Background
Methods
Results
Participants
Saw specialist nurse number (%) | Did not see specialist nurse number (%) | Total number (%) | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Age
| up to 54 | 6 (2.4) | 0 | 6 (2.1) |
55–64 | 83 (32.9) | 7 (18.9) | 90 (31.1) | |
65–74 | 121 (48.0) | 14 (37.8) | 135 (46.7) | |
75 or over | 29 (11.5) | 16 (43.2) | 45 (15.6) | |
Ethnicity
| White | 211 (83.7) | 35 (94.9) | 246 (85.1) |
South Asian | 5 (2.0) | 2 (5.4) | 7 (2.4) | |
African/Caribbean | 21 (8.3) | 0 | 21 (7.3) | |
Other | 1 (0.4) | 0 | 1 (0.3) | |
Stage of disease/treatment
| Newly diagnosed (not yet treated) | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Being actively monitored without treatment | 38 (15.1) | 10 (27.0) | 48 (16.6) | |
Had curative treatment (e.g. prostatectomy, radiotherapy) | 147 (58.3) | 14 (37.8) | 161 (55.7) | |
Having hormone therapy | 52 (20.6) | 11 (29.7) | 63 (21.8) |
Total number (%) | ||
---|---|---|
Age
| up to 54 | 5 (14.3) |
55–70 | 13 (37.1) | |
70 or over | 17 (48.6) | |
Ethnicity
| White | 26 (74.3) |
South Asian | 4 (11.4) | |
African/Caribbean | 5 (14.3) | |
Stage of disease/treatment
| Newly diagnosed (not yet treated) | 3 (8.6) |
Being actively monitored without treatment | 7 (20.0) | |
Had curative treatment (e.g. prostatectomy, radiotherapy) | 17 (48.6) | |
Having hormone therapy | 8 (22.9) |
Findings – questionnaire survey
Question | Saw specialist nurse Frequency of positive responses/total responses (%) | Did not see specialist nurse Frequency of positive responses/total responses (%) | Age-adjusted odds ratio Odds ratio, (95% confidence interval) p value
|
---|---|---|---|
1. Given enough written or printed information about the test results | 175/225 (77.8) | 14/32 (43.8) | 4.58 (2.01; 10.43) p < 0.001
|
2. Given enough written or printed information about active treatment | 163/195 (83.6) | 14/25 (56.0) | 3.73 (1.46; 9.56) p = 0.01
|
3. Given enough written or printed information about watchful waiting/active monitoring | 127/160 (79.4) | 8/22 (36.4) | 6.69 (2.45; 18.25) p < 0.001
|
4. Doctor or nurse clearly explained what treatment options would involve | 210/239 (87.9) | 22/36 (61.1) | 3.51 (1.54; 8.01) p = 0.003
|
5. Doctor or nurse discussed clearly the possible side effects or consequences of treatment options | 195/239 (81.6) | 26/36 (72.2) | 1.47 (0.63; 3.45) p = 0.37
|
6. Doctor or nurse gave an explanation of why the other treatment options were not suitable | 136/202 (67.3) | 15/30 (50) | 2.05 (0.92; 4.60) p = 0.08
|
7. Doctor or nurse offered written or printed information about the treatment options | 170/250 (68.0) | 11/37 (29.7) | 3.90 (1.76; 8.63) p = 0.001
|
8. Doctor or nurse offered written or printed information about the side effects or consequences of the treatment options | 158/252 (62.7) | 10/37 (27.0) | 3.81 (1.71; 8.49) p = 0.001
|
9. Patient made decision about which type of treatment to have (alone or in partnership with a health professional) | 157/251 (62.5) | 11/37 (29.7) | 2.69 (1.18; 6.12) p = 0.02
|
10. Doctor or nurse involved patient as much as wanted in the decision about which treatment to have | 192/237 (81.0) | 23/34 (67.6) | 1.69 (0.73; 3.88) p = 0.22
|
11. After the treatment decision had been made, doctor or nurse told patient they could discuss their treatment decision again | 152/235 (64.7) | 10/34 (29.4) | 3.78 (1.68; 8.53) p = 0.001
|
12. Doctor or nurse told patient that they could change their mind about which treatment to have | 132/230 (57.4) | 6/33 (18.2) | 4.71 (1.82; 12.22) p = 0.001
|
13. Doctor or nurse gave patient enough information about sources of help (e.g. support group/charities) | 226/252 (89.7) | 16/37 (43.2) | 9.36 (4.11; 21.34) p < 0.001
|