Men's attitudes toward prostate cancer and seeking prostate-specific antigen testing

Citation
Sk. Steginga et al., Men's attitudes toward prostate cancer and seeking prostate-specific antigen testing, J CANCER ED, 16(1), 2001, pp. 42-45
Citations number
19
Categorie Soggetti
Oncology
Journal title
JOURNAL OF CANCER EDUCATION
ISSN journal
08858195 → ACNP
Volume
16
Issue
1
Year of publication
2001
Pages
42 - 45
Database
ISI
SICI code
0885-8195(200121)16:1<42:MATPCA>2.0.ZU;2-2
Abstract
Background. Although the Australian Cancer Society recommends against perfo rming PSA tests to screen for prostate cancer, many Australian men currentl y undergo such screening. This study investigated attitudinal variables tha t may predict prostate cancer screening behaviors in this context. Methods. A questionnaire was administered by mail in a two-phase procedure, first t o a sample of 1,461 men (46% response), then to 919 men from the initial sa mple. Prostate cancer screening behaviors of men > 40 years old were examin ed. The questionnaire assessed worry about prostate cancer, perceived vulne rability to prostate cancer, belief in the efficacy of PSA testing for dete ction, having received a PSA test for detection, and the presence of urolog ic symptoms at the time of testing. Results. Men who had had PSA testing wi th urologic symptoms at the time of the test were more worried about prosta te cancer and perceived themselves as more vulnerable to prostate cancer co mpared with both asymptomatic tested and untested men. Men who had undergon e PSA testing believed the test to be more effective in the detection of pr ostate cancer than did men who had not. Conclusions. Urologic symptoms act as a risk cue for men to prostate cancer. Asymptomatic men should be consid ered separately from symptomatic men in the investigation of psychological variables predictive of seeking screening for prostate cancer. These findin gs are discussed in terms of both the focus and design of interventions to alter prostate cancer screening behavior and their implications for the cli nical management of men with urologic symptoms.