Invisible risks, emotional choices--mammography and medical decision making

Acceptability of adding a non-contrast abdominal CT scan to screen for kidney cancer and other abdominal pathology within a community-based CT screening programme for lung cancer: A qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

The Yorkshire Kidney Screening Trial (YKST) is a feasibility study of adding non-contrast abdominal CT scanning to screen for kidney cancer and other abdominal malignancies to community-based CT screening for lung cancer within the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial (YLST). This study explored the acceptability of the combined screening approach to participants and healthcare professionals (HCPs) involved in the trial.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured interviews with eight HCPs and 25 participants returning for the second round of scanning within YLST, 20 who had taken up the offer of the additional abdominal CT scan and five who had declined. Transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis, guided by the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability.

RESULTS

Overall, combining the offer of a non-contrast abdominal CT scan alongside the low-dose thoracic CT was considered acceptable to participants, including those who had declined the abdominal scan. The offer of the additional scan made sense and fitted well within the process, and participants could see benefits in terms of efficiency, cost and convenience both for themselves as individuals and also more widely for the NHS. Almost all participants made an instant decision at the point of initial invitation based more on trust and emotions than the information provided. Despite this, there was a clear desire for more time to decide whether to accept the scan or not. HCPs also raised concerns about the burden on the study team and wider healthcare system arising from additional workload both within the screening process and downstream following findings on the abdominal CT scan.

CONCLUSIONS

Adding a non-contrast abdominal CT scan to community-based CT screening for lung cancer is acceptable to both participants and healthcare professionals. Giving potential participants prior notice and having clear pathways for downstream management of findings will be important if it is to be offered more widely.

Communicating the results of risk-based breast cancer screening through visualizations of risk: a participatory design approach

BACKGROUND

Risk-based breast cancer (BC) screening raises new questions regarding information provision and risk communication. This study aimed to: 1) investigate women's beliefs and knowledge (i.e., mental models) regarding BC risk and (risk-based) BC screening in view of implications for information development; 2) develop novel informational materials to communicate the screening result in risk-based BC screening, including risk visualizations of both quantitative and qualitative information, from a Human-Centered Design perspective.

METHODS

Phase 1: Interviews were conducted (n = 15, 40-50 years, 5 lower health literate) on women's beliefs about BC risk and (risk-based) BC screening. Phase 2: In three participatory design sessions, women (n = 4-6 across sessions, 40-50 years, 2-3 lower health literate) made assignments and created and evaluated visualizations of risk information central to the screening result. Prototypes were evaluated in two additional sessions (n = 2, 54-62 years, 0-1 lower health literate). Phase 3: Experts (n = 5) and women (n = 9, 40-74 years) evaluated the resulting materials. Two other experts were consulted throughout the development process to ensure that the content of the information materials was accurate. Interviews were transcribed literally and analysed using qualitative thematic analysis, focusing on implications for information development. Notes, assignments and materials from the participatory design sessions were summarized and main themes were identified.

RESULTS

Women in both interviews and design sessions were positive about risk-based BC screening, especially because personal risk factors would be taken into account. However, they emphasized that the rationale of risk-based screening and classification into a risk category should be clearly stated and visualized, especially for higher- and lower-risk categories (which may cause anxiety or feelings of unfairness due to a lower screening frequency). Women wanted to know their personal risk, preferably visualized in an icon array, and wanted advice on risk reduction and breast self-examination. However, most risk factors were considered modifiable by women, and the risk factor breast density was not known, implying that information should emphasize that BC risk depends on multiple factors, including breast density.

CONCLUSIONS

The information materials, including risk visualizations of both quantitative and qualitative information, developed from a Human-Centered Design perspective and a mental model approach, were positively evaluated by the target group.

Effects of exposure to media messages about limiting breast cancer screening: A qualitative experimental study

OBJECTIVE

Examine how women aged 35-50 respond to messages about limiting cancer screening.

METHODS

A national sample of women aged 35-50 (n = 983) were randomly assigned to read one of four media vignettes: three provided information about potential harms of mammograms using evidence, norms, or an anecdote strategy, and one provided no such information. Participants listed thoughts they had about the message, and after coding these themes, we tested for associations between the themes evoked, message exposure, and mammogram history.

RESULTS

Thematic categories included emotions (8 %); behavioral intentions (14 %); and cognitions, attitudes, and beliefs (67 %). Pro-screening attitudes, questioning, and cues to get screened were most prevalent. The anecdote message often elicited pro-screening attitudes, while the evidence message often elicited negative emotions and anger, as well as questioning or skeptical responses. Those with a history of mammograms expressed more pro-screening attitudes and disagreed with the message more often.

CONCLUSIONS

Media messaging about guideline-supported care, especially when it involves reducing a clinical service that is routine and valued by patients, may evoke counterarguing, skepticism, and other negative responses.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Clinicians should recognize the role of the media in potentially shaping women's attitudes, beliefs, and intentions when it comes to breast cancer screening.

Surgical decision-making among patients with uncontrolled epilepsy: "Making important decisions about my brain, which I happen to love"

OBJECTIVE

To explore decision-making from patients' perceptions of risks and benefits of epilepsy surgery for refractory focal seizures.

METHODS

Using constructivist grounded theory, in-person interviews were conducted with 35 adults with refractory focal epilepsy who were undergoing a pre-surgical evaluation or who had consented for surgery.

RESULTS

For this sample of participants decision-making about surgery was complex, centering on the meaning of illness for the self and the impact of epilepsy and its treatment for significant others. Two interrelated categories crystalized from our data: the unique context of brain surgery and how the decisional counterweights of risks and benefits were considered.

DISCUSSION

Exploring components of decision-making from the patients' perspective afforded an opportunity to describe thought processes intrinsic to how people with drug-resistant epilepsy weighed their treatment options. Tensions were evident in how decisions were made. We use the analogy of an imaginary tightrope-walker to create a visual image of what patients face as they consider the illness experience (past and present), their hopes for the future, and the simultaneous uncertainty centered around balancing the counterweights of treatment risks and benefits.

Reasons for intending to accept or decline kidney cancer screening: thematic analysis of free text from an online survey

OBJECTIVES

Kidney cancer has been identified as a disease for which screening might provide significant benefit for patients. The aim of this study was to understand in detail the facilitators and barriers towards uptake of a future kidney cancer screening programme, and to compare these across four proposed screening modalities.

DESIGN

An online survey including free-text responses.

SETTING

UK PARTICIPANTS: 668 adults PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The survey assessed participants' self-reported intention to take-up kidney cancer screening with four different test methods (urine test, blood test, ultrasound scan and low-dose CT). We conducted thematic analysis of 2559 free-text comments made within the survey using an inductive approach.

RESULTS

We identified five overarching themes that influenced screening intention: 'personal health beliefs', 'practicalities', 'opinions of the test', 'attitudes towards screening' and 'cancer apprehension'. Overall, participants considered the tests presented as simple to complete and the benefits of early detection to outweigh any drawbacks to screening. Dominant facilitators and barriers varied with patterns of intention to take up screening across the four tests. Most intended to take up screening by all four tests, and for these participants, screening was seen as a positive health behaviour. A significant minority were driven by practicalities and the risks of the tests offered. A smaller proportion intended to reject all forms of screening offered, often due to fear or worry about results and unnecessary medical intervention or a general negative view of screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Most individuals would accept kidney cancer screening by any of the four test options presented because of strong positive attitudes towards screening in general and the perceived simplicity of the tests. Providing information about the rationale for screening in general and the potential benefits of early detection will be important to optimise uptake among uncertain individuals.

The impact of information about different absolute benefits and harms on intention to participate in colorectal cancer screening: A think-aloud study and online randomised experiment

BACKGROUND

There is considerable heterogeneity in individuals' risk of disease and thus the absolute benefits and harms of population-wide screening programmes. Using colorectal cancer (CRC) screening as an exemplar, we explored how people make decisions about screening when presented with information about absolute benefits and harms, and how those preferences vary with baseline risk, between screening tests and between individuals.

METHOD

We conducted two linked studies with members of the public: a think-aloud study exploring decision making in-depth and an online randomised experiment quantifying preferences. In both, participants completed a web-based survey including information about three screening tests (colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, and faecal immunochemical testing) and then up to nine scenarios comparing screening to no screening for three levels of baseline risk (1%, 3% and 5% over 15 years) and the three screening tests. Participants reported, after each scenario, whether they would opt for screening (yes/no).

RESULTS

Of the 20 participants in the think-aloud study 13 did not consider absolute benefits or harms when making decisions concerning CRC screening. In the online experiment (n = 978), 60% expressed intention to attend at 1% risk of CRC, 70% at 3% and 77% at 5%, with no differences between screening tests. At an individual level, 535 (54.7%) would attend at all three risk levels and 178 (18.2%) at none. The 27% whose intention varied by baseline risk were more likely to be younger, without a family history of CRC, and without a prior history of screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Most people in our population were not influenced by the range of absolute benefits and harms associated with CRC screening presented. For an appreciable minority, however, magnitude of benefit was important.

Consumer health informatics approach for personalized cancer screening decisions using utility functions

A consumer health informatics approach is used to investigate the development of a patient-centered decision support system (DSS) with individualized utility functions. It supports medical decisions that have uncertain benefits and potential harms. Its use for accepting or declining cancer screening is illustrated. The system's underlying optimization model incorporates two user-specific utility functions-one that quantifies life-saving benefits and one that quantifies harms, such as unnecessary follow-up tests, surgeries, or treatments. The system requires sound decision making. Therefore, the decision making process was studied using a decision aid in the form of a color-coded matrix with the potential outcomes randomly placed in proportion to their likelihoods. Data were collected from 48 study participants, based on a central composite experimental design. The results show that the DSS can be effective, but health consumers may not be rational decision makers.

Challenges to Educating Smokers About Lung Cancer Screening: a Qualitative Study of Decision Making Experiences in Primary Care

We sought to qualitatively explore how those at highest risk for lung cancer, current smokers, experienced, understood, and made decisions about participation in lung cancer screening (LCS) after being offered in the target setting for implementation, routine primary care visits. Thirty-seven current smokers were identified within 4 weeks of being offered LCS at seven sites participating in the Veterans Health Administration Clinical Demonstration Project and interviewed via telephone using semi-structured qualitative interviews. Transcripts were coded by two raters and analyzed thematically using iterative inductive content analysis. Five challenges to smokers' decision-making lead to overestimated benefits and minimized risks of LCS: fear of lung cancer fixated focus on inflated screening benefits; shame, regret, and low self-esteem stemming from continued smoking situated screening as less averse and more beneficial; screening was mistakenly believed to provide general evaluation of lungs and reassurance was sought about potential damage caused by smoking; decision-making was deferred to providers; and indifference about numerical educational information that was poorly understood. Biased understanding of risks and benefits was complicated by emotion-driven, uninformed decision-making. Emotional and cognitive biases may interfere with educating and supporting smokers' decision-making and may require interventions tailored for their unique needs.

What if I cannot choose wisely? Addressing suboptimal health literacy in our patients to reduce over-diagnosis and overtreatment

The Choosing Wisely initiative aims to reduce wasteful and harmful healthcare by encouraging clinicians and patients to discuss explicitly the healthcare that is really needed as well as that which is of low or no value. While low health literacy has been found to be associated with under-diagnosis and under-treatment, its potential role as a driver of over-diagnosis and overtreatment has received less attention. This article describes how low health literacy might lead to too much medicine. It then provides an overview of an evidence-based method of communication that might assist with identifying and addressing low health literacy in patients.

Evaluation of National Comprehensive Cancer Network guideline-based Tool for Risk Assessment for breast and ovarian Cancer (N-TRAC): A patient-reported survey for genetic high-risk assessment for breast and ovarian cancers in women

Identification of mutations that increase lifetime risk of breast and ovarian cancer is critical to improving women's health. Because these mutations are relatively rare in the general population, there is a need for efficient methods to identify appropriate women to undergo genetic testing. The objective of this study was to assess the feasibility, accuracy, and performance of the NCCN guideline-based Tool for Risk Assessment for breast and ovarian Cancer (N-TRAC)-a patient-facing assessment for those affected and unaffected by cancer. This study enrolled a prospective cohort of 100 affected and 100 unaffected women that used N-TRAC in a clinical setting. Recommendations for referral to genetic counseling based on N-TRAC and other standard risk assessment methods were compared.Seventy-seven of the 100 affected women and 35 of the 100 unaffected women were identified as high risk by N-TRAC. The average completion time was approximately 2 min for both groups. N-TRAC accuracy for family history was exceptional in both groups (kappa > 0.96). N-TRAC and other risk assessment methods do not always identify the same high risk population. N-TRAC is an accurate and feasible tool that can assist in identifying women at increased risk for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer and may lead to more informed decision-making.

Amyloid positron emission tomography candidates may focus more on benefits than risks of results disclosure

Introduction

Given mounting calls to disclose biomarker test results to research participants, we explored factors underlying decisions by patients with mild cognitive impairment to receive amyloid imaging results.

Methods

Prospective, qualitative interviews were conducted with 59 participants (30 = mild cognitive impairment patients, 29 = care partners) from the scan arm of a randomized controlled trial on the effects of amyloid PET results disclosure in an Alzheimer Disease Research Center setting.

Results

Sixty-three percent of the participants were female, with an average age of 72.9 years, and most had greater than a high school level of education (80%). Primary motivations included: (1) better understanding one's mild cognitive impairment etiology and prognosis to plan ahead, and (2) learning one's brain amyloid status for knowledge's sake, regardless of whether the information is actionable. Most participants demonstrated an adequate understanding of the scan's limitations, yet instances of characterizing amyloid PET as a definitive test for Alzheimer's disease occurred. Mention of potential drawbacks, such as negative psychological outcomes, was minimal, even among care partners.

Discussion

Findings demonstrate a risk of disproportionate focus on possible benefits of testing among amyloid scan candidates and suggest a need to clearly emphasize the limitations of amyloid PET when counseling cognitively impaired patients and their families before testing. Future research should examine whether minimizing drawbacks at the pre-imaging stage has adverse consequences on results disclosure.

Uncertain times: A survey of Canadian women's perspectives toward mammography screening

Evolving scientific evidence about mammography has raised new questions about the net benefits of organized screening, yet gaps remain about women's current screening practices, knowledge, attitudes and values toward screening to support informed decision making in this area. We addressed this gap through an online survey of 2000 screen-eligible women from Ontario, Canada in January 2016. Likert-scaled and categorical questions were used to collect information about screening practices, knowledge of benefits and risks of screening and underlying attitudes and values toward screening. Results for all responses were summarized using descriptive statistics. Comparison of results between ever screened versus never screened respondents was performed using chi-squared tests. Most women felt informed about screening yet had doubts about how informed their decisions were. They were more confident in their knowledge of the benefits than the risks which aligned with the emphasis given to benefits in discussions with health care providers. The benefits of screening were linked with lowered anxiety about breast cancer. The never screened were less likely to overstate the benefits of screening, more likely to give weight to the risks, and less likely to report anxiety or worry about breast cancer. Findings highlight the need for improved communication strategies and decision supports that emphasize the provision of current, balanced information about the benefits and risks of screening, both at the population-level (through mass media) and within patient-provider interactions. Sensitivity to the psychosocial factors that shape women's attitudes toward mammography screening should be central to any strategy.

Use of raloxifene and tamoxifen by breast cancer risk level in a Medicare-eligible cohort

BACKGROUND

Raloxifene and tamoxifen are Food and Drug Administration-approved for breast cancer risk reduction; in 2013, the US Preventive Services Task Force recommended these drugs for breast cancer risk reduction in high-risk women. Information on the use of raloxifene and tamoxifen for breast cancer risk reduction in the general population indicates that the risk is believed to be low; however, there is little literature.

OBJECTIVE

The purpose of this study was to assess the use of breast cancer risk reduction medications by breast cancer risk level in an older cohort of women.

STUDY DESIGN

Women who were enrolled in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian Cancer Screening Trial were assessed for the use of raloxifene, tamoxifen, and other medications. The data sources for use of the drugs were a mailed medication use questionnaire in 2013 and linked Medicare Part D claims files from 2010-2014. Estimated breast cancer risk within 5 years was assessed with the use of the modified Gail model and self-reported breast cancer risk factors; comorbidities were assessed through a questionnaire.

RESULTS

A total of 22,235 women completed the medication use questionnaire; of these, 13,640 women (61%) had linked Part D data. In 2013, 45% of the women were 65-74 years old, and 55% of the women were 75-84 years old. From the medication use questionnaire, raloxifene use (past month) was 1.8%, 2.5%, and 4.0% for women with breast cancer risk within 5 years of <1.66%, 1.66-3.0%, and ≥3%, respectively (probability value trend, <.0001). From Part D, for any use during the period among women with coverage, raloxifene rates were 3.3%, 4.0%, and 6.6% for the 3 categories for breast cancer risk within 5 years (probability value trend, <.0001); use was 7.4% and 3.3% in women with and without osteoporosis, respectively. Raloxifene use significantly decreased from 2010-2014, and specifically from 2012-2014, both for all women and for women with breast cancer risk within 5 years of ≥3%. Tamoxifen use from Part D was 0.36%, 0.45%, and 0.85% for the 3 categories for breast cancer risk within 5 years (probability value trend, .009).

CONCLUSION

Raloxifene use was low overall but increased modestly with breast cancer risk, and usage decreased from 2010-2014. Tamoxifen use was very low.

Patterns, knowledge, and barriers of mammography use among women in Saudi Arabia

OBJECTIVES

To assess mammography utilization and knowledge, and to determine barriers associated with mammography utilization among Saudi women. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional survey in 5 main geographic regions of Saudi Arabia from February 2015 to May 2015. The sample comprised women aged ≥40 years. Associations between socio-demographic factors and mammography use were tested using chi-square test. Predictors of mammography use were assessed by logistic regression. Results: A total of 3,245 women were surveyed, with 40% reporting ever having a mammogram. As indicated by the univariable analyses, older age (≥60 years), being single or divorced, having less than 2 children, not completing high school, and having a family history (hx) of breast cancer were significantly associated with never having a mammogram. Participants of older age (odds ratio [OR] 51-60 versus 41-50 = 0.6, 95% CI: 0.5-0.7 and OR less than 60 versus 41-50 = 0.5, 95% CI: 0.3-0.8), and divorced (OR divorced versus married = 0.6, 95% CI: 0.5-0.8] were less likely to have had a mammogram, while participants with no family hx of breast cancer (OR no family hx versus family hx = 1.5, 95%CI: 1.3-1.8)were more likely to have had a mammogram. Conclusion: Mammography utilization and knowledge are low in Saudi Arabia. Increasing the awareness of breast cancer screening through educational programs could help women overcome existing barriers and misconceptions.

Decision-making about mammographic screening: pursuing informed choice

For decades, persuasive techniques have been used to communicate to women about breast cancer screening with the aim of maximizing screening uptake. However, more recently this has shifted to an approach which recognizes that it is important for women to be aware of harms, such as overdiagnosis, as well as benefits of breast screening. There is a lack of consensus in the literature around whether benefits clearly outweigh harms for population-based breast cancer screening. In light of this, the gold standard for communication about breast cancer screening is now to try and support informed decision-making - that is, to help women understand both the advantages and disadvantages of screening, allowing them to make individual decisions about their screening participation that reflect their informed preferences. In this review, we summarize relevant research to identify theoretical and practical aspects of improving communication and decision-making about breast cancer screening, and discuss future implications.

How information about overdetection changes breast cancer screening decisions: a mediation analysis within a randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

In a randomised controlled trial, we found that informing women about overdetection changed their breast screening decisions. We now present a mediation analysis exploring the psychological pathways through which study participants who received the intervention processed information about overdetection and how this influenced their decision-making. We examined a series of potential mediators in the causal chain between exposure to overdetection information and women's subsequently reported breast screening intentions.

DESIGN

Serial multiple mediation analysis within a randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

New South Wales, Australia.

PARTICIPANTS

811 women aged 48-50 years with no personal history of breast cancer.

INTERVENTIONS

Two versions of a decision aid giving women information about breast cancer deaths averted and false positives from mammography screening, either with (intervention) or without (control) information on overdetection.

MAIN OUTCOME

Intentions to undergo breast cancer screening in the next 2-3 years.

MEDIATORS

Knowledge about overdetection, worry about breast cancer, attitudes towards breast screening and anticipated regret.

RESULTS

The effect of information about overdetection on women's breast screening intentions was mediated through multiple cognitive and affective processes. In particular, the information led to substantial improvements in women's understanding of overdetection, and it influenced-both directly and indirectly via its effect on knowledge-their attitudes towards having screening. Mediation analysis showed that the mechanisms involving knowledge and attitudes were particularly important in determining women's intentions about screening participation.

CONCLUSIONS

Even in this emotive context, new information influenced women's decision-making by changing their understanding of possible consequences of screening and their attitudes towards undergoing it. These findings emphasise the need to provide good-quality information on screening outcomes and to communicate this information effectively, so that women can make well-informed decisions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

This study was prospectively registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12613001035718) on 17 September 2013.

Women's Awareness of and Responses to Messages About Breast Cancer Overdiagnosis and Overtreatment: Results From a 2016 National Survey

BACKGROUND

Scientists, clinicians, and other experts aim to maximize the benefits of cancer screening while minimizing its harms. Chief among these harms are overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Although available data suggest that patient awareness of these harms is low, we know little about how patients respond to information about these phenomena.

OBJECTIVES

Using the case of breast cancer screening, this study assesses women's awareness of and reactions to statements about overdiagnosis and overtreatment.

METHODS

We draw on data from a 2016 population-based survey of US women aged 35-55 years that oversampled women of lower socioeconomic position (those living at or below 100% of federal poverty level) (N=429).

RESULTS

Results showed that women's awareness of overdiagnosis (16.5%) and overtreatment (18.0%) was low, and women under age 40 were least likely to have heard about overdiagnosis. Most women did not evaluate statements about these harms positively: <1 in 4 agreed with and found statements about overdiagnosis and overtreatment to be believable, and even fewer evaluated them as strong arguments to consider in their own mammography decision making. Women with a recent mammogram history were particularly unconvinced by overdiagnosis and overtreatment arguments.

CONCLUSIONS

A majority of women were unaware of 2 important harms of breast cancer screening: overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Most did not find statements about these harms to be believable and persuasive. Communication interventions, supported by evidence from health communication research, are necessary to improve patient understanding of screening's harms, promote informed decision making, and, in turn, ensure high-value care.

Overdiagnosis of breast cancer in population screening: does it make breast screening worthless?

The risk of breast cancer (BC) overdiagnosis attributed to mammography screening is an unresolved issue, complicated by heterogeneity in the methodology of quantifying its magnitude, and both political and scientific elements surrounding interpretation of the evidence on this phenomenon. Evidence from randomized trials and also from observational studies shows that mammography screening reduces the risk of BC death; similarly, these studies provide sufficient evidence that overdiagnosis represents a serious harm from population breast screening. For both these outcomes of screening, BC mortality reduction and overdiagnosis, estimates of magnitude vary between studies however overdiagnosis estimates are associated with substantial uncertainty. The trade-off between the benefit and the collective harms of BC screening, including false-positives and overdiagnosis, is more finely balanced than initially recognized, however the snapshot of evidence presented on overdiagnosis does not mean that breast screening is worthless. Future efforts should be directed towards (a) ensuring that any changes in the implementation of BC screening optimize the balance between benefit and harms, including assessing how planned or actual changes modify the risk of overdiagnosis; (b) informing women of all the outcomes that may affect them when they participate in screening using well-crafted and balanced information; and (c) investing in research that will help define and reduce the ensuing overtreatment of screen-detected BC.

Anticipated regret and health behavior: A meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Risk beliefs are central to most theories of health behavior, yet many unanswered questions remain about an increasingly studied risk construct, anticipated regret. The authors sought to better understand anticipated regret's role in motivating health behaviors.

METHOD

The authors systematically searched electronic databases for studies of anticipated regret and behavioral intentions or health behavior. They used random effects meta-analysis to synthesize effect sizes from 81 studies (n = 45,618).

RESULTS

Anticipated regret was associated with both intentions (r+ = .50, p < .001) and health behavior (r+ = .29, p < .001). Greater anticipated regret from engaging in a behavior (i.e., action regret) predicted weaker intentions and behavior, whereas greater anticipated regret from not engaging in a behavior (i.e., inaction regret) predicted stronger intentions and behavior. Anticipated action regret had smaller associations with behavioral intentions related to less severe and more distal hazards, but these moderation findings were not present for inaction regret. Anticipated regret generally was a stronger predictor of intentions and behavior than other anticipated negative emotions and risk appraisals.

CONCLUSIONS

Anticipated inaction regret has a stronger and more stable association with health behavior than previously thought. The field should give greater attention to understanding how anticipated regret differs from similar constructs, its role in health behavior theory, and its potential use in health behavior interventions. (PsycINFO Database Record

Four Principles to Consider Before Advising Women on Screening Mammography

This article reviews four important screening principles applicable to screening mammography in order to facilitate informed choice. The first principle is that screening may help, hurt, or have no effect. In order to reduce mortality and mastectomy rates, screening must reduce the rate of advanced disease, which likely has not happened. Through overdiagnosis, screening produces substantial harm by increasing both lumpectomy and mastectomy rates, which offsets the often-promised benefit of less invasive therapy. Next, all-cause mortality is the most reliable way to measure the efficacy of a screening intervention. Disease-specific mortality is biased due to difficulties in attribution of cause of death and to increased mortality due to overdiagnosis and the resulting overtreatment with radiotherapy and chemotherapy. To enhance participation, the benefit from screening is often presented in relative instead of absolute terms. Third, some screening statistics must be interpreted with caution. Increased survival time and the percentage of early-stage tumors at detection sound plausible, but are affected by lead-time and length biases. In addition, analyses that only include women who attend screening cannot reliably correct for selection bias. The final principle is that accounting for tumor biology is important for accurate estimates of lead time, and the potential benefit from screening. Since “early detection” is actually late in a tumor's lifetime, the time window when screen detection might extend a woman's life is narrow, as many tumors that can form metastases will already have done so. Instead of encouraging screening mammography, physicians should help women make an informed decision as with any medical intervention.

Shared decision making: Concepts, evidence, and practice

OBJECTIVE

Shared decision-making (SDM) is advocated as the model for decision-making in preference-sensitive decisions. In this paper we sketch the history of the concept of SDM, evidence on the occurrence of the steps in daily practice, and provide a clinical audience with communication strategies to support the steps involved. Finally, we discuss ways to improve the implementation of SDM.

RESULTS

The plea for SDM originated almost simultaneously in medical ethics and health services research. Four steps can be distinguished: (1) the professional informs the patient that a decision is to be made and that the patient's opinion is important; (2) the professional explains the options and their pros and cons; (3) the professional and the patient discuss the patient's preferences and the professional supports the patient in deliberation; (4) the professional and patient discuss the patient's wish to make the decision, they make or defer the decision, and discuss follow-up. In practice these steps are seen to occur to a limited extent.

DISCUSSION

Knowledge and awareness among both professionals and patients as well as tools and skills training are needed for SDM to become widely implemented.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Professionals may use the steps and accompanying communication strategies to implement SDM.

Meeting Three Challenges in Risk Communication

Risk communication takes many forms, can serve a number of different purposes, and can inform people about a wide variety of risks. We outline three challenges that must often be met when communicating about risk, irrespective of the form or purpose of that communication, or the type of risk that this involves. The first challenge is how best to help people understand the phenomenology of the risks that they are exposed to: The nature of the risk, the mechanism(s) by which they arise, and, therefore, what can be done to manage these risks. Each risk has its own phenomenology; therefore, rather than offering generic guidance, we illustrate with the case of climate change risk how evidence from behavioral science can guide the design of messages about risk. The second challenge is how best to present quantitative risk information about risk probabilities. Here, there is potential for: Ambiguity, difficulty in evaluating quantitative information, and weak numeracy skills among those being targeted by a message. We outline when each of these difficulties is most likely to arise as a function of the precision of the message and show how messages that cover multiple levels of precision might ameliorate these difficulties. The third challenge is the role played by people’s emotional reactions to the risks that they face and to the messages that they receive about these risks. Here, we discuss the pros and cons of playing up, or playing down, the emotional content of risk communication messages.

Screening for Cervical, Prostate, and Breast Cancer: Interpreting the Evidence

Cancer screening is an important component of prevention and early detection in public health and clinical medicine. The evidence for cancer screening, however, is often contentious. A description and explanation of disagreements over the evidence for cervical, breast, and prostate screening may assist physicians, policymakers, and citizens faced with screening decisions and suggest directions for future screening research. There are particular issues to be aware of in the evidence base for each form of screening, which are summarized in this paper. Five tensions explain existing conflicts over the evidence: (1) data from differing contexts may not be comparable; (2) screening technologies affect evidence quality, and thus evidence must evolve with changing technologies; (3) the quality of evidence of benefit varies, and the implications are contested; (4) evidence about harm is relatively new, there are gaps in that evidence, and there is disagreement over what it means; and (5) evidence about outcomes is often poorly communicated. The following principles will assist people to evaluate and use the evidence: (1) attend closely to transferability; (2) consider the influence of technologies on the evidence base; (3) query the design of meta-analyses; (4) ensure harms are defined and measured; and (5) improve risk communication practices. More fundamentally, there is a need to question the purpose of cancer screening and the values that inform that purpose, recognizing that different stakeholders may value different things. If implemented, these strategies will improve the production and interpretation of the methodologically challenging and always-growing evidence for and against cancer screening.

Why Breast Cancer Risk by the Numbers Is Not Enough: Evaluation of a Decision Aid in Multi-Ethnic, Low-Numerate Women

Background

Breast cancer risk assessment including genetic testing can be used to classify people into different risk groups with screening and preventive interventions tailored to the needs of each group, yet the implementation of risk-stratified breast cancer prevention in primary care settings is complex.

Objective

To address barriers to breast cancer risk assessment, risk communication, and prevention strategies in primary care settings, we developed a Web-based decision aid, RealRisks, that aims to improve preference-based decision-making for breast cancer prevention, particularly in low-numerate women.

Methods

RealRisks incorporates experience-based dynamic interfaces to communicate risk aimed at reducing inaccurate risk perceptions, with modules on breast cancer risk, genetic testing, and chemoprevention that are tailored. To begin, participants learn about risk by interacting with two games of experience-based risk interfaces, demonstrating average 5-year and lifetime breast cancer risk. We conducted four focus groups in English-speaking women (age ≥18 years), a questionnaire completed before and after interacting with the decision aid, and a semistructured group discussion. We employed a mixed-methods approach to assess accuracy of perceived breast cancer risk and acceptability of RealRisks. The qualitative analysis of the semistructured discussions assessed understanding of risk, risk models, and risk appropriate prevention strategies.

Results

Among 34 participants, mean age was 53.4 years, 62% (21/34) were Hispanic, and 41% (14/34) demonstrated low numeracy. According to the Gail breast cancer risk assessment tool (BCRAT), the mean 5-year and lifetime breast cancer risk were 1.11% (SD 0.77) and 7.46% (SD 2.87), respectively. After interacting with RealRisks, the difference in perceived and estimated breast cancer risk according to BCRAT improved for 5-year risk (P=.008). In the qualitative analysis, we identified potential barriers to adopting risk-appropriate breast cancer prevention strategies, including uncertainty about breast cancer risk and risk models, distrust toward the health care system, and perception that risk assessment to pre-screen women for eligibility for genetic testing may be viewed as rationing access to care.

Conclusions

In a multi-ethnic population, we demonstrated a significant improvement in accuracy of perceived breast cancer risk after exposure to RealRisks. However, we identified potential barriers that suggest that accurate risk perceptions will not suffice as the sole basis to support informed decision making and the acceptance of risk-appropriate prevention strategies. Findings will inform the iterative design of the RealRisks decision aid.

Beyond the mammography debate: a moderate perspective

After some decades of contention, one can almost despair and conclude that (paraphrasing) "the mammography debate you will have with you always." Against that sentiment, in this review I argue, after reflecting on some of the major themes of this long-standing debate, that we must begin to move beyond the narrow borders of claim and counterclaim to seek consensus on what the balance of methodologically sound and critically appraised evidence demonstrates, and also to find overlooked underlying convergences; after acknowledging the reality of some residual and non-trivial harms from mammography, to promote effective strategies for harm mitigation; and to encourage deployment of new screening modalities that will render many of the issues and concerns in the debate obsolete. To these ends, I provide a sketch of what this looking forward and beyond the current debate might look like, leveraging advantages from abbreviated breast magnetic resonance imaging technologies (such as the ultrafast and twist protocols) and from digital breast tomosynthesis-also known as three-dimensional mammography. I also locate the debate within the broader context of mammography in the real world as it plays out not for the disputants, but for the stakeholders themselves: the screening-eligible patients and the physicians in the front lines who are charged with enabling both the acts of screening and the facts of screening at their maximally objective and patient-accessible levels to facilitate informed decisions.