Reasons why patients reject digital rectal examination when screening for prostate cancer

17Citations
Citations of this article
31Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the reasons why patients reject digital rectal examination (DRE) when screening for prostate cancer. METHODS: Four hundred and fifty men were prospectively evaluated in a prostate cancer educational program consisting of lectures, PSA testing, and DRE. Patients rejecting DRE were compared with those accepting DRE in regard to epidemic, social and cultural variables. RESULTS: DRE was rejected by 8.2% of patients. Refusal rate was not different when patients were stratified by age, prostate cancer family history, school level, family income, and PSA level. Patients with a prior history of DRE had a lower rejection rate than those undergoing DRE for the first time (4.4% vs. 10.4%, p = 0.038). Patients with mild or no lower urinary tract symptoms rejected DRE more frequently than those with moderate or severe symptoms (9.6% vs. 1.4%, p = 0.018). Misconceptions about prostate cancer screening were present in 84.4% of those rejecting DRE vs. 46.9% of controls (p = 0.002); 43.7% expected severe discomfort in the group that rejected DRE vs. 28.1% in the control group (p = 0.090); fear of finding a cancer during DRE was present in 34.4% of patients that refused DRE vs. 46.9% of controls (p = 0.121); and 53.1% of patients rejecting DRE responded it was a source of shame vs. 15.6% of patients in the control group (p = 0.019). CONCLUSIONS: The main reasons patients reject DRE when attending prostate cancer screening are the lack of lower urinary tract symptoms, misconceptions about prostate cancer screening and shame, especially when undergoing screening for the first time.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Romero, F. R., Santos Romero, K. R. P., Brenny Filho, T., Pilati, R., Kulysz, D., & De Oliveira, F. C. (2008). Reasons why patients reject digital rectal examination when screening for prostate cancer. Archivos Espanoles de Urologia, 61(6), 759–765. https://doi.org/10.4321/S0004-06142008000600019

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free