This Article Full Text (OnlineFirst PDF) All Versions of this Article: 0963662507078020v1 18/1/115    most recent Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Dixon, H. Articles by Murphy, M. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

The prostate cancer screening debate: public reaction to medical controversy in the media

¹ Behavioral scientist for the Centre for Behavioural Research in Cancer, The Cancer Council Victoria, Australia.
² Research officer for the Centre for Behavioural Research in Cancer, The Cancer Council Victoria, Australia.
³ Qualitative researcher for Market Access Research & Consulting, Victoria, Australia.

^* To whom correspondence should be addressed.

	Abstract

This study explored older men's and their partners' reactions to a television news program on the medical debate surrounding the use of the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test for prostate cancer screening. Six focus groups, split by gender and socio-economic status (SES), were conducted with men aged 50 years or older (n = 28) and female partners of such men (n = 13). A self-completion questionnaire was also used to yield quantitative indices. In general, viewers appeared to appreciate from the debate that there was controversy surrounding prostate cancer screening, and they recognized that PSA testing is more applicable to certain subgroups of men. Although there were differences by SES and gender, the results suggest that exposing health consumers to medical uncertainty and "expert" conflict can help raise awareness of the issue and complexities involved. However, there was evidence to suggest that health consumers may be better able to negotiate conflicting medical information if the different sides of the argument are plainly noted and a clear distinction is made between opinion and evidence. This study has broader relevance to the management of media coverage of medical controversies by public health organizations.

First published on October 1, 2008, doi:10.1177/0963662507078020

Public Understanding of Science 2009;18:115.

A more recent version of this article appeared on January 1, 2009


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?