Family Practice Advance Access originally published online on April 11, 2005
Family Practice 2005 22(3):253-265; doi:10.1093/fampra/cmi028
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Does ‘peer coaching’ increase GP capacity to promote informed decision making about PSA screening? A cluster randomised trial
a School of Public Health and Community Medicine, University of New South Wales and Centre for Research, Evidence Management & Surveillance, South Western Sydney Area Health Service, Locked Bag 7008, Liverpool NSW 1871, b Division of Population Health, South Western Sydney Area Health Service, Locked Bag 7008, Liverpool NSW 1871, c Mayne Health Laverty Pathology, 60 Waterloo Rd, North Ryde NSW 2113 and d Mater Health Services, Woolloongabba QLD 4102, Australia.
Correspondence to Melina Gattellari; Email: Melina.Gattellari{at}swsahs.nsw.gov.au
Background. Very little effort has been directed to enable GPs to better informed decisions about PSA screening among their male patients.
Objectives. To evaluate an innovative programme designed to enhance GPs' capacity to promote informed decision making by male patients about PSA screening.
Methods. The study design was a cluster randomised controlled trial set in New South Wales, Australia's most populous state. 277 GPs were recruited through a major pathology laboratory. The interventions were three telephone-administered 'peer coaching' sessions integrated with educational resources for GPs and patients and the main outcome measures were: GP knowledge; perceptions of patient involvement in informed decision making; GPs' own decisional conflict; and perceptions of medicolegal risk.
Results. Compared with GPs allocated to the control group, GPs allocated to our intervention gained significantly greater knowledge about PSA screening and related information [Mean 6.1 out of 7; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 5.9–6.3 versus 4.8; 95% CI = 4.6–5.0; P < 0.001]. They were less likely to agree that patients should remain passive when making decisions about PSA screening [Odds ratio (OR) = 0.11; 95% CI = 0.04–0.31; P < 0.001]. They perceived less medicolegal risk when not acceding to an ‘uninformed’ patient request for a PSA test (OR = 0.31; 95% CI 0.19–0.51). They also demonstrated lower levels of personal decisional conflict about the PSA screening (Mean 25.4; 95% CI 24.5–26.3 versus 27.8; 95% CI 26.6–29.0; P = 0.0002).
Conclusion. A ‘peer coaching’ programme, supplemented by education materials, holds promise as a strategy to equip GPs to facilitate informed decision making amongst their patients.
Keywords. Informed decision making, PSA screening, randomised controlled trial.