49 years, 12.6 (1.4 to 110.4) at 50 to 54 years, and 6.9 (2.5 to 19.1) at 55 to 59 years. A total of 82%, 71%, and 86% of lethal cases occurred in men with PSA above the median at ages 40 to 49, 50 to 54, and 55 to 59 years, respectively.PSA levels in midlife strongly predict future lethal PCa in a US cohort subject to opportunistic screening. Risk-stratified screening on the basis of midlife PSA should be considered in men age 45 to 59 years.
  •  
2.
  • Carlsson, Sigrid, 1982, et al. (author)
  • A Provider-Facing Decision Support Tool for Prostate Cancer Screening in Primary Care: A Pilot Study
  • 2024
  • In: APPLIED CLINICAL INFORMATICS. - 1869-0327. ; 15:02, s. 274-281
  • Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
    • Objectives Our objective was to pilot test an electronic health record-embedded decision support tool to facilitate prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening discussions in the primary care setting. Methods We pilot-tested a novel decision support tool that was used by 10 primary care physicians (PCPs) for 6 months, followed by a survey. The tool comprised (1) a risk-stratified algorithm, (2) a tool for facilitating shared decision-making (Simple Schema), (3) three best practice advisories (BPAs: <45, 45-75, and >75 years), and (4) a health maintenance module for scheduling automated reminders about PSA rescreening. Results All PCPs found the tool feasible, acceptable, and clear to use. Eight out of ten PCPs reported that the tool made PSA screening conversations somewhat or much easier. Before using the tool, 70% of PCPs felt confident in their ability to discuss PSA screening with their patient, and this improved to 100% after the tool was used by PCPs for 6 months. PCPs found the BPAs for eligible (45-75 years) and older men (>75 years) more useful than the BPA for younger men (<45 years). Among the 10 PCPs, 60% found the Simple Schema to be very useful, and 50% found the health maintenance module to be extremely or very useful. Most PCPs reported the components of the tool to be at least somewhat useful, with 10% finding them to be very burdensome. Conclusion We demonstrated the feasibility and acceptability of the tool, which is notable given the marked low acceptance of existing tools. All PCPs reported that they would consider continuing to use the tool in their clinic and were likely or very likely to recommend the tool to a colleague.
  •  
3.
  • Carlsson, Sigrid, 1982, et al. (author)
  • Provider Perceptions of an Electronic Health Record Prostate Cancer Screening Tool
  • 2024
  • In: APPLIED CLINICAL INFORMATICS. - 1869-0327. ; 15:02, s. 282-294
  • Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
    • Objectives We conducted a focus group to assess the attitudes of primary care physicians (PCPs) toward prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-screening algorithms, perceptions of using decision support tools, and features that would make such tools feasible to implement. Methods A multidisciplinary team (primary care, urology, behavioral sciences, bioinformatics) developed the decision support tool that was presented to a focus group of 10 PCPs who also filled out a survey. Notes and audio-recorded transcripts were analyzed using Thematic Content Analysis. Results The survey showed that PCPs followed different guidelines. In total, 7/10 PCPs agreed that engaging in shared decision-making about PSA screening was burdensome. The majority (9/10) had never used a decision aid for PSA screening. Although 70% of PCPs felt confident about their ability to discuss PSA screening, 90% still felt a need for a provider-facing platform to assist in these discussions. Three major themes emerged: (1) confirmatory reactions regarding the importance, innovation, and unmet need for a decision support tool embedded in the electronic health record; (2) issues around implementation and application of the tool in clinic workflow and PCPs' own clinical bias; and (3) attitudes/reflections regarding discrepant recommendations from various guideline groups that cause confusion. Conclusion There was overwhelmingly positive support for the need for a provider-facing decision support tool to assist with PSA-screening decisions in the primary care setting. PCPs appreciated that the tool would allow flexibility for clinical judgment and documentation of shared decision-making. Incorporation of suggestions from this focus group into a second version of the tool will be used in subsequent pilot testing.
  •  
Skapa referenser, mejla, bekava och länka
  • Result 1-3 of 3

Kungliga biblioteket hanterar dina personuppgifter i enlighet med EU:s dataskyddsförordning (2018), GDPR. Läs mer om hur det funkar här.
Så här hanterar KB dina uppgifter vid användning av denna tjänst.

 
pil uppåt Close

Copy and save the link in order to return to this view