'I just want to be able to make a choice': Results from citizen deliberations about mammography screening in Ontario, Canada

Patient preferences for breast cancer screening: a systematic review update to inform recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care

BACKGROUND

Different guideline panels, and individuals, may make different decisions based in part on their preferences. Preferences for or against an intervention are viewed as a consequence of the relative importance people place on the expected or experienced health outcomes it incurs. These findings can then be considered as patient input when balancing effect estimates on benefits and harms reported by empirical evidence on the clinical effectiveness of screening programs. This systematic review update examined the relative importance placed by patients on the potential benefits and harms of mammography-based breast cancer screening to inform an update to the 2018 Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care's guideline on screening.

METHODS

We screened all articles from our previous review (search December 2017) and updated our searches to June 19, 2023 in MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL. We also screened grey literature, submissions by stakeholders, and reference lists. The target population was cisgender women and other adults assigned female at birth (including transgender men and nonbinary persons) aged ≥ 35 years and at average or moderately increased risk for breast cancer. Studies of patients with breast cancer were eligible for health-state utility data for relevant outcomes. We sought three types of data, directly through (i) disutilities of screening and curative treatment health states (measuring the impact of the outcome on one's health-related quality of life; utilities measured on a scale of 0 [death] to 1 [perfect health]), and (ii) other preference-based data, such as outcome trade-offs, and indirectly through (iii) the relative importance of benefits versus harms inferred from attitudes, intentions, and behaviors towards screening among patients provided with estimates of the magnitudes of benefit(s) and harms(s). For screening, we used machine learning as one of the reviewers after at least 50% of studies had been reviewed in duplicate by humans; full-text selection used independent review by two humans. Data extraction and risk of bias assessments used a single reviewer with verification. Our main analysis for utilities used data from utility-based health-related quality of life tools (e.g., EQ-5D) in patients; a disutility value of about 0.04 can be considered a minimally important value for the Canadian public. When suitable, we pooled utilities and explored heterogeneity. Disutilities were calculated for screening health states and between different treatment states. Non-utility data were grouped into categories, based on outcomes compared (e.g. for trade-off data), participant age, and our judgements of the net benefit of screening portrayed by the studies. Thereafter, we compared and contrasted findings while considering sample sizes, risk of bias, subgroup findings and data on knowledge scores, and created summary statements for each data set. Certainty assessments followed GRADE guidance for patient preferences and used consensus among at least two reviewers.

FINDINGS

Eighty-two studies (38 on utilities) were included. The estimated disutilities were 0.07 for a positive screening result (moderate certainty), 0.03-0.04 for a false positive (FP; "additional testing" resolved as negative for cancer) (low certainty), and 0.08 for untreated screen-detected cancer (moderate certainty) or (low certainty) an interval cancer. At ≤12 months, disutilities of mastectomy (vs. breast-conserving therapy), chemotherapy (vs. none) (low certainty), and radiation therapy (vs. none) (moderate certainty) were 0.02-0.03, 0.02-0.04, and little-to-none, respectively, though in each case findings were somewhat limited in their applicability. Over the longer term, there was moderate certainty for little-to-no disutility from mastectomy versus breast-conserving surgery/lumpectomy with radiation and from radiation. There was moderate certainty that a majority (>50%) and possibly a large majority (>75%) of women probably accept up to six cases of overdiagnosis to prevent one breast-cancer death; there was some uncertainty because of an indication that overdiagnosis was not fully understood by participants in some cases. Low certainty evidence suggested that a large majority may accept that screening may reduce breast-cancer but not all-cause mortality, at least when presented with relatively high rates of breast-cancer mortality reductions (n = 2; 2 and 5 fewer per 1000 screened), and at least a majority accept that to prevent one breast-cancer death at least a few hundred patients will receive a FP result and 10-15 will have a FP resolved through biopsy. An upper limit for an acceptable number of FPs was not evaluated. When using data from studies assessing attitudes, intentions, and screening behaviors, across all age groups but most evident for women in their 40s, preferences reduced as the net benefit presented by study authors decreased in magnitude. In a relatively low net-benefit scenario, a majority of patients in their 40s may not weigh the benefits as greater than the harms from screening whereas for women in their 50s a large majority may prefer screening (low certainty evidence for both ages). There was moderate certainty that a large majority of women 50 years of age and 50 to 69 years of age, who have usually experienced screening, weigh the benefits as greater than the harms from screening in a high net-benefit scenario. A large majority of patients aged 70-71 years who have recently screened probably think the benefits outweigh the harms of continuing to screen. A majority of women in their mid-70s to early 80s may prefer to continue screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence across a range of data sources on how informed patients value the potential outcomes from breast-cancer screening will be useful during decision-making for recommendations. The evidence suggests that all of the outcomes examined have importance to women of any age, that there is at least some and possibly substantial (among those in their 40s) variability across and within age groups about the acceptable magnitude of effects across outcomes, and that provision of easily understandable information on the likelihood of the outcomes may be necessary to enable informed decision making. Although studies came from a wide range of countries, there were limited data from Canada and about whether findings applied well across an ethnographically and socioeconomically diverse population.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

Protocol available at Open Science Framework https://osf.io/xngsu/ .

IMPAACT: IMproving the PArticipAtion of older people in policy decision-making on common health CondiTions - a study protocol

INTRODUCTION

Rapid population ageing is a demographic trend being experienced and documented worldwide. While increased health screening and assessment may help mitigate the burden of illness in older people, issues such as misdiagnosis may affect access to interventions. This study aims to elicit the values and preferences of evidence-informed older people living in the community on early screening for common health conditions (cardiovascular disease, diabetes, dementia and frailty). The study will proceed in three Phases: (1) generating recommendations of older people through a series of Citizens' Juries; (2) obtaining feedback from a diverse range of stakeholder groups on the jury findings; and (3) co-designing a set of Knowledge Translation resources to facilitate implementation into research, policy and practice. Conditions were chosen to reflect common health conditions characterised by increasing prevalence with age, but which have been underexamined through a Citizens' Jury methodology.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This study will be conducted in three Phases-(1) Citizens' Juries, (2) Policy Roundtables and (3) Production of Knowledge Translation resources. First, older people aged 50+ (n=80), including those from traditionally hard-to-reach and diverse groups, will be purposively recruited to four Citizen Juries. Second, representatives from a range of key stakeholder groups, including consumers and carers, health and aged care policymakers, general practitioners, practice nurses, geriatricians, allied health practitioners, pharmaceutical companies, private health insurers and community and aged care providers (n=40) will be purposively recruited for two Policy Roundtables. Finally, two researchers and six purposively recruited consumers will co-design Knowledge Translation resources. Thematic analysis will be performed on documentation and transcripts.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval has been obtained through the Torrens University Human Research Ethics Committee. Participants will give written informed consent. Findings will be disseminated through development of a policy brief and lay summary, peer-reviewed publications, conference presentations and seminars.

Using a Deliberative Poll on breast cancer screening to assess and improve the decision quality of laypeople

Balancing the benefits and harms of mammography screening is difficult and involves a value judgement. Screening is both a medical and a social intervention, therefore public opinion could be considered when deciding if mammography screening programmes should be implemented and continued. Opinion polls have revealed high levels of public enthusiasm for cancer screening, however, the public tends to overestimate the benefits and underestimate the harms. In the search for better public decision on mammography screening, this study investigated the quality of public opinion arising from a Deliberative Poll. In a Deliberative Poll a representative group of people is brought together to deliberate with each other and with experts based on specific information. Before, during and after the process, the participants’ opinions are assessed. In our Deliberative Poll a representative sample of the Danish population aged between 18 and 70 participated. They studied an online video and took part in five hours of intense online deliberation. We used survey data at four timepoints during the study, from recruitment to one month after the poll, to estimate the quality of decisions by the following outcomes: 1) Knowledge; 2) Ability to form opinions; 3) Opinion stability, and 4) Opinion consistency. The proportion of participants with a high level of knowledge increased from 1% at recruitment to 56% after receiving video information. More people formed an opinion regarding the effectiveness of the screening programme (12%), the economy of the programme (27%), and the ethical dilemmas of screening (10%) due to the process of information and deliberation. For 11 out of 14 opinion items, the within-item correlations between the first two inquiry time points were smaller than the correlations between later timepoints. This indicates increased opinion stability. The correlations between three pairs of opinion items deemed theoretically related a priori all increased, indicating increased opinion consistency. Overall, the combined process of online information and deliberation increased opinion quality about mammography screening by increasing knowledge and the ability to form stable and consistent opinions.

Towards an Explanation of the Social Value of Health Systems: An Interpretive Synthesis

BACKGROUND

Health systems are complex social systems, and values constitute a central dimension of their complexity. Values are commonly understood as key drivers of health system change, operating across all health systems components and functions. Moreover, health systems are understood to influence and generate social values, presenting an opportunity to harness health systems to build stronger, more cohesive societies. However, there is little investigation (theoretical, conceptual, or empirical) on social values in health policy and systems research (HPSR), particularly regarding the capacity of health systems to influence and generate social values. This study develops an explanatory theory for the 'social value of health systems.'

METHODS

We present the results of an interpretive synthesis of HPSR literature on social values, drawing on a qualitative systematic review, focusing on claims about the relationship between 'health systems' and 'social values.' We combined relational claims extracted from the literature under a common framework in order to generate new explanatory theory.

RESULTS

We identify four mechanisms by which health systems are considered to contribute social value to society: Health systems can: (1) offer a unifying national ideal and build social cohesion, (2) influence and legitimise popular attitudes about rights and entitlements with regard to healthcare and inform citizen's understanding of state responsibilities, (3) strengthen trust in the state and legitimise state authority, and (4) communicate the extent to which the state values various population groups.

CONCLUSION

We conclude that, using a systems-thinking and complex adaptive systems perspective, the above mechanisms can be explained as emergent properties of the dynamic network of values-based connections operating within health systems. We also demonstrate that this theory accounts for how HPSR authors write about the relationship between health systems and social values. Finally, we offer lessons for researchers and policy-makers seeking to bring about values-based change in health systems.

Putting the Patient First: A Scoping Review of Patient Desires in Canada

Patient-centred care is a key priority for governments, providers and stakeholders, yet little is known about the care preferences of patient groups. We completed a scoping review that yielded 193 articles for analysis. Five health states were used to account for the diversity of possible preferences based on health needs. Five broad themes were identified and expressed differently across the health states, including personalized care, navigation, choice, holistic care and care continuity. Patients' perspectives must be considered to meet the diverse needs of targeted patient groups, which can inform health system planning, quality improvement initiatives and targeting of investments.

Codesigning care improvements for women living with HIV: a patient-oriented deliberative dialogue workshop in Montréal, Quebec

BACKGROUND

Care services have not been sufficiently adapted to meet the comprehensive care needs of women living with HIV. Our study objective was to engage patients and providers in codesigning care recommendations to improve care for this population in the province of Quebec.

METHODS

We conducted a 5-hour deliberative dialogue workshop in April 2019 in Montréal as the final phase of a mixed-methods study investigating comprehensive care for women living with HIV. The study drew on data from the Canadian HIV Women's Sexual and Reproductive Health Cohort Study (CHIWOS). Recruitment was guided by a purposive maximum-variation sampling strategy to ensure an appropriate mix of participants and was facilitated by our existing CHIWOS networks. Participants included patients (women living with HIV) and HIV care providers (doctors, nurses, pharmacists). The workshop was facilitated professionally and included a synthesis of the evidence, small- and large-group deliberations, and voting on care improvements.

RESULTS

Eight patients and 8 HIV care providers participated. Drawing on identified care priorities, the participants identified 4 relatively rapid care improvements and 3 longer-term improvements. The rapid care improvements included delegating medical acts to members of multidisciplinary care teams; greater involvement of HIV community members within care settings and health care decision-making; creating a women's health information booklet; and increasing HIV education among all health care providers and raising awareness of women's care needs beyond HIV-specific care among HIV care providers. The longer-term care improvements included advocating for complete financial coverage of antiretroviral therapy within the government-sponsored Medicare program, facilitating access to allied care providers (e.g., physiotherapists and psychologists) and launching a population-wide campaign to increase awareness about the Undetectable = Untransmittable (U=U) initiative and other HIV advances.

INTERPRETATION

The deliberative dialogue workshop yielded evidence-based, stakeholder-driven recommendations to improve the comprehensive care of women living with HIV in Quebec.

Supporting women at average risk to make informed decisions about mammography when there is no "right" answer: a qualitative citizen deliberation study

BACKGROUND

Women are encouraged to make informed choices about mammography screening that align with their values and preferences, yet information materials developed by screening programs rarely provide complete, balanced information about screening. Through a series of deliberations with Ontario citizens, we elicited perspectives on materials developed by screening programs to support informed decision-making.

METHODS

We held 4 deliberative engagement events with citizens to discuss the current evidence about mammography and informed decision-making for the general population (i.e., women not at high risk) in the context of organized screening programs. Participants reviewed and provided feedback on the educational materials currently produced by screening programs in 8 provinces (British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador) and 2 territories (Yukon Territory and Northwest Territory) and identified the key features that should guide the design of these materials to optimally support informed decision-making.

RESULTS

In general, participants viewed the educational materials as insufficient to support informed decision-making. They identified the following key features of optimal educational materials: they should be accessible, complete and accurate, and provide information on both benefits and risks of screening in a comprehensive, easy-to-understand manner. Information materials should evoke the trust of the reader, and they should be consistent across Canada.

INTERPRETATION

Canadian women have insufficient access to reliable information sources and complete evidence about mammography screening, and, without this information, they are unable to make fully informed decisions. Canadian breast screening programs must take steps to improve the information shared with women to support informed decision-making that aligns with women's values and preferences.