Evaluation of a mammography decision aid for women 75 and older at risk for lower health literacy in a pretest-posttest trial

Communicating Risk in Imaging: A Scoping Review of Risk Presentation in Patient Decision Aids

PURPOSE

Best practices exist for communicating medical information to patients, but there is less emphasis on methods to communicate risks, especially in medical imaging. The authors conducted a scoping review of patient decision aids in medical imaging and characterized the presentation methods of imaging risks.

METHODS

Embase, MEDLINE, CINAHL, and PsychINFO were searched to identify studies involving patient decision aids used in diagnostic imaging that communicated the risks. Study characteristics included the number and types of risks included, as well as the presentation type and how the probability of risks were communicated.

RESULTS

The final study included 46 articles encompassing 27 distinct patient decision aids. Mammography was the most common imaging scenario (22 of 46), followed by lung cancer screening (18 of 46), traumatic brain injury (5 of 46), and urolithiasis (1 of 46). All patient decision aids included risks associated with imaging, but the number of risk types varied from two to nine (mean, 4 ± 2). Twelve risks were identified across the 27 decision aids, but no single study included all risks. Overall, most risks (65%) were communicated with text, and the presentation mode varied by type of risk. False-positive risks were most commonly communicated using a visual format, whereas radiation risk was most commonly communicated using text format.

CONCLUSIONS

There was no consistent manner of communicating risk to patients, and visual methods such as icon arrays were not consistently used. The variability of both included risks and the risk presentation modes in the patient decision aids may affect decision making, especially among patients and caregivers with lower health literacy and numeracy.

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/ .

Breast cancer screening motivation and behaviours of women aged over 75 years: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

This scoping review aimed to identify and present the evidence describing key motivations for breast cancer screening among women aged ≥ 75 years. Few of the internationally available guidelines recommend continued biennial screening for this age group. Some suggest ongoing screening is unnecessary or should be determined on individual health status and life expectancy. Recent research has shown that despite recommendations regarding screening, older women continue to hold positive attitudes to breast screening and participate when the opportunity is available.

METHODS

All original research articles that address motivation, intention and/or participation in screening for breast cancer among women aged ≥ 75 years were considered for inclusion. These included articles reporting on women who use public and private breast cancer screening services and those who do not use screening services (i.e., non-screeners). The Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for scoping reviews was used to guide this review. A comprehensive search strategy was developed with the assistance of a specialist librarian to access selected databases including: the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Medline, Web of Science and PsychInfo. The review was restricted to original research studies published since 2009, available in English and focusing on high-income countries (as defined by the World Bank). Title and abstract screening, followed by an assessment of full-text studies against the inclusion criteria was completed by at least two reviewers. Data relating to key motivations, screening intention and behaviour were extracted, and a thematic analysis of study findings undertaken.

RESULTS

A total of fourteen (14) studies were included in the review. Thematic analysis resulted in identification of three themes from included studies highlighting that decisions about screening were influenced by: knowledge of the benefits and harms of screening and their relationship to age; underlying attitudes to the importance of cancer screening in women's lives; and use of decision aids to improve knowledge and guide decision-making.

CONCLUSION

The results of this review provide a comprehensive overview of current knowledge regarding the motivations and screening behaviour of older women about breast cancer screening which may inform policy development.

Use of a Linguistically Appropriate Decision Aid for Cervical Cancer Screening of South Asian Ethnic Minority Women in Hong Kong: A Pilot Randomised Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Decision aids have been shown to be effective in assisting the decision-making process in healthcare settings. This study aimed to examine the feasibility and acceptability of a linguistically appropriate printed decision aid for cervical cancer screening in South Asian women and to preliminarily estimate its effects on decisional conflicts, clarity of values, risk perception, the screening decision and screening uptake.

METHODS

This was a pilot randomised controlled trial. Forty-eight South Asian women aged 25 to 64 years were recruited and allocated to either the intervention group or control group. The participants in the intervention group read a linguistically appropriate printed decision aid.

RESULTS

All of the participants in the intervention group agreed that the decision aid was useful in aiding their decision-making. These participants showed significantly greater improvement in decisional conflicts, clarity of values and risk perceptions than those in the control group (all p < 0.05). The screening uptake rate was significantly higher in the intervention group than in the control group (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

The decision aid was feasible and acceptable among South Asian women, and it resulted in reduced decisional conflict and increased screening uptake compared with usual care. To improve the convenience of using decision aids, they could be developed in various forms, such as printed and mobile application forms, to meet individual requirements.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

The trial was registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial Registry on 23 October 2021 (ChiCTR2100052225).

Breast cancer screening and diagnosis in older adults women in Brazil: why it is time to reconsider the recommendations

Introduction

Breast cancer screening in women of 70 years of age or older remains controversial due to a lack of studies that include women of this age.

Methods

This ecological study evaluated data from the Brazilian National Health Service (SUS) on breast cancer screening and staging in this age group compared to 50-69-year olds, for Brazil as a whole and for its geographical regions, between 2013 and 2019. A secondary database was obtained from the outpatient data system of the SUS's Informatics Department, the Brazil Oncology Panel, the Brazilian Institute of Geography and Statistics, the Supplementary Health Agency and the Online Mortality Atlas.

Results

There was a marked reduction in screening in women ≥70 years of age (annual percent change [APC] -3.5; p < 0.001) compared to those of 50-69 years of age (APC-2.2; p = 0.010). There was a trend towards an increase in clinical staging, with a greater occurrence of stages III and IV in the ≥70 group (44.3%) compared to the women of 50-69 years of age (40.8%; p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Considering the increasing age of the Brazilian population and the heterogeneity among older adults women, screening for the over-70s within the SUS merits greater debate insofar as the implementation of public policies is concerned.

Mixed-Method Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Shared Decision-Making Tools for Cancer Screening

This review aimed to synthesize evidence on the effectiveness of shared decision-making (SDM) tools for cancer screening and explored the preferences of vulnerable people and clinicians regarding the specific characteristics of the SDM tools. A mixed-method convergent segregated approach was employed, which involved an independent synthesis of quantitative and qualitative data. Articles were systematically selected and screened, resulting in the inclusion and critical appraisal of 55 studies. Results from the meta-analysis revealed that SDM tools were more effective for improving knowledge, reducing decisional conflict, and increasing screening intentions among vulnerable populations compared to non-vulnerable populations. Subgroup analyses showed minimal heterogeneity for decisional conflict outcomes measured over a six-month period. Insights from the qualitative findings revealed the complexities of clinicians' and vulnerable populations' preferences for an SDM tool in cancer screening. Vulnerable populations highly preferred SDM tools with relevant information, culturally tailored content, and appropriate communication strategies. Clinicians, on the other hand, highly preferred tools that can be easily integrated into their medical systems for efficient use and can effectively guide their practice for cancer screening while considering patients' values. Considering the complexities of patients' and clinicians' preferences in SDM tool characteristics, fostering collaboration between patients and clinicians during the creation of an SDM tool for cancer screening is essential. This collaboration may ensure effective communication about the specific tool characteristics that best support the needs and preferences of both parties.

Primary Care Providers’ Perceptions of the Acceptability, Appropriateness, and Feasibility of a Mammography Decision Aid for Women Aged 75 and Older

Background. Clinicians need to find decision aids (DAs) useful for their successful implementation. Therefore, we aimed to conduct an exploratory study to learn primary care clinicians’ (PCPs) perspectives on a mammography DA for women ≥75 to inform its implementation. Methods. We sent a cross-sectional survey to 135 PCPs whose patients had participated in a randomized trial of the DA. These PCPs practiced at 1 of 11 practices in Massachusetts or North Carolina. PCPs were asked closed-ended and open-ended questions on shared decision making (SDM) around mammography with women ≥75 and on the DA’s acceptability, appropriateness, and feasibility. Results. Eighty PCPs participated (24 [30%] from North Carolina). Most (n = 69, 86%) thought that SDM about mammography with women ≥75 was extremely/very important and that they engaged women ≥75 in SDM around mammography frequently/always (n = 49, 61%). Regarding DA acceptability, 60% felt the DA was too long. Regarding appropriateness, 70 (89%) thought it was somewhat/very helpful and that it would help patients make more informed decisions; 55 (70%) would recommend it. Few (n = 6, 8%) felt they had other resources to support this decision. Regarding feasibility, 53 (n = 67%) thought it would be most feasible for patients to receive the DA before a visit from medical assistants rather than during or after a visit or from health educators. Most (n = 62, 78%) wanted some training to use the DA. Limitations. Sixty-nine percent of PCPs in this small study practiced in academic settings. Conclusions. Although PCPs were concerned about the DA’s length, most found it helpful and informative and felt it would be feasible for medical assistants to deliver the DA before a visit. Implications. Study findings may inform implementation of this and other DAs.