Effects of a web-based intervention on women's breast health behaviors

Shared decision-making for supporting women's decisions about breast cancer screening

BACKGROUND

In breast cancer screening programmes, women may have discussions with a healthcare provider to help them decide whether or not they wish to join the breast cancer screening programme. This process is called shared decision-making (SDM) and involves discussions and decisions based on the evidence and the person's values and preferences. SDM is becoming a recommended approach in clinical guidelines, extending beyond decision aids. However, the overall effect of SDM in women deciding to participate in breast cancer screening remains uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of SDM on women's satisfaction, confidence, and knowledge when deciding whether to participate in breast cancer screening.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform on 8 August 2023. We also screened abstracts from two relevant conferences from 2020 to 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs assessing interventions targeting various components of SDM. The focus was on supporting women aged 40 to 75 at average or above-average risk of breast cancer in their decision to participate in breast cancer screening.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and conducted data extraction, risk of bias assessment, and GRADE assessment of the certainty of the evidence. Review outcomes included satisfaction with the decision-making process, confidence in the decision made, knowledge of all options, adherence to the chosen option, women's involvement in SDM, woman-clinician communication, and mental health.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 19 studies with 64,215 randomised women, mostly with an average to moderate risk of breast cancer. Two studies covered all aspects of SDM; six examined shortened forms of SDM involving communication on risks and personal values; and 11 focused on enhanced communication of risk without other SDM aspects. SDM involving all components compared to control The two eligible studies did not assess satisfaction with the SDM process or confidence in the decision. Based on a single study, SDM showed uncertain effects on participant knowledge regarding the age to start screening (risk ratio (RR) 1.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61 to 2.28; 133 women; very low certainty evidence) and frequency of testing (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.04; 133 women; very low certainty evidence). Other review outcomes were not measured. Abbreviated forms of SDM with clarification of values and preferences compared to control Of the six included studies, none evaluated satisfaction with the SDM process. These interventions may reduce conflict in the decision made, based on two measures, Decisional Conflict Scale scores (mean difference (MD) -1.60, 95% CI -4.21 to 0.87; conflict scale from 0 to 100; 4 studies; 1714 women; very low certainty evidence) and the proportion of women with residual conflict compared to control at one to three months' follow-up (rate of women with a conflicted decision, RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.99; 1 study; 1001 women, very low certainty evidence). Knowledge of all options was assessed through knowledge scores and informed choice. The effect of SDM may enhance knowledge (MDs ranged from 0.47 to 1.44 higher scores on a scale from 0 to 10; 5 studies; 2114 women; low certainty evidence) and may lead to higher rates of informed choice (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.63; 4 studies; 2449 women; low certainty evidence) compared to control at one to three months' follow-up. These interventions may result in little to no difference in anxiety (MD 0.54, 95% -0.96 to 2.14; scale from 20 to 80; 2 studies; 749 women; low certainty evidence) and the number of women with worries about cancer compared to control at four to six weeks' follow-up (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.06; 1 study, 639 women; low certainty evidence). Other review outcomes were not measured. Enhanced communication about risks without other SDM aspects compared to control Of 11 studies, three did not report relevant outcomes for this review, and none assessed satisfaction with the SDM process. Confidence in the decision made was measured by decisional conflict and anticipated regret of participating in screening or not. These interventions, without addressing values and preferences, may result in lower confidence in the decision compared to regular communication strategies at two weeks' follow-up (MD 2.89, 95% CI -2.35 to 8.14; Decisional Conflict Scale from 0 to 100; 2 studies; 1191 women; low certainty evidence). They may result in higher anticipated regret if participating in screening (MD 0.28, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.41) and lower anticipated regret if not participating in screening (MD -0.28, 95% CI -0.42 to -0.14). These interventions increase knowledge (MD 1.14, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.62; scale from 0 to 10; 4 studies; 2510 women; high certainty evidence), while it is unclear if there is a higher rate of informed choice compared to regular communication strategies at two to four weeks' follow-up (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.92; 2 studies; 1805 women; low certainty evidence). These interventions result in little to no difference in anxiety (MD 0.33, 95% CI -1.55 to 0.99; scale from 20 to 80) and depression (MD 0.02, 95% CI -0.41 to 0.45; scale from 0 to 21; 2 studies; 1193 women; high certainty evidence) and lower cancer worry compared to control (MD -0.17, 95% CI -0.26 to -0.08; scale from 1 to 4; 1 study; 838 women; high certainty evidence). Other review outcomes were not measured.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Studies using abbreviated forms of SDM and other forms of enhanced communications indicated improvements in knowledge and reduced decisional conflict. However, uncertainty remains about the effect of SDM on supporting women's decisions. Most studies did not evaluate outcomes considered important for this review topic, and those that did measured different concepts. High-quality randomised trials are needed to evaluate SDM in diverse cultural settings with a focus on outcomes such as women's satisfaction with choices aligned to their values.

Mobile Web App Intervention to Promote Breast Cancer Screening Among American Indian Women in the Northern Plains: Feasibility and Efficacy Study

BACKGROUND

Breast cancer is the most common cancer in the United States and the second leading cause of death for American Indian women. American Indian women have lower rates of breast cancer screening than other racial groups, and disparities in breast cancer mortality and survival rates persist among them. To address this critical need, a culturally appropriate, accessible, and personalized intervention is necessary to promote breast cancer screening among American Indian women. This study used mobile health principles to develop a mobile web app-based mammogram intervention (wMammogram) for American Indian women in a remote, rural community in the Northern Plains.

OBJECTIVE

This study aimed to assess the feasibility and efficacy of the wMammogram intervention, which was designed to motivate American Indian women to undergo breast cancer screening, as compared with the control group, who received an educational brochure.

METHODS

Using community-based participatory research (CBPR) principles and a multipronged recruitment strategy in a randomized controlled trial design, we developed the wMammogram intervention. This study involved 122 American Indian women aged between 40 and 70 years, who were randomly assigned to either the intervention group (n=62) or the control group (n=60). Those in the intervention group received personalized and culturally appropriate messages through a mobile web app, while those in the control group received an educational brochure. We measured outcomes such as mammogram receipt, intention to receive breast cancer screening after the intervention, and participants' satisfaction with and acceptance of the intervention.

RESULTS

A significantly higher proportion of women who received the wMammogram intervention (26/62, 42%; P=.009) completed mammograms by the 6-month follow-up than the control group (12/60, 20%). The wMammogram intervention group, compared with the control group, reported significantly higher ratings on perceived effectiveness of the intervention (t120=-5.22; P<.001), increase in knowledge (t120=-4.75; P<.001), and satisfaction with the intervention (t120=-3.61; P<.001). Moreover, compared with the brochure group, the intervention group expressed greater intention to receive a mammogram in the future when it is due (62/62, 100% vs 51/60, 85%) and were more willing to recommend the intervention they received to their friends (61/62, 98.4% vs 54/60, 90%) with statistically significant differences.

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows the feasibility and efficacy of the wMammogram intervention to promote breast cancer screening for American Indian women in a remote, rural community-based setting. Findings suggest that, with advancements in technology and the ubiquity of mobile devices, mobile web apps could serve as a valuable health intervention tool that builds upon low-cost technology and enhances accessibility and sustainability of preventive care to help reduce breast health disparities experienced in hard-to-reach American Indian populations.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05530603; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05530603.

Use a web-app to improve breast cancer risk factors and symptoms knowledge and adherence to healthy diet and physical activity in women without breast cancer diagnosis (Precam project)

PURPOSE

This study aimed to evaluate the preliminary effectiveness of an educational intervention using a web-app to improve knowledge of breast cancer risk factors and symptoms and adherence to healthy eating and physical activity among women without breast cancer diagnosis in Asturias (Spain).

METHODS

A pragmatic randomized pilot trial was conducted to evaluate the impact of a web-app-based intervention for women without breast cancer diagnosis. Women in the intervention group participated in a 6-month intervention web-app based on the Behaviour Change Wheel Model. The web-app includes information about breast cancer risk factors, early detection, physical activity and diet.

RESULTS

Two hundred and eighty-fifth women aged 25-50 were invited to join the study. Two hundred and twenty-four were randomly assigned to either the intervention group (IG = 134) or control group (CG = 90) according to their place of residence. Adherence among women in the IG increased significantly from pre- to post-intervention for eight of the 12 healthy behaviors and for the identification of six risk factors and six symptoms compared to women in the CG and, among whom adherence only increased for two behaviors, the identification of one risk factor and 0 symptoms. The intervention significantly improved the mean number of risk factors + 1.06 (p < 0.001) and symptoms + 1.18 (p < 0.001) identified by women in the IG.

CONCLUSIONS

The preliminary results of this study suggest that an educational intervention using a web-app and based on the Behaviour Change Wheel model could be useful to improve knowledge of breast cancer risk factors and symptoms and to improve adherence to a healthy diet and physical activity in women without a previous breast cancer diagnosis.

Surveillance mammography in older breast cancer survivors: Current practice patterns and patient perceptions

INTRODUCTION

Although the benefits of surveillance mammography for older breast cancer survivors have not been quantified prospectively, it is unlikely that mammography provides substantial benefit (and possible that mammography is harmful) to women with limited life expectancy and a low risk for in-breast cancer events.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We identified 1268 women aged 77 and older with a history of Stage I-III breast cancer, who did not undergo bilateral mastectomy, were diagnosed with cancer at least three years prior to study entry, and who had consented to be surveyed as part of the Mayo Clinic Breast Disease Registry. We mailed them a one-time survey asking about their experiences with surveillance mammography. Women with metastatic disease were excluded. The primary endpoint was whether or not women reported at least one mammogram since breast cancer surgery.

RESULTS

Eight hundred forty-six of 1268 (67%) returned the survey, 734 of whom were eligible for analysis. The median age at the time of survey was 82, and the median time since cancer diagnosis was 12 years. Ninety-three percent reported having had at least one mammogram since their initial breast cancer surgery. Seventy-nine percent reported that they had surveillance mammography annually over the prior three years, including 76% of the 491 aged 80+ and 64% of the 189 aged 85 + .

DISCUSSION

Most older breast cancer survivors who have residual breast tissue are undergoing annual mammograms. Additional educational materials may be beneficial for patients and clinicians to better individualize plans for surveillance mammography in older breast cancer survivors.

A systematic review of interventions to improve breast cancer screening health behaviours

Whilst breast cancer screening has been implemented in many countries, uptake is often suboptimal. Consequently, several interventions targeting non-attendance behaviour have been developed. This systematic review aims to appraise the successes of interventions, identifying and comparing the specific techniques they use to modify health behaviours. A literature search (PROSPERO CRD42020212090) between January 2005 and December 2020 using PubMed, Medline, PsycInfo, EMBASE and Google Scholar was conducted. Studies which investigated patient-facing interventions to increase attendance at breast cancer screening appointments were included. Details regarding the intervention delivery, theoretical background, and contents were extracted, as was quantitative data on the impact on attendance rates, compared to control measures. Interventions were also coded using the Behavioural Change Techniques (BCT) Taxonomy. In total fifty-four studies, detailing eighty interventions, met the inclusion criteria. Only 50% of interventions reported a significant impact on screening attendance. Thirty-two different BCTs were used, with 'prompts/cues' the most commonly incorporated (77.5%), however techniques from the group 'covert learning' had the greatest pooled effect size 0.12 (95% CI 0.05-0.19, P < 0·01, I² = 91.5%). 'Problem solving' was used in the highest proportion of interventions that significantly increased screening attendance (69.0%). 70% of the interventions were developed using behavioural theories. These results show interventions aimed at increasing screening uptake are often unsuccessful. Commonly used approaches which focus upon explaining the consequences of not attending mammograms were often ineffective. Problem solving, however, has shown promise. These techniques should be investigated further, as should emerging technologies which can enable interventions to be feasibly translated at a population-level.

Decision coaching for people making healthcare decisions

BACKGROUND

Decision coaching is non-directive support delivered by a healthcare provider to help patients prepare to actively participate in making a health decision. 'Healthcare providers' are considered to be all people who are engaged in actions whose primary intent is to protect and improve health (e.g. nurses, doctors, pharmacists, social workers, health support workers such as peer health workers). Little is known about the effectiveness of decision coaching.

OBJECTIVES

To determine the effects of decision coaching (I) for people facing healthcare decisions for themselves or a family member (P) compared to (C) usual care or evidence-based intervention only, on outcomes (O) related to preparation for decision making, decisional needs and potential adverse effects.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Library (Wiley), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), PsycINFO (Ovid), CINAHL (Ebsco), Nursing and Allied Health Source (ProQuest), and Web of Science from database inception to June 2021.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) where the intervention was provided to adults or children preparing to make a treatment or screening healthcare decision for themselves or a family member. Decision coaching was defined as: a) delivered individually by a healthcare provider who is trained or using a protocol; and b) providing non-directive support and preparing an adult or child to participate in a healthcare decision. Comparisons included usual care or an alternate intervention. There were no language restrictions.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened citations, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data on characteristics of the intervention(s) and outcomes. Any disagreements were resolved by discussion to reach consensus. We used the standardised mean difference (SMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) as the measures of treatment effect and, where possible, synthesised results using a random-effects model. If more than one study measured the same outcome using different tools, we used a random-effects model to calculate the standardised mean difference (SMD) and 95% CI. We presented outcomes in summary of findings tables and applied GRADE methods to rate the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

Out of 12,984 citations screened, we included 28 studies of decision coaching interventions alone or in combination with evidence-based information, involving 5509 adult participants (aged 18 to 85 years; 64% female, 52% white, 33% African-American/Black; 68% post-secondary education). The studies evaluated decision coaching used for a range of healthcare decisions (e.g. treatment decisions for cancer, menopause, mental illness, advancing kidney disease; screening decisions for cancer, genetic testing). Four of the 28 studies included three comparator arms.  For decision coaching compared with usual care (n = 4 studies), we are uncertain if decision coaching compared with usual care improves any outcomes (i.e. preparation for decision making, decision self-confidence, knowledge, decision regret, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low.  For decision coaching compared with evidence-based information only (n = 4 studies), there is low certainty-evidence that participants exposed to decision coaching may have little or no change in knowledge (SMD -0.23, 95% CI: -0.50 to 0.04; 3 studies, 406 participants). There is low certainty-evidence that participants exposed to decision coaching may have little or no change in anxiety, compared with evidence-based information. We are uncertain if decision coaching compared with evidence-based information improves other outcomes (i.e. decision self-confidence, feeling uninformed) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. For decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with usual care (n = 17 studies), there is low certainty-evidence that participants may have improved knowledge (SMD 9.3, 95% CI: 6.6 to 12.1; 5 studies, 1073 participants). We are uncertain if decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with usual care improves other outcomes (i.e. preparation for decision making, decision self-confidence, feeling uninformed, unclear values, feeling unsupported, decision regret, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low. For decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with evidence-based information only (n = 7 studies), we are uncertain if decision coaching plus evidence-based information compared with evidence-based information only improves any outcomes (i.e. feeling uninformed, unclear values, feeling unsupported, knowledge, anxiety) as the certainty of the evidence was very low.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Decision coaching may improve participants' knowledge when used with evidence-based information. Our findings do not indicate any significant adverse effects (e.g. decision regret, anxiety) with the use of decision coaching. It is not possible to establish strong conclusions for other outcomes. It is unclear if decision coaching always needs to be paired with evidence-informed information. Further research is needed to establish the effectiveness of decision coaching for a broader range of outcomes.

How to facilitate psychosocial adjustment in women tested for hereditary breast or ovarian cancer susceptibility? Insights from network analysis

BACKGROUND

Increasingly complex genetics counseling requires guidance to facilitate counselees' psychosocial adjustment. We explored networks of inter-relationships among coping strategies and specific psychosocial difficulties in women tested for hereditary breast or ovarian cancer.

METHODS

Of 752 counselees consecutively approached, 646 (86%) completed questionnaires addressing coping strategies (Brief-COPE) and psychosocial difficulties (PAHC) after the initial genetic consultation (T1), and 460 (61%) of them again after the test result (T2). We applied network analysis comparing partial correlations among these questionnaire scales, according to the type of genetic test - single gene-targeted or multigene panel, test result and, before and after testing.

RESULTS

Overall, 98 (21.3%), 259 (56.3%), 59 (12.8%) and 44 (9.6%) women received a pathogenic variant, uninformative negative (panel testing), variant of uncertain significance (VUS) or true negative (targeted testing) result, respectively. In most networks, connections were strongest between avoidance and general negative emotions. Cognitive restructuring was inter-related to lower psychosocial difficulties. Avoidance and familial/social relationship difficulties were strongly related in women receiving a pathogenic variant. Stronger inter-relationships were also noticed between avoidance and worries about personal cancer and concerns about hereditary predisposition in women receiving a VUS result. Differences in the prominence of inter-relationships were observed by type of testing and assessment time.

CONCLUSIONS

Network analysis may be fruitful to highlight prominent inter-relationships among coping strategies and psychosocial difficulties, in women tested for HBOC susceptibility, offering guidance for counseling.

Comparative Effectiveness of Two Interventions to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening for Those at Increased Risk Based on Family History: Results of a Randomized Trial

BACKGROUND

First-degree relatives (FDR) of patients with colorectal cancer are at risk for colorectal cancer, but may not be up to date with colorectal cancer screening. We sought to determine whether a one-time recommendation about needing colorectal cancer screening using patient navigation (PN) was better than just receiving the recommendation only.

METHODS

Participants were FDRs of patients with Lynch syndrome-negative colorectal cancer from participating Ohio hospitals. FDRs from 259 families were randomized to a website intervention (528 individuals), which included a survey and personal colorectal cancer screening recommendation, while those from 254 families were randomized to the website plus telephonic PN intervention (515 individuals). Primary outcome was adherence to the personal screening recommendation (to get screened or not to get screened) received from the website. Secondary outcomes examined who benefited from adding PN.

RESULTS

At the end of the 14-month follow-up, 78.6% of participants were adherent to their recommendation for colorectal cancer screening with adherence similar between arms (P = 0.14). Among those who received a recommendation to have a colonoscopy immediately, the website plus PN intervention significantly increased the odds of receiving screening, compared with the website intervention (OR: 2.98; 95% confidence interval, 1.68-5.28).

CONCLUSIONS

Addition of PN to a website intervention did not improve adherence to a colorectal cancer screening recommendation overall; however, the addition of PN was more effective in increasing adherence among FDRs who needed screening immediately.

IMPACT

These findings provide important information as to when the additional costs of PN are needed to assure colorectal cancer screening among those at high risk for colorectal cancer.

Interventions to improve adherence to surveillance guidelines in survivors of childhood cancer: a systematic review

PURPOSE

Many survivors of childhood cancer are at high risk of late effects of their cancer therapy, including cardiac toxicity and subsequent malignant neoplasms (SMN). Current North American guidelines recommend periodic surveillance for these late effects. We conducted a systematic review of the literature to estimate rates of adherence to recommended surveillance and summarize studies evaluating interventions intended to increase adherence.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) for articles published between January 2000 and September 2018 that reported adherence to surveillance for cardiac toxicity and SMN (breast and colorectal cancer) and interventions implemented to improve completion of recommended testing. Risk of bias was assessed using relevant Cochrane checklists. Due to heterogeneity and overlapping study populations, we used narrative synthesis to summarize the findings. This review was registered in PROSPERO: CRD42018098878.

RESULTS

Thirteen studies met our inclusion criteria for assessing adherence to surveillance, while five assessed interventions to improve rates of surveillance. No studies met criteria for low risk of bias. Completion of recommended surveillance was lowest for colorectal cancer screening (11.5-30.0%) followed by cardiomyopathy (22.3-48.1%) and breast cancer (37.0-56.5%). Factors such as patient-provider communication, engagement with the health care system, and receipt of information were consistently reported to be associated with higher rates of surveillance. Of five randomized controlled trials aimed at improving surveillance, only two significantly increase completion of recommended testing-one for echocardiography and one for mammography. Both involved telephone outreach to encourage and facilitate these tests.

CONCLUSION

The majority of childhood cancer survivors at high risk of cardiac toxicity or SMN do not receive evidence-based surveillance. There is paucity of rigorous studies evaluating interventions to increase surveillance in this population.

IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS

Robust trials are needed to assess whether tailored interventions, designed based on unique characteristics and needs of each survivor population, could improve adherence.

Effects of a Web-based Health Education Program on Quality of Life and Symptom Distress of Initially Diagnosed Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients treated with chemotherapy experience functional decline and decreased quality of life. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of a web-based health education program on global quality of life, quality of life-related functional dimensions, and symptom distress of initially diagnosed advanced non-small cell lung cancer patients. This study used a randomized, pre- and post-repeated measures design. A total of 55 participants were randomly assigned to an experimental group (n = 27) and a control group (n = 28). The experimental group participated in a web-based health education program, and the control group received usual care. Patients were assessed at 4 time points: baseline assessment (T0), and then 1, 2, and 3 months (T1, T2, and T3) after participating in the web-based health education program or receiving usual care. Patients in the experimental group had significantly greater global quality of life and emotional function, and significantly less top ten significant symptom distresses compared to those in the control group. There were no differences between the groups and within groups with respect to physical function, role function, cognitive function, and social function. The web-based health education can improve global quality of life, emotional function, and top ten significant symptom distresses in patients receiving chemotherapy during the first 3 months after initial diagnosis of advanced NSCLC. Web-based health education can improve quality of life and lessen distress of initially diagnosed NSCLC patients treated with chemotherapy.

Study protocol: a cluster randomized controlled trial of web-based decision support tools for increasing BRCA1/2 genetic counseling referral in primary care

BACKGROUND

BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations confer a substantial breast risk of developing breast cancer to those who carry them. For this reason, the United States Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) has recommended that all women be screened in the primary care setting for a family history indicative of a mutation, and women with strong family histories of breast or ovarian cancer be referred to genetic counseling. However, few high-risk women are being routinely screened and fewer are referred to genetic counseling. To address this need we have developed two decision support tools that are integrated into clinical care.

METHOD

This study is a cluster randomized controlled trial of high-risk patients and their health care providers. Patient-provider dyads will be randomized to receive either standard education that is supplemented with the patient-facing decision aid, RealRisks, and the provider-facing Breast Cancer Risk Navigation Toolbox (BNAV) or standard education alone. We will assess these tools' effectiveness in promoting genetic counseling uptake and informed and shared decision making about genetic testing.

DISCUSSION

If found to be effective, these tools can help integrate genomic risk assessment into primary care and, ultimately, help expand access to risk-appropriate breast cancer prevention options to a broader population of high-risk women.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This trial is retrospectively registered with ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03470402 : 20 March 2018.