↓ Skip to main content

Role of information in preparing men for transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy: a qualitative study embedded in the ProtecT trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Health Services Research, February 2015
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
92 Mendeley
Title
Role of information in preparing men for transrectal ultrasound guided prostate biopsy: a qualitative study embedded in the ProtecT trial
Published in
BMC Health Services Research, February 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12913-015-0729-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Julia Wade, Derek J Rosario, Joanne Howson, Kerry N L Avery, C Elizabeth Salter, M Louise Goodwin, Jane M Blazeby, J Athene Lane, Chris Metcalfe, David E Neal, Freddie C Hamdy, Jenny L Donovan

Abstract

The histological diagnosis of prostate cancer requires a prostate needle biopsy. Little is known about the relationship between information provided to prepare men for transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy (TRUS-Bx) and how men experience biopsy. The objectives were a) to understand men's experiences of biopsy as compared to their expectations; and b) to propose current evidence-based information for men undergoing TRUS-Bx. Between February 2006 and May 2008, 1,147 men undergoing a standardised 10-core transrectal ultrasound guided biopsy protocol under antibiotic cover following a PSA 3.0-19.9 ng/ml in the Prostate Testing for Cancer and Treatment (ProtecT) trial, completed questionnaires about biopsy symptoms. In this embedded qualitative study, in-depth interviews were undertaken with 85 men (mean age 63.6 yrs, mean PSA 4.5 ng/ml) to explore men's experiences of prostate biopsy and how the experience might be improved. Interview data were analysed thematically using qualitative research methods. Findings from the qualitative study were used to guide selection of key findings from the questionnaire study in developing a patient information leaflet preparing men for biopsy. Although most men tolerated TRUS-Bx, a quarter reported problematic side-effects and anxiety. Side effects were perceived as problematic and anxiety arose most commonly when experiences deviated from information provided. Men who were unprepared for elements of TRUS-Bx procedure or its sequelae responded by contacting health professionals for reassurance and voiced frustration that pre-biopsy information had understated the possible severity or duration of pain/discomfort and bleeding. Findings from questionnaire and interview data were combined to propose a comprehensive, evidence-based patient information leaflet for TRUS-Bx. Men reported anxiety associated with TRUS-Bx or its side-effects most commonly if they felt inadequately prepared for the procedure. Data from this qualitative study and the previous questionnaire study have been used to propose an updated, comprehensive evidence-based set of information for men undergoing TRUS-Bx.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 92 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 2 2%
Japan 1 1%
Indonesia 1 1%
Unknown 88 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Other 17 18%
Professor 13 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 10%
Researcher 7 8%
Student > Bachelor 7 8%
Other 21 23%
Unknown 18 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 25 27%
Computer Science 12 13%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 4%
Physics and Astronomy 3 3%
Other 20 22%
Unknown 22 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 01 May 2015.
All research outputs
#18,814,057
of 23,316,003 outputs
Outputs from BMC Health Services Research
#6,641
of 7,804 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#187,310
of 256,871 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Health Services Research
#77
of 97 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,316,003 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,804 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.9. This one is in the 6th percentile – i.e., 6% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 256,871 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 97 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.