Informing Women About Overdetection in Breast Cancer Screening: Two-Year Outcomes From a Randomized 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.

How Do Australians Manage Diagnostic Testing Risks? Focus Groups Linked to a Model of Behaviour Change

BACKGROUND

Diagnostic tests carry significant risks, and communications are needed to help lay people consider these. The development of communications has been hindered by poor knowledge about how lay people understand and negotiate testing risks. We examined lay Australians' perceptions of diagnostic testing risks and how these risks are managed.

METHOD

We completed 12 semistructured online focus groups with 61 Australian adults (18+) between April and June 2022. Participants were divided into younger/older (> 50 years) and male/female groups. Using semistructured discussion and exploring two hypothetical scenarios, we examined attitudes to diagnostic tests, their risks and how test risks were managed. Themes were identified, subanalysed to identify age and gender differences and mapped to the COM-B model of behaviour change.

RESULTS

The six themes provided detailed accounts of how participants considered themselves able, empowered and assertive when negotiating testing risks and of complex ways in which relationships with health workers, personal experiences and structural factors influenced negotiating testing risks. COM-B identified multiple opportunities for leveraging these lay beliefs in health promotion. It also identified barriers, including narrow concepts of testing risks, challenges during shared decision-making and overestimation of personal influence on testing decisions.

SIGNIFICANCE

Our findings matter because they are a novel, detailed account of testing risk beliefs, linked to a model for behaviour change. This will directly inform development of test risk/benefit communications, which are a research priority.

PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

The study design enabled participants to influence the discussion agenda, and they could comment on the analysis. Participants contributed insights about their needs, beliefs and experiences related to medical testing, and these will be used to shape future patient-centred decision tools.

Mammography Screening Preferences Among Screening-Eligible Women in Their 40s : A National U.S. Survey

BACKGROUND

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recently changed its recommendation for mammography screening from informed decision making to biennial screening for women aged 40 to 49 years. Although many women welcome this change, some may prefer not to be screened at age 40 years.

OBJECTIVE

To conduct a national probability-based U.S. survey to investigate breast cancer screening preferences among women aged 39 to 49 years.

DESIGN

Pre-post survey with a breast cancer screening decision aid (DA) intervention. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT05376241).

SETTING

Online national U.S. survey.

PARTICIPANTS

495 women aged 39 to 49 years without a history of breast cancer or a known BRCA1/2 gene mutation.

INTERVENTION

A mammography screening DA providing information about screening benefits and harms and a personalized breast cancer risk estimate.

MEASUREMENTS

Screening preferences (assessed before and after the DA), 10-year Gail model risk estimate, and whether the information was surprising and different from past messages.

RESULTS

Before viewing the DA, 27.0% of participants preferred to delay screening (vs. having mammography at their current age), compared with 38.5% after the DA. There was no increase in the number never wanting mammography (5.4% before the DA vs. 4.3% after the DA). Participants who preferred to delay screening had lower breast cancer risk than those who preferred not to delay. The information about overdiagnosis was surprising for 37.4% of participants versus 27.2% and 22.9% for information about false-positive results and screening benefits, respectively.

LIMITATION

Respondent preferences may have been influenced by the then-current USPSTF guideline.

CONCLUSION

There are women in their 40s who would prefer to have mammography at an older age, especially after being informed of the benefits and harms of screening. Women who wanted to delay screening were at lower breast cancer risk than women who wanted screening at their current age. Many found information about the benefits and harms of mammography surprising.

PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE

National Cancer Institute.

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/ .

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.

Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions

BACKGROUND

Patient decision aids are interventions designed to support people making health decisions. At a minimum, patient decision aids make the decision explicit, provide evidence-based information about the options and associated benefits/harms, and help clarify personal values for features of options. This is an update of a Cochrane review that was first published in 2003 and last updated in 2017.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of patient decision aids in adults considering treatment or screening decisions using an integrated knowledge translation approach.

SEARCH METHODS

We conducted the updated search for the period of 2015 (last search date) to March 2022 in CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, EBSCO, and grey literature. The cumulative search covers database origins to March 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included published randomized controlled trials comparing patient decision aids to usual care. Usual care was defined as general information, risk assessment, clinical practice guideline summaries for health consumers, placebo intervention (e.g. information on another topic), or no intervention.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently screened citations for inclusion, extracted intervention and outcome data, and assessed risk of bias using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Primary outcomes, based on the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS), were attributes related to the choice made (informed values-based choice congruence) and the decision-making process, such as knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, feeling informed, clear values, participation in decision-making, and adverse events. Secondary outcomes were choice, confidence in decision-making, adherence to the chosen option, preference-linked health outcomes, and impact on the healthcare system (e.g. consultation length). We pooled results using mean differences (MDs) and risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), applying a random-effects model. We conducted a subgroup analysis of 105 studies that were included in the previous review version compared to those published since that update (n = 104 studies). We used Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the certainty of the evidence.

MAIN RESULTS

This update added 104 new studies for a total of 209 studies involving 107,698 participants. The patient decision aids focused on 71 different decisions. The most common decisions were about cardiovascular treatments (n = 22 studies), cancer screening (n = 17 studies colorectal, 15 prostate, 12 breast), cancer treatments (e.g. 15 breast, 11 prostate), mental health treatments (n = 10 studies), and joint replacement surgery (n = 9 studies). When assessing risk of bias in the included studies, we rated two items as mostly unclear (selective reporting: 100 studies; blinding of participants/personnel: 161 studies), due to inadequate reporting. Of the 209 included studies, 34 had at least one item rated as high risk of bias. There was moderate-certainty evidence that patient decision aids probably increase the congruence between informed values and care choices compared to usual care (RR 1.75, 95% CI 1.44 to 2.13; 21 studies, 9377 participants). Regarding attributes related to the decision-making process and compared to usual care, there was high-certainty evidence that patient decision aids result in improved participants' knowledge (MD 11.90/100, 95% CI 10.60 to 13.19; 107 studies, 25,492 participants), accuracy of risk perceptions (RR 1.94, 95% CI 1.61 to 2.34; 25 studies, 7796 participants), and decreased decisional conflict related to feeling uninformed (MD -10.02, 95% CI -12.31 to -7.74; 58 studies, 12,104 participants), indecision about personal values (MD -7.86, 95% CI -9.69 to -6.02; 55 studies, 11,880 participants), and proportion of people who were passive in decision-making (clinician-controlled) (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.88; 21 studies, 4348 participants). For adverse outcomes, there was high-certainty evidence that there was no difference in decision regret between the patient decision aid and usual care groups (MD -1.23, 95% CI -3.05 to 0.59; 22 studies, 3707 participants). Of note, there was no difference in the length of consultation when patient decision aids were used in preparation for the consultation (MD -2.97 minutes, 95% CI -7.84 to 1.90; 5 studies, 420 participants). When patient decision aids were used during the consultation with the clinician, the length of consultation was 1.5 minutes longer (MD 1.50 minutes, 95% CI 0.79 to 2.20; 8 studies, 2702 participants). We found the same direction of effect when we compared results for patient decision aid studies reported in the previous update compared to studies conducted since 2015.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Compared to usual care, across a wide variety of decisions, patient decision aids probably helped more adults reach informed values-congruent choices. They led to large increases in knowledge, accurate risk perceptions, and an active role in decision-making. Our updated review also found that patient decision aids increased patients' feeling informed and clear about their personal values. There was no difference in decision regret between people using decision aids versus those receiving usual care. Further studies are needed to assess the impact of patient decision aids on adherence and downstream effects on cost and resource use.

Psychological impact of risk-stratified screening as part of the NHS Breast Screening Programme: multi-site non-randomised comparison of BC-Predict versus usual screening (NCT04359420)

BACKGROUND

Adding risk stratification to standard screening via the NHS Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP) allows women at higher risk to be offered additional prevention and screening options. It may, however, introduce new harms such as increasing cancer worry. The present study aimed to assess whether there were differences in self-reported harms and benefits between women offered risk stratification (BC-Predict) compared to women offered standard NHSBSP, controlling for baseline values.

METHODS

As part of the larger PROCAS2 study (NCT04359420), 5901 women were offered standard NHSBSP or BC-Predict at the invitation to NHSBSP. Women who took up BC-Predict received 10-year risk estimates: "high" (≥8%), "above average (moderate)" (5-7.99%), "average" (2-4.99%) or "below average (low)" (<2%) risk. A subset of 662 women completed questionnaires at baseline and at 3 months (n = 511) and 6 months (n = 473).

RESULTS

State anxiety and cancer worry scores were low with no differences between women offered BC-Predict or NHSBSP. Women offered BC-Predict and informed of being at higher risk reported higher risk perceptions and cancer worry than other women, but without reaching clinical levels.

CONCLUSIONS

Concerns that risk-stratified screening will produce harm due to increases in general anxiety or cancer worry are unfounded, even for women informed that they are at high risk.

The Impact of Morbidity and Disability on Attendance at Organized Breast Cancer-Screening Programs: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Individuals with morbidity experience worse breast cancer outcomes compared with those without. This meta-analysis assessed the impact of morbidity on breast cancer-screening attendance and subsequent early detection (PROSPERO pre-registration CRD42020204918). MEDLINE, PsychInfo, and CINAHL were searched. Included articles published from 1988 measured organized breast-screening mammography attendance using medical records by women with morbidity compared with those without. Morbidities were assigned to nine diagnostic clusters. Data were pooled using random-effects inverse meta-analyses to produce odds ratios (OR) for attendance. 25 study samples (28 articles) were included. Data were available from 17,755,075 individuals, including at least 1,408,246 participants with one or more conditions;16,250,556 had none. Individuals with any morbidity had lower odds of attending breast screening compared with controls [k = 25; OR, 0.76; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.70-0.81; P = <0.001; I2 = 99%]. Six morbidity clusters had lower odds of attendance. The lowest were for neurological, psychiatric, and disability conditions; ORs ranged from 0.45 to 0.59 compared with those without. Morbidity presents a clear barrier for breast-screening attendance, exacerbating health inequalities and, includes a larger number of conditions than previously identified. Consensus is required to determine a standardized approach on how best to identify those with morbidity and determine solutions for overcoming barriers to screening participation based on specific morbidity profiles.

Effects of awareness of breast cancer overdiagnosis among women with screen-detected or incidentally found breast cancer: a qualitative interview study

OBJECTIVES

To explore experiences of women who identified themselves as having a possible breast cancer overdiagnosis.

DESIGN

Qualitative interview study using key components of a grounded theory analysis.

SETTING

International interviews with women diagnosed with breast cancer and aware of the concept of overdiagnosis.

PARTICIPANTS

Twelve women aged 48-77 years from the UK (6), USA (4), Canada (1) and Australia (1) who had breast cancer (ductal carcinoma in situ n=9, (invasive) breast cancer n=3) diagnosed between 2004 and 2019, and who were aware of the possibility of overdiagnosis. Participants were recruited via online blogs and professional clinical networks.

RESULTS

Most women (10/12) became aware of overdiagnosis after their own diagnosis. All were concerned about the possibility of overdiagnosis or overtreatment or both. Finding out about overdiagnosis/overtreatment had negative psychosocial impacts on women's sense of self, quality of interactions with medical professionals, and for some, had triggered deep remorse about past decisions and actions. Many were uncomfortable with being treated as a cancer patient when they did not feel 'diseased'. For most, the recommended treatments seemed excessive compared with the diagnosis given. Most found that their initial clinical teams were not forthcoming about the possibility of overdiagnosis and overtreatment, and many found it difficult to deal with their set management protocols.

CONCLUSION

The experiences of this small and unusual group of women provide rare insight into the profound negative impact of finding out about overdiagnosis after breast cancer diagnosis. Previous studies have found that women valued information about overdiagnosis before screening and this knowledge did not reduce subsequent screening uptake. Policymakers and clinicians should recognise the diversity of women's perspectives and ensure that women are adequately informed of the possibility of overdiagnosis before screening.

Effects of a smartphone application named "Shared Decision Making Assistant" for informed patients with primary liver cancer in decision-making in China: a quasi-experimental study

BACKGROUND

It is well known that decision aids can promote patients' participation in decision-making, increase patients' decision preparation and reduce decision conflict. The goal of this study is to explore the effects of a "Shared Decision Making Assistant" smartphone application on the decision-making of informed patients with Primary Liver Cancer (PLC) in China.

METHODS

In this quasi-experimental study , 180 PLC patients who knew their real diagnoses in the Eastern Hepatobiliary Surgery Hospital, Naval Medical University, Shanghai, China, from April to December 2020 were randomly assigned to a control group and an intervention group. Patients in the intervention group had an access to the "Shared Decision Making Assistant" application in decision-making, which included primary liver cancer treatment knowledge, decision aids path, continuing nursing care video clips, latest information browsing and interactive platforms. The study used decision conflict scores to evaluate the primary outcome, and the data of decision preparation, decision self-efficacy, decision satisfaction and regret, and knowledge of PLC treatment for secondary outcomes. Then, the data were entered into the SPSS 22.0 software and were analyzed by descriptive statistics, Chi-square, independent t-test, paired t-test, and Mann-Whitney tests.

RESULTS

Informed PLC patients in the intervention group ("SDM Assistant" group) had significantly lower decision conflict scores than those in the control group. ("SDM Assistant" group: 16.89 ± 8.80 vs. control group: 26.75 ± 9.79, P < 0.05). Meanwhile, the decision preparation score (80.73 ± 8.16), decision self-efficacy score (87.75 ± 6.87), decision satisfaction score (25.68 ± 2.10) and knowledge of PLC treatment score (14.52 ± 1.91) of the intervention group were significantly higher than those of the control group patients (P < 0.05) at the end of the study. However, the scores of "regret of decision making" between the two groups had no statistical significance after 3 months (P > 0.05).

CONCLUSIONS

Access to the "Shared Decision Making Assistant" enhanced the PLC patients' performance and improved their quality of decision making in the areas of decision conflict, decision preparation, decision self-efficacy, knowledge of PLC treatment and satisfaction. Therefore, we recommend promoting and updating the "Shared Decision Making Assistant" in clinical employment and future studies.

Overdetection of Breast Cancer

Overdetection (often referred to as overdiagnosis) of cancer is the detection of disease, such as through a screening program, that would otherwise remain occult through an individual’s life. In the context of screening, this could occur for cancers that were slow growing or indolent, or simply because an unscreened individual would have died from some other cause before the cancer had surfaced clinically. The main harm associated with overdetection is the subsequent overdiagnosis and overtreatment of disease. In this article, the phenomenon is reviewed, the methods of estimation of overdetection are discussed and reasons for variability in such estimates are given, with emphasis on an analysis using Canadian data. Microsimulation modeling is used to illustrate the expected time course of cancer detection that gives rise to overdetection. While overdetection exists, the actual amount is likely to be much lower than the estimate used by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care. Furthermore, the issue is of greater significance in older rather than younger women due to competing causes of death. The particular challenge associated with in situ breast cancer is considered and possible approaches to avoiding overtreatment are suggested.

Factors affecting intention to screen after being informed of benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: a study in 5 European countries in 2021

BACKGROUND

Participation in mammography screening comes with harms alongside benefits. Information about screening provided to women should convey this information yet concerns persist about its effect on participation. This study addressed factors that may influence the intention to screen once a woman has been informed about benefits and harms of participation.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey of women from five countries (Belgium, France, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom) was performed in January 2021. The survey contained a statement regarding the benefits and harms of mammography screening along with items to measure cognitive variables from the theory of planned behaviour and health belief model and the 6-item version of the European Health Literacy Survey Questionnaire (HLS-EU-Q6). Logistic regression and mediation analysis were performed to investigate the effect of cognitive and sociodemographic variables.

RESULTS

A total of 1180 participants responded to the survey. 19.5% of participants (n = 230) were able to correctly identify that mammography screening carries both benefits and harms. 56.9% of participants (n = 672) responded that they would be more likely to participate in screening in the future after being informed about the benefits and harms of mammography screening. Perceived behavioural control and social norms demonstrated were significant in predicting intention, whereas, the effect of health literacy was limited.

CONCLUSIONS

Informing women about the presence of benefits and harms of in mammography screening participation did not negatively impact upon intention to be screened. Information should also address perception on implementation factors alongside messages on benefits and harms. Overall, screening programme managers should not be discouraged by the assumption of decreased participation through increasing efforts to address the lack of knowledge on benefits and harms.

Online information about mammography screening in Italy from 2014 to 2021

Background

Many studies have reported that the information women receive about the risk-to-benefit ratio of breast cancer screening is still scarce and biased toward benefit. In a study we conducted in 2014, we analysed online documents about breast cancer screening that were addressed to the general female public. In the present study, we used the same methodology to verify if the information provided to women was improved.

Methods

We evaluated documents addressed to the general female public and posted on the Internet by the Italian national and regional public health services. False-positive and false-negative screening results, biopsy-proven false-positive results, interval cancer, overdiagnosis, radiation exposure, and decrease in risk of mortality were analysed. In addition, quantitative data were searched.

Results

In 2021, the most frequently reported information was reduction in breast cancer mortality (58.2%). The most frequently reported risk was a false-positive mammogram (42.5%). Similar frequency rates were reported for interval cancer, false-negative result, and radiation exposure (35.8%, 31.3%, and 28.3%, respectively). Overdiagnosis and biopsy-proven false-positive result were the less reported risks (20.1% and 10.4%). Thirteen documents provided quantitative data about reduction of mortality risk (16.7%), and only 19 provided quantitative data about risks or harms (8.4%). Almost all organisations sent letters of invitation to women (92.5%) and provided screening free of charge (92.5%). The most recommended was biennial screening for women aged between 50 and 69 years (48.5%). Compared with the information in 2014, that in 2021 showed some improvements. The most marked improvements were in the numbers of reports on overdiagnosis, which increased from 8.0 to 20.1%, and biopsy-proven false-positive result, which increased from 1.4 to 10.4%. Regarding the benefits of breast cancer screening, reduced mortality risk became increasingly reported from 2014 (34.5%) to 2021 (58.2%). Conversely, quantitative data remained scarce in 2021.

Conclusions

Moderate improvements in information were observed from 2014 to 2021. However, the information on breast cancer screening in documents intended for women published on Italian websites remain scarce.

Women's perceptions of PERSPECTIVE: a breast cancer risk stratification e-platform

Background

Breast cancer risk stratification categorizes a woman’s potential risk of developing the disease as near-population, intermediate, or high. In accordance, screening and follow up for breast cancer can readily be tailored following risk assessment. Recent efforts have focussed on developing more accessible means to convey this information to women. This study sought to document the relevance of an informational e-platform developed for these purposes.

Objective

To begin to assess a newly developed breast cancer risk stratification and decision support e-platform called PERSPECTIVE (PErsonalised Risk Stratification for Prevention and Early deteCTIon of breast cancer) among women who do not know their personal breast cancer risk (Phase 1). Changes (pre- and post- e-platform exposure) in knowledge of breast cancer risk and interest in undergoing genetic testing were assessed in addition to perceptions of platform usability and acceptability.

Methods

Using a pre-post design, women (N = 156) of differing literacy and education levels, aged 30 to 60, with no previous breast cancer diagnosis were recruited from the general population and completed self-report e-questionnaires.

Results

Mean e-platform viewing time was 18.67 min (SD 0.65) with the most frequently visited pages being breast cancer-related risk factors and risk assessment. Post-exposure, participants reported  significantly higher breast cancer-related knowledge (p < .001). Increases in knowledge relating to obesity, alcohol, breast density, menstruation, and the risk estimation process remained even when sociodemographic variables age and education were controlled. There were no significant changes in genetic testing interest post-exposure. Mean ratings for e-platform acceptability and usability were high: 26.19 out of 30 (SD 0.157) and 42.85 out of 50 (SD 0.267), respectively.

Conclusions

An informative breast cancer risk stratification e-platform targeting healthy women in the general population can significantly increase knowledge as well as support decisions around breast cancer risk and assessment. Currently underway, Phase 2, called PERSPECTIVE, is seeking further content integration and broader implementation .

Approche qualitative des motifs à accepter ou à refuser la réalisation d’une mammographie : l’apport de la théorie du renversement

Objectif : Examiner les motifs conduisant les femmes à accepter ou à refuser la réalisation d’une mammographie et la manière dont ceux-ci s’organisent autour des états motivationnels de la théorie du renversement.

Méthode : Seize entretiens semi-directifs ont été réalisés. Des analyses lexicométriques et de contenu ont été effectuées en prenant appui sur les dix états motivationnels de la théorie du renversement.

Résultats : Consentir à réaliser une mammographie peut répondre à la volonté d’atteindre un objectif et/ou de suivre les règles communément admises à l’égard de cet examen. Refuser de réaliser une mammographie peut être influencé par la volonté d’atteindre un objectif, par un besoin de liberté, par des préoccupations personnelles et/ou par une aspiration à être au centre du soin. Ainsi, respectivement, les motifs facilitateurs les plus impliqués se rapportent aux états motivationnels télique et conformisme. Les motifs barrières les plus impliqués se rapportent aux états télique, négativiste, intra-autique (et plus modérément à l’état autocentrique).

Conclusion : Les résultats de cette étude, et plus particulièrement le rapport qu’entretiennent les femmes avec les normes établies en matière de dépistage du cancer du sein, peuvent amorcer de nouvelles réflexions dans le champ de la santé publique.