Perceptions and Misconceptions of PSA Screening in Switzerland: A Preference Epidemiology Study

IntroductionPSA screening for prostate cancer detection is highly debated due to the challenging balance between its potential benefits and risks, regarding overdiagnosis and overtreatment. This study applies a preference epidemiology approach to understand how individuals evaluate these trade-offs, aiming to identify the thresholds at which people find screening acceptable or burdensome. By examining both personal and societal perspectives on PSA screening, this preference epidemiology study provides insights into how values, preferences, and psychosocial factors influence health-related decision-making. MethodsA survey of Swiss men aged 55+ examined their awareness of PSA screening, their screening history, and their willingness to participate in future screenings. Hypothetical scenarios illustrating different trade-offs between overdiagnosis and lives saved by PSA screening were presented to the participants. Data were analyzed using Chi-square tests, MANOVA, and thematic analysis. Results425 participants were included in the study. Most respondents significantly overestimated PSA screenings life-saving potential, with a median estimate of 50 deaths prevented versus the current figure of 3 deaths prevented per 1000 persons screened reported in the literature. Over half of the participants supported the use of PSA screening even in a hypothetical scenario where no lives were saved. Personal and family cancer history were associated with increased support for PSA screening. Discussion and conclusionProviding factual information about the risks and benefits of PSA screening alone may not ensure fully informed, autonomous decision-making. A systematic understanding of how personal evaluations of the risks and benefits are conducted is essential for the assessment of screening programs, which could inform key policy decisions, such as the integration of screenings into mandatory health insurance packages. These findings highlight the importance for both policy decisions and health communication to go beyond fact-sharing and incorporate systematic evidence from nuanced, value-sensitive evaluations to better support informed and autonomous decision-making.