General Practitioners' Experiences of, and Responses to, Uncertainty in Prostate Cancer Screening: Insights from a Qualitative Study.

<h4>Background</h4>Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing for prostate cancer is controversial. There are unresolved tensions and disagreements amongst experts, and clinical guidelines conflict. This both reflects and generates significant uncertainty about the appropriateness of screen...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Kristen Pickles, Stacy M Carter, Lucie Rychetnik, Kirsten McCaffery, Vikki A Entwistle
Format: Article
Language:English
Published: Public Library of Science (PLoS) 2016-01-01
Series:PLoS ONE
Online Access:https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0153299&type=printable
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
_version_ 1850133399213178880
author Kristen Pickles
Stacy M Carter
Lucie Rychetnik
Kirsten McCaffery
Vikki A Entwistle
author_facet Kristen Pickles
Stacy M Carter
Lucie Rychetnik
Kirsten McCaffery
Vikki A Entwistle
author_sort Kristen Pickles
collection DOAJ
description <h4>Background</h4>Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing for prostate cancer is controversial. There are unresolved tensions and disagreements amongst experts, and clinical guidelines conflict. This both reflects and generates significant uncertainty about the appropriateness of screening. Little is known about general practitioners' (GPs') perspectives and experiences in relation to PSA testing of asymptomatic men. In this paper we asked the following questions: (1) What are the primary sources of uncertainty as described by GPs in the context of PSA testing? (2) How do GPs experience and respond to different sources of uncertainty?<h4>Methods</h4>This was a qualitative study that explored general practitioners' current approaches to, and reasoning about, PSA testing of asymptomatic men. We draw on accounts generated from interviews with 69 general practitioners located in Australia (n = 40) and the United Kingdom (n = 29). The interviews were conducted in 2013-2014. Data were analysed using grounded theory methods. Uncertainty in PSA testing was identified as a core issue.<h4>Findings</h4>Australian GPs reported experiencing substantially more uncertainty than UK GPs. This seemed partly explainable by notable differences in conditions of practice between the two countries. Using Han et al's taxonomy of uncertainty as an initial framework, we first outline the different sources of uncertainty GPs (mostly Australian) described encountering in relation to prostate cancer screening and what the uncertainty was about. We then suggest an extension to Han et al's taxonomy based on our analysis of data relating to the varied ways that GPs manage uncertainties in the context of PSA testing. We outline three broad strategies: (1) taking charge of uncertainty; (2) engaging others in managing uncertainty; and (3) transferring the responsibility for reducing or managing some uncertainties to other parties.<h4>Conclusion</h4>Our analysis suggests some GPs experienced uncertainties associated with ambiguous guidance and the complexities of their situation as professionals with responsibilities to patients as considerably burdensome. This raises important questions about responsibility for uncertainty. In Australia in particular they feel insufficiently supported by the health care system to practice in ways that are recognisably consistent with 'evidence based' professional standards and appropriate for patients. More work is needed to clarify under what circumstances and how uncertainty should be communicated. Closer attention to different types and aspects of the uncertainty construct could be useful.
format Article
id doaj-art-282b28da41f7498e8c81985e20443f44
institution OA Journals
issn 1932-6203
language English
publishDate 2016-01-01
publisher Public Library of Science (PLoS)
record_format Article
series PLoS ONE
spelling doaj-art-282b28da41f7498e8c81985e20443f442025-08-20T02:31:58ZengPublic Library of Science (PLoS)PLoS ONE1932-62032016-01-01114e015329910.1371/journal.pone.0153299General Practitioners' Experiences of, and Responses to, Uncertainty in Prostate Cancer Screening: Insights from a Qualitative Study.Kristen PicklesStacy M CarterLucie RychetnikKirsten McCafferyVikki A Entwistle<h4>Background</h4>Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing for prostate cancer is controversial. There are unresolved tensions and disagreements amongst experts, and clinical guidelines conflict. This both reflects and generates significant uncertainty about the appropriateness of screening. Little is known about general practitioners' (GPs') perspectives and experiences in relation to PSA testing of asymptomatic men. In this paper we asked the following questions: (1) What are the primary sources of uncertainty as described by GPs in the context of PSA testing? (2) How do GPs experience and respond to different sources of uncertainty?<h4>Methods</h4>This was a qualitative study that explored general practitioners' current approaches to, and reasoning about, PSA testing of asymptomatic men. We draw on accounts generated from interviews with 69 general practitioners located in Australia (n = 40) and the United Kingdom (n = 29). The interviews were conducted in 2013-2014. Data were analysed using grounded theory methods. Uncertainty in PSA testing was identified as a core issue.<h4>Findings</h4>Australian GPs reported experiencing substantially more uncertainty than UK GPs. This seemed partly explainable by notable differences in conditions of practice between the two countries. Using Han et al's taxonomy of uncertainty as an initial framework, we first outline the different sources of uncertainty GPs (mostly Australian) described encountering in relation to prostate cancer screening and what the uncertainty was about. We then suggest an extension to Han et al's taxonomy based on our analysis of data relating to the varied ways that GPs manage uncertainties in the context of PSA testing. We outline three broad strategies: (1) taking charge of uncertainty; (2) engaging others in managing uncertainty; and (3) transferring the responsibility for reducing or managing some uncertainties to other parties.<h4>Conclusion</h4>Our analysis suggests some GPs experienced uncertainties associated with ambiguous guidance and the complexities of their situation as professionals with responsibilities to patients as considerably burdensome. This raises important questions about responsibility for uncertainty. In Australia in particular they feel insufficiently supported by the health care system to practice in ways that are recognisably consistent with 'evidence based' professional standards and appropriate for patients. More work is needed to clarify under what circumstances and how uncertainty should be communicated. Closer attention to different types and aspects of the uncertainty construct could be useful.https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0153299&type=printable
spellingShingle Kristen Pickles
Stacy M Carter
Lucie Rychetnik
Kirsten McCaffery
Vikki A Entwistle
General Practitioners' Experiences of, and Responses to, Uncertainty in Prostate Cancer Screening: Insights from a Qualitative Study.
PLoS ONE
title General Practitioners' Experiences of, and Responses to, Uncertainty in Prostate Cancer Screening: Insights from a Qualitative Study.
title_full General Practitioners' Experiences of, and Responses to, Uncertainty in Prostate Cancer Screening: Insights from a Qualitative Study.
title_fullStr General Practitioners' Experiences of, and Responses to, Uncertainty in Prostate Cancer Screening: Insights from a Qualitative Study.
title_full_unstemmed General Practitioners' Experiences of, and Responses to, Uncertainty in Prostate Cancer Screening: Insights from a Qualitative Study.
title_short General Practitioners' Experiences of, and Responses to, Uncertainty in Prostate Cancer Screening: Insights from a Qualitative Study.
title_sort general practitioners experiences of and responses to uncertainty in prostate cancer screening insights from a qualitative study
url https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0153299&type=printable
work_keys_str_mv AT kristenpickles generalpractitionersexperiencesofandresponsestouncertaintyinprostatecancerscreeninginsightsfromaqualitativestudy
AT stacymcarter generalpractitionersexperiencesofandresponsestouncertaintyinprostatecancerscreeninginsightsfromaqualitativestudy
AT lucierychetnik generalpractitionersexperiencesofandresponsestouncertaintyinprostatecancerscreeninginsightsfromaqualitativestudy
AT kirstenmccaffery generalpractitionersexperiencesofandresponsestouncertaintyinprostatecancerscreeninginsightsfromaqualitativestudy
AT vikkiaentwistle generalpractitionersexperiencesofandresponsestouncertaintyinprostatecancerscreeninginsightsfromaqualitativestudy