The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. Listing a study does not mean it has been endorsed by the ANZCTR. Before participating in a study, talk to your health care provider and refer to this information for consumers
Trial registered on ANZCTR

Registration number
Ethics application status
Date submitted
Date registered
Date last updated
Type of registration
Prospectively registered

Titles & IDs
Public title
A Pilot Study of Community Jury for Prostate Cancer
Scientific title
In men aged between 50 and 70 years, is a community jury more effective than standard information in improving knowledge about prostate cancer testing and what information is the most informative?
Secondary ID [1] 281315 0
Universal Trial Number (UTN)
Trial acronym
Linked study record

Health condition
Health condition(s) or problem(s) studied:
patient attitudes towards prostate cancer testing 287529 0
Condition category
Condition code
Public Health 287851 287851 0 0
Health promotion/education

Study type
Description of intervention(s) / exposure
Community jury (CJ) members interact, question experts and reflect on information. CJ members will convene on Day 1 for expert interaction about the pros and cons of prostate cancer testing. Experts from Urology and Evidence-based Medicine will hold a seminar session (approximately 1 hour each) after which participants will have an opportunity to ask questions before the next expert seminar. Both seminars will occur over a three hour period to allow for questions and answers and a short break. After both presentations a facilitator will assist the participants to reflect on the “evidence” and consider further questions that will be put to the experts in a panel forum in the afternoon. Overnight, participants will return to their homes to reflect on the information provided. Clarification of any further questions will occur on Day 2. Participants will be asked to form a consensus (majority decision) about whether to undertake prostate cancer screening; however each participant’s decision will be recorded for data collection. Participants will be requested to complete the post-assessment questionnaire after deliberations on Day 2.
Intervention code [1] 285815 0
Comparator / control treatment
After completion of the pre-assessment questionnaire, participants in this group will be distributed “information packs” about prostate cancer screening. Brochures will be sourced from organisations such as the Cancer Council Australia and Australian Prostate Cancer Collaboration. Participants will be recontacted on Day 2 and asked to complete the post-assessment questionnaire over the phone.
Control group

Primary outcome [1] 288073 0
1. Knowledge and attitudes towards testing for prostate cancer
A short survey comprising both quantitative and qualitative questions was developed for the study. It will be administered at 3 time points to identify changes or maintenance to participants knowledge and attitudes towards testing for prostate cancer.
Timepoint [1] 288073 0
1. Pre-assessment, post-assessment and 3-month follow-up
Primary outcome [2] 288117 0
2. Salient information necessary for men to have informed consent
Community jury members will be asked to reflect on the information provided by the experts and discuss the information within the group. Participants will be asked for both their individual opinions and for a jury consensus regarding the most relevant information for men to know before deciding about whether they wished to be tested for prostate cancer. This data will be qualitative.
Timepoint [2] 288117 0
2. Post-assessment community jury members only
Secondary outcome [1] 299376 0
1. Hypothetical recommendations for prostate cancer testing.
This data will be collected using a consensus jury process and is qualitative. The jury will be asked to deliberate about hypothetical recommendations to be made to a Health Minister about prostate cancer testing (i.e., whether it should be government funded, promoted to community members, age recommendations, etc).
Timepoint [1] 299376 0
Post-assessment of community jury members only

Key inclusion criteria
Minimum age
50 Years
Maximum age
70 Years
Can healthy volunteers participate?
Key exclusion criteria
Previous diagnosis of prostate cancer

Study design
Purpose of the study
Educational / counselling / training
Allocation to intervention
Randomised controlled trial
Procedure for enrolling a subject and allocating the treatment (allocation concealment procedures)
Participants will be recruited via print and radio media. A brief inclusion questionnaire will be administered over the telephone (age and cancer status) and the first 30 eligible participants will be invited to attend a 2 hour information session where further explanation of the study will be provided and consent requested. After consent, the pre-assessment questionnaire will be distributed to participants and completed immediately. Participants will be randomly assigned to 2 groups using opaque envelopes.
Methods used to generate the sequence in which subjects will be randomised (sequence generation)
Simple randomisation using opaque envelopes containing the randomised group name will be distributed to the participants after pre-assessment.
Masking / blinding
Open (masking not used)
Who is / are masked / blinded?

Intervention assignment
Other design features
Not Applicable
Type of endpoint(s)
Statistical methods / analysis

Recruitment status
Not yet recruiting
Date of first participant enrolment
Date of last participant enrolment
Date of last data collection
Sample size
Accrual to date
Recruitment in Australia
Recruitment state(s)

Funding & Sponsors
Funding source category [1] 286070 0
Name [1] 286070 0
Bond University
Address [1] 286070 0
Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia, 4229
Country [1] 286070 0
Primary sponsor type
Bond University
Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia, 4229
Secondary sponsor category [1] 284886 0
Name [1] 284886 0
Address [1] 284886 0
Country [1] 284886 0

Ethics approval
Ethics application status
Ethics committee name [1] 288160 0
Ethics committee address [1] 288160 0
Ethics committee country [1] 288160 0
Date submitted for ethics approval [1] 288160 0
Approval date [1] 288160 0
Ethics approval number [1] 288160 0

Brief summary
Healthy men who are tested for prostate cancer are usually not informed of the potential harms of the screening process, such as overdiagnosis and overtreatment. The balance of benefits and harms in screening depends on individual risks and values, and prior research suggested men currently appear inadequately informed. This pilot study will use a randomised controlled trial to investigate the use of Community Jury (a “jury” who undergo 2 days of expert information, discussion and reflection) compared with a standard information group to investigate men's knowledge and attitudes towards prostate cancer testing. In additiion the Community Jury will be asked to recommend hypothethical policy issues regarding testing for prostate cancer in healthy men.
Trial website
Trial related presentations / publications
Public notes

Principal investigator
Name 34769 0
Address 34769 0
Country 34769 0
Phone 34769 0
Fax 34769 0
Email 34769 0
Contact person for public queries
Name 18016 0
Rae Thomas
Address 18016 0
Bond University
Centre for Research in Evidence-Based Practice
Faculty of Health and Medical Science
Gold Coast, Queensland 4229
Country 18016 0
Phone 18016 0
+61 (0)7 5595 5521
Fax 18016 0
Email 18016 0
Contact person for scientific queries
Name 8944 0
Rae Thomas
Address 8944 0
Bond University
Centre for Research in Evidence-Based Practice
Faculty of Health and Medical Science
Gold Coast, Queensland, 4229
Country 8944 0
Phone 8944 0
+61 (0)7 5595 5521
Fax 8944 0
Email 8944 0

No information has been provided regarding IPD availability
Summary results
No Results