AUTHOR=Estevan-Ortega María , de la Encarnación Castellano Cristina , Mendiola-López Alberto , Parker Lucy A. , Caballero-Romeu Juan Pablo , Lumbreras Blanca 

TITLE=Urologists’ and general practitioners’ knowledge, beliefs and practice relevant for opportunistic prostate cancer screening: a PRISMA-compliant systematic review

JOURNAL=Frontiers in Medicine

VOLUME=Volume 11 - 2024

YEAR=2024

URL=https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/medicine/articles/10.3389/fmed.2024.1283654

DOI=10.3389/fmed.2024.1283654

ISSN=2296-858X

ABSTRACT=Background: Recent guidelines on opportunistic prostate cancer screening conclude that the decision to screen with prostate-specific antigen should be made by each patient individually together with the clinician. However, there is evidence of a lack of clinicians’ awareness of prostate cancer screening. This study sought to assess the recent evidence of clinicians’ knowledge, beliefs, and practice regarding opportunistic prostate cancer screening.
Methods: A systematic search was conducted in 3 online databases: MEDLINE, Web of Science and EMBASE (from January 1, 2015, to June 30, 2022). Studies that explored clinicians’ knowledge, beliefs, and practices regarding opportunistic prostate cancer screening were included. Studies were assessed for quality reporting according to the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational studies in Epidemiology guidelines.
Results: A total of 12 studies met the inclusion criteria: nine studies included primary care health professionals, two studies included urologists, and one study included both. Studies involving general practitioners showed a generally low level of awareness of the recommended uses of the test, and urologists showed a greater knowledge of clinical practice guidelines. General practitioners’ opinion of prostate-specific antigen was generally unfavourable in contrast to urologists’ who were more likely to be proactive in ordering the test. This knowledge will allow health professionals to develop shared decision-making with patients when ordering a prostate-specific antigen.
Conclusions: General practitioners had less knowledge of prostate cancer risk factors and clinical practice guidelines in the use of PSA than urologists, which makes them less likely to follow available recommendations. A need to carry out education interventions with trusted resources based on the available evidence and the current guidelines was identified.