The association between physician trust and prostate-specific antigen screening: Implications for shared decision-making
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Shared decision-making is widely recommended when men are considering prostate cancer screening with prostatespecific antigen (PSA). The role of patients’ trust in cancer information from their physician in such decisions is unknown. Methods: We identified male respondents ≥18 years of age from the Health Information National Trends Survey, a population-based survey of people living in the U.S. (2011–014). We assessed the association between degree of trust in cancer information from respondent’s physician with patient-reported receipt of PSA screening and patient-reported discussion of PSA screening with their physician. Results: Among 5069 eligible respondents, 3606 (71.1%) men reported trusting cancer information from their physician “a lot,” 1186 (23.4%) “somewhat,” 219 (4.3%) “a little,” and 58 (1.1%) “not at all.” A total of 2655 (52.4%) men reported receiving PSA screening. The degree of trust an individual had in his physician for cancer information was strongly associated with his likelihood of having received PSA screening (ptrend<0.0001) (54.9% “a lot” vs. 27.6% “not at all”). These findings persisted after multivariable regression. Similarly, men who had high levels of trust in their physician were more likely to have discussed PSA screening with a strong trend across strata (ptrend<0.0001). Conclusions: The level of trust an individual has in cancer information from his physician is strongly associated with his likelihood of discussing and undergoing PSA screening. As rationale, implementation of PSA screening requires shared decision-making, and the level of trust an individual has in his physician has important implications for dissemination of PSA screening guidelines.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.014 | 0.130 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".