Abstract
Introduction PSA screening for prostate cancer detection is highly debated due to the challenging balance between its potential benefits and risks, regarding overdiagnosis and overtreatment. This study applies a preference epidemiology approach to understand how individuals evaluate these trade-offs, aiming to identify the thresholds at which people find screening acceptable or burdensome. By examining both personal and societal perspectives on PSA screening, this preference epidemiology study provides insights into how values, preferences, and psychosocial factors influence health-related decision-making.
Methods A survey of Swiss men aged 55+ examined their awareness of PSA screening, their screening history, and their willingness to participate in future screenings. Hypothetical scenarios illustrating different trade-offs between overdiagnosis and lives saved by PSA screening were presented to the participants. Data were analyzed using Chi-square tests, MANOVA, and thematic analysis.
Results 425 participants were included in the study. Most respondents significantly overestimated PSA screening’s life-saving potential, with a median estimate of 50 deaths prevented versus the current figure of 3 deaths prevented per 1000 persons screened reported in the literature. Over half of the participants supported the use of PSA screening even in a hypothetical scenario where no lives were saved. Personal and family cancer history were associated with increased support for PSA screening.
Discussion and conclusion Providing factual information about the risks and benefits of PSA screening alone may not ensure fully informed, autonomous decision-making. A systematic understanding of how personal evaluations of the risks and benefits are conducted is essential for the assessment of screening programs, which could inform key policy decisions, such as the integration of screenings into mandatory health insurance packages. These findings highlight the importance for both policy decisions and health communication to go beyond fact-sharing and incorporate systematic evidence from nuanced, value-sensitive evaluations to better support informed and autonomous decision-making.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This study was funded by UZH DSI - Digital Society Initiative, Mind the Patient lab.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The study was reviewed and approved by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) of the Faculty of Medicine, University of Zurich (reference number 2024-255652).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
giovanni.spitale{at}ibme.uzh.ch
federico.germani{at}ibme.uzh.ch
Data Availability
All the data are available on this study's OSF repository - DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/BFY7T.
