Ebook e-Health and Prostate Cancer Screening
Prostate cancer is a leading cause of cancer death in men worldwide. Screening for prostate cancer aims to decrease mortality and morbidity from the disease by increasing the chances of successful treatment through early detection. Currently there is a lack of evidence to establish if screening achieves this aim. This is illustrated by the conflicting recommendations offered by medical organisations.
In the absence of evidence patients must rely on their own beliefs and guidance from doctors to make an informed decision. Patients have traditionally adopted a passive role when discussing medical issues and decisions with their doctor. However, if a patient must live with the consequences of a medical decision, then the opportunity to accept or reject the decision must be made available to the patient. This has encouraged patients and doctors to adopt a shared approach to healthcare.
Doctors have traditionally informed patients about medical issues. These days more patients wish to take an active role in the decisions that may affect their health outcomes. This has been achieved through the use of patient education materials, such as written pamphlets and videos.
Male sexuality is networked by a complex nteraction of personal, social and cultural factors. Any possible threat to the reproductive organs may negatively affect a man’s gender perceptions. These masculine psychosocial factors have been identified as a barrier in the attempt to promote men’s reproductive health. Previous studies have identified men’s reluctance to access information or health services in a bid to stave off this perceived threat to their masculinity.
Men treated for prostate cancer have reported difficulty in accessing relevant health information unless they were already in the healthcare system, i.e. consulting with a doctor. The Internet has been touted as an alternative resource where men can anonymously access health information tailored to suit their information needs.
The inception of the Internet, and its subsequent growth, has seen it develop as a communications network applicable in the healthcare context. nlike traditional patient education materials, the Internet has the potential to offer a more tailored approach to patient education that may better compliment patient knowledge and information requirements.
Search engines have been developed in an attempt to aid the search for online information. General search engines provide a broad index of websites while meta-search engines attempt to provide a more precise index. Similarly medical search engines have been developed in an attempt to index websites that only offer medical information. Despite the potential benefits of the Internet as a health education tool, uncertainty remains with respect to the suitability of the Internet as a health esource. This uncertainty has stemmed from the diverse nature of online information and the lack of editorial control and governance. Patients accessing poor quality information from the Internet risk becoming misinformed. This has the potential to negatively impact on their health outcome.
Contents
Executive Summary
Introduction
- 1.1 Prostate Cancer Screening and the Internet
1.2 Men’s Health Attitudes and Information Needs
1.3 Patient Education
1.4 Healthcare and the Internet
1.5 Aims
Methods
- Part I – The Consumer Perspective on PCS
2.1 Research Design
2.2 Recruitment
2.3 Focus Group Structure
2.4 Data Analysis
Part II – The Nature and Quality of Online Information Regarding PCS
2.5 Search Strategy
2.6 Website Relevancy and Exclusion Criteria
2.7 Assessment of Search Engine Efficiency and Quality of Information
2.8 Data Analysis
Results
- Part I – The Consumer Perspective on PCS
3.1 Screening for Prostate Cancer
3.2 Knowledge
3.3 Access to Information
3.4 Duty of Care
Part II – The Nature and Quality of Online Information Regarding PCS
3.7 Search Engine Efficiency
3.8 Search Strategy
3.9 Quality of Online Information
3.10 Website Characteristics
3.11 Commissioning Agencies
3.12 External Agency Approval
3.13 The Role of Domains
3.14 Comparison of Online Information to the Available Evidence
4.1 Overall Findings
Conclusions and Recommendations
- 5.1 Conclusions5.2 Recommendations
Appendices
- Appendix A: Focus Group Information Sheet
Appendix B: Focus Group Consent Forms
Appendix C: DISCERN Tool
Appendix D: Levels of Evidence
Appendix E: Audited Financial Statement
Posted in :
