Overdetection in breast cancer screening: development and preliminary evaluation of a decision aid

Designing a decision aid for cancer prevention: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

Australian guidelines recommend people aged 50-70 years old consider taking low-dose aspirin to reduce their risk of colorectal cancer. The aim was to design sex-specific decision aids (DAs) with clinician and consumer input, including expected frequency trees (EFTs) to communicate the risks and benefits of taking aspirin.

METHODS

Semi-structured interviews were conducted with clinicians. Focus groups were conducted with consumers. The interview schedules covered ease of comprehension, design, potential effects on decision-making, and approaches to implementation of the DAs. Thematic analysis was employed; independent coding by 2 researchers was inductive. Themes were developed through consensus between authors.

RESULTS

Sixty-four clinicians were interviewed over 6 months in 2019. Twelve consumers aged 50-70 years participated in two focus groups in February and March 2020. The clinicians agreed that the EFTs would be helpful to facilitate a discussion with patients but suggested including an additional estimate of the effects of aspirin on all-cause mortality. The consumers felt favourable about the DAs and suggested changes to the design and wording to ease comprehension.

CONCLUSION

DAs were designed to communicate the risks and benefits of low-dose aspirin for disease prevention. The DAs are currently being trialled in general practice to determine their impact on informed decision-making and aspirin uptake.

Working together with people with intellectual disability to make a difference: a protocol for a mixed-method co-production study to address inequities in cervical screening participation

Introduction

Cervical cancer is one of the most preventable cancers yet remains a disease of inequity for people with intellectual disability, in part due to low screening rates. The ScreenEQUAL project will use an integrated knowledge translation (iKT) model to co-produce and evaluate accessible cervical screening resources with and for this group.

Methods

Stage 1 will qualitatively explore facilitators and barriers to screening participation for people with intellectual disability, families and support people, healthcare providers and disability sector stakeholders (n ≈ 20 in each group). An accessible multimodal screening resource, accompanying supporting materials for families and support people, and trauma-informed healthcare provider training materials will then be co-produced through a series of workshops. Stage 2 will recruit people with intellectual disability aged 25 to 74 who are due or overdue for screening into a single-arm trial (n = 48). Trained support people will provide them with the co-produced resource in accessible workshops (intervention) and support them in completing pre-post questions to assess informed decision-making. A subset will participate in qualitative post-intervention interviews including optional body-mapping (n ≈ 20). Screening uptake in the 9-months following the intervention will be measured through data linkage. Family members and support people (n = 48) and healthcare providers (n = 433) will be recruited into single-arm sub-studies. Over a 4-month period they will, respectively, receive the accompanying supporting materials, and the trauma-informed training materials. Both groups will complete pre-post online surveys. A subset of each group (n ≈ 20) will be invited to participate in post-intervention semi-structured interviews.

Outcomes and analysis

Our primary outcome is a change in informed decision-making by people with intellectual disability across the domains of knowledge, attitudes, and screening intention. Secondary outcomes include: (i) uptake of screening in the 9-months following the intervention workshops, (ii) changes in health literacy, attitudes and self-efficacy of family members and support people, and (iii) changes in knowledge, attitudes, self-efficacy and preparedness of screening providers. Each participant group will evaluate acceptability, feasibility and usability of the resources.

Discussion

If found to be effective and acceptable, the co-produced cervical screening resources and training materials will be made freely available through the ScreenEQUAL website to support national, and potentially international, scale-up.

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.

Women's Preferences for Hypofractionated Radiation Therapy for Treatment of Early-Stage Breast Cancer: A Discrete Choice Experiment

PURPOSE

The primary treatment recommended for early-stage breast cancer is breast conserving surgery followed by external beam radiation therapy of the whole breast. Previously, radiation therapy for early-stage breast cancer was given using more fractions over longer durations. Guidelines support treatments with fewer fractions over a shorter time (hypofractionated radiation therapy). This study aimed to understand women's preferences for different features of treatments for early-stage breast cancer.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

A discrete choice experiment with 12 choice tasks was conducted, describing the treatments by extent of surgery, duration of radiation treatment, need to relocate for treatment, local side effects, changes in breast appearance, costs, and difficulty with daily activities during and after treatment. Participants were women with breast cancer and from the general population. Mixed logit analyses were conducted and trade-offs between attributes estimated.

RESULTS

Four hundred twenty respondents completed the discrete choice experiment. The relative importance of attributes varied by respondent characteristics; the most influential attribute for younger women was type of surgery (breast conserving surgery). Type of surgery did not influence older women's preferences. Shorter treatment duration, avoiding relocation, fewer local side effects, and less difficulty with daily activities all positively influenced treatment preference. Younger women were willing to accept 32 to 40 days of radiation treatment before a treatment that included mastectomy was potentially acceptable.

CONCLUSIONS

Attributes of treatment such as duration, need for relocation, side effects, and effects on normal daily activities during and after treatment significantly influenced women's preference for treatment, including surgery. Our findings have the potential for real impact for patients and services including supporting one-on-one clinical discussions, supporting program and patient resource development, and informing service funding, organization, and delivery.

Development and evaluation of a decision aid for women eligible for organized breast cancer screening according to international standards: A multi-method study

BACKGROUND

and purpose: In France, women lack information to make a shared decision to start breast cancer screening. Decision aids are useful to facilitate this discussion, yet few meet international standards. The objective of this project was to build, validate and measure the quality of a decision aid for organized breast screening in France, in line with international standards, intended for both women and healthcare professionals.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This mixed-methods study was conducted between January 2017 and June 2022. The prototype was developed from a qualitative study, systematic review and targeted literature review and alpha tested during two Delphi rounds. Readability was evaluated with the Flesch score and content with International Patient Decision Aid Standards Instrument (IPSASi).

RESULTS

An online decision aid, accessible at www.Discutons-mammo.fr, written in French was developed. The content included eligibility, information about breast screening the advantages and disadvantages of screening, patient preferences and a patient-based discussion guide using text, infographics, and videos. The Flesch readability test score was 65.4 and the IPDASi construct quality score was 176 out of 188.

CONCLUSIONS

This decision aid complies with IPDASi standards and could help women eligible for breast screening in France make a shared decision with a specialized healthcare professional about whether or not to participate in organized breast screening.

Does health literacy affect older people's avoidance of medical care? The sense of medical care policy alienation and perceptions of control

We aimed to clarify whether health literacy (HL)  impacts medical care avoidance through an underexplored mediator: a sense of policy alienation towards medical care policy for residents (SPA-M). A moderated mediation model with control perception as a moderator was used to analyze the inner relationship between HL and SPA-M. A cross-sectional survey of 470 people ≥ 60 years old, revealed a significant negative association between HL and medical care avoidance intention, which bootstrapped moderated mediation analysis confirmed is partially mediated by SPA-M. When older people's control perception was high, HL had a significant negative impact on medical care avoidance intention through SPA-M; for low control perception, the effect was insignificant. This study elucidates HL's impact of HL on medical care avoidance, highlighting control perception's relevance to medical care policymaking for older people.

What do women and healthcare professionals expect of decision aids for breast cancer screening? A qualitative study in France

OBJECTIVE

Breast cancer screening decision aids (DAs) are designed to help women decide whether or not to participate in mammography-based programmes. We aimed to explore women's and healthcare professionals' expectations of a breast cancer screening DA, as part of the French DEDICACES study.

METHODS

This French qualitative study was based on semistructured, individual interviews with women from the general population, general practitioners (GPs), midwives, gynaecologists, radiologists and screening centre managers. Sampling was purposive and used diversification criteria. The inductive analysis was based on grounded theory.

RESULTS

Between April 2018 and May 2019, we interviewed 40 people: 13 women, 14 GPs, 4 gynaecologists, 3 midwives, 3 radiologists and 3 screening centre managers. The women and the healthcare professionals considered that a DA could help to improve levels of knowledge, harmonise medical practice and provide reliable, comprehensive information. Overall, the interviewees wanted an easy-to-use, intuitive, graphic-rich, interactive, computer-based, patient-centred DA. Use of the DA might be limited by a lack of familiarity with shared decision-making (SDM), the risk of misuse and a preference for asymmetric positive information.

CONCLUSION

The present results are likely to facilitate the development of the first validated tool for SDM support in French breast cancer screening programmes.

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

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

How do people understand overtesting and overdiagnosis? Systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative research

RATIONALE

The public should be informed about overtesting and overdiagnosis. Diverse qualitative studies have examined public understandings of this information. A synthesis was needed to systematise the body of evidence and yield new, generalisable insights.

AIM

Synthesise data from qualitative studies exploring patient and public understanding of overtesting and overdiagnosis.

METHODS

We searched Scopus, CINAHL, Ovid MEDLINE and PsycINFO databases from inception to March 18, 2020. We included published English-language primary studies exploring the perspectives of patients/the public about overtesting/overdiagnosis from any setting, year and relating to any condition. Only qualitative parts of mixed-methods studies were synthesised. We excluded studies that only examined overtreatment or sampled people with specialised medical knowledge. Two authors independently selected studies, extracted data, assessed the methodological quality of included studies using the CASP tool, and assessed confidence in the synthesis findings using the GRADE-CERQual approach. Data was analysed using thematic meta-synthesis, utilising descriptive and interpretive methods.

RESULTS

We synthesised data from 21 studies, comprising 1638 participants, from 2754 unique records identified. We identified six descriptive themes, all graded as moderate confidence (indicating they are likely to reasonably represent the available evidence): i) high confidence in screening and testing; ii) difficulty in understanding overuse; iii) acceptance that overuse can be harmful; iv) rejection or problematisation of overuse; v) limited impacts of overuse information on intended test and screening uptake; vi) desire for information and shared decision-making regarding overuse. The descriptive themes were underpinned by two analytic themes: i) perceived intrinsic value of information and information gathering, and; ii) differences in comprehension and acceptance of overuse concepts.

CONCLUSIONS

This study identified novel and important insights about how lay people interpret overuse concepts. It will guide the development of more effective public messages about overuse, highlighting the importance of interpretative frameworks in these communications.

Providing Balanced Information about Options in Patient Decision Aids: An Update from the International Patient Decision Aid Standards

BACKGROUND

The objective of this International Patient Decision Aids Standard (IPDAS) review is to update and synthesize theoretical and empirical evidence on how balanced information can be presented and measured in patient decision aids (PtDAs).

METHODS

A multidisciplinary team conducted a scoping review using 2 search strategies in multiple electronic databases evaluating the ways investigators defined and measured the balance of information provided about options in PtDAs. The first strategy combined a search informed by the Cochrane Review of the Effectiveness of Decision Aids with a search on balanced information. The second strategy repeated the search published in the 2013 IPDAS update on balanced presentation.

RESULTS

Of 2450 unique citations reviewed, the full text of 168 articles was screened for eligibility. Sixty-four articles were included in the review, of which 13 provided definitions of balanced presentation, 8 evaluated mechanisms that may introduce bias, and 42 quantitatively measured balanced with methods consistent with the IPDAS criteria in PtDAs. The revised definition of balanced information is, "Objective, complete, salient, transparent, evidence-informed, and unbiased presentation of text and visual information about the condition and all relevant options (with important elements including the features, benefits, harms and procedures of those options) in a way that does not favor one option over another and enables individuals to focus attention on important elements and process this information."

CONCLUSIONS

Developers can increase the balance of information in PtDAs by informing their structure and design elements using the IPDAS checklist. We suggest that new PtDA components pertaining to balance be evaluated for cognitive bias with experimental methods as well by objectively evaluating patients' and content experts' beliefs from multiple perspectives.

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

BACKGROUND

Supporting well-informed decisions about breast cancer screening requires communicating that inconsequential disease may be detected, leading to overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Having previously shown that telling women about overdetection improved informed choice, we investigated effects on screening knowledge and participation over 2 years.

METHODS

We conducted a community-based, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial in Australia. Participants were women aged 48-50 years, without personal or strong family history of breast cancer, who had not undergone mammography in the past 2 years. We randomly assigned 879 women to receive the intervention decision aid (evidence-based information on overdetection, breast cancer mortality reduction, and false-positives) or control decision aid (identical but without overdetection information). We interviewed 838 women postintervention and recontacted them for follow-up at 6 months and 1 and 2 years. Main outcomes for this report are screening knowledge and participation.

RESULTS

We interviewed 790, 746, and 712 participants at 6 months, 1, and 2 years, respectively. The intervention group demonstrated superior knowledge throughout follow-up. After 2 years, conceptual knowledge was adequate in 123 (34.4%) of 358 women in the intervention group compared with 71 (20.1%) of 354 control participants(odds ratio = 2.04, 95% confidence interval = 1.46 to 2.85). Groups were similar in total screening participation (200 [55.1%] vs 204 [56.0%]; = 0.97, 95% confidence interval = 0.73 to 1.29).

CONCLUSIONS

A brief decision aid produced lasting improvement in women's understanding of potential consequences of screening, including overdetection, without changing participation rates. These findings support the use of decision aids for breast cancer screening.

Evaluating two decision aids for Australian men supporting informed decisions about prostate cancer screening: A randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Australian clinicians are advised to 'offer evidence-based decisional support to men considering whether or not to have a PSA test'. This randomised trial compared the performance and acceptability of two new decision aids (DAs) to aid men in making informed choices about PSA screening.

METHODS

~3000 Australian men 45-60 years with varying educational attainment were recruited via an online panel and randomised to view one of two online decision aids (one full length, one abbreviated) and completed a questionnaire. The primary outcome was informed choice about PSA screening.

FINDINGS

Significantly more men in the long DA group (38%) made an informed choice than men who received the shorter DA (33%) (95% CI 1.1% to 8.2%; p = 0.008). On knowledge, the long DA group scored, on average, 0.45 points higher than the short DA group (95% CI 0.14 to 0.76; p = 0.004) and 5% more of the participants achieved an adequate knowledge score (95% CI 1.9% to 8.8%; p = 0.002). Men allocated the long DA were less likely to intend to have a PSA test in the future (53%) than men in the short DA group (59%). Both DAs rated highly on acceptability.

CONCLUSIONS

Both DAs were useful and acceptable to men regardless of education level and both supported informed decision making. The long version resulted in higher knowledge, and a higher proportion of men able to make an informed choice, but the differences were small. Long DAs may be useful for men whose informational needs are not satisfied by a short DA.

A shared decision-making tool for individuals living with complete androgen insensitivity syndrome

Reports exist regarding a gradual approach to the care of patients with differences of sexual development. Each patient and family have different values and styles of learning that have to be taken into account. The goals of care should include education about the condition, counseling of the patient and family, and a complete outlining of treatment options. Motivated by a call from the 2010 Health Reform Law for the use of shared decision-making tools and the emphasis placed on these issues by the DSD Consensus Statement, we sought to develop and implement such tools for the DSD population.^1-3 Thus, we developed an organized checklist for providers to share with a patients and families affected by CAIS, beginning with the initial visit. The development of the document enlisted input from physicians, clinical coordinator, advocacy groups and affected individuals. It allows providers to explain the process of care and develop a plan for delivery of that care over multiple visits spanning six months or more. The checklist is divided into five sections: 1) An overview addressing how much information is desired and in what manner the patient prefers to obtain information; 2) A preferred words list so that the patient can choose nomenclature that is most comfortable; 3) A list of topics to review over the course of multiple visits; 4) A list of questions to be answered by the providers or other resources over time, and; 5) A list of concerns to be addressed before surgical intervention is considered. An organized approach to long-term delivery of compassionate care and accurate information can be facilitated for patients with CAIS by the use of a shared decision-making checklist. Documentation of the care delivery process can stimulate referral to peer support and promote fully informed consent for treatment decisions. The use of the checklist should encourage trust in the provider, as well as aid in identifying and addressing stressors for the patient and family. The checklist will be updated and revised as new treatments and advanced technology emerges.

"A Natural Progression": Australian Women's Attitudes About an Individualized Breast Screening Model

Individualized screening is our logical next step to improve population breast cancer screening in Australia. To explore breast screening participants' views of the current program in Victoria, Australia, examine their openness to change, and attitudes toward an individualized screening model, this qualitative work was performed from a population-based breast screening cohort. This work was designed to inform the development of a decision aid to facilitate women's decisions about participating in individualized screening, and to elicit Australian consumer perspectives on the international movement toward individualized breast screening. A total of 52 women participated in one of four focus groups, and were experienced with screening with 90% of participants having had more than three mammograms. Focus group discussion was facilitated following three main themes: (i) experience of breast screening; (ii) breast cancer risk perception, and (iii) views on individualized screening. Participants had strong, positive, emotional ties to breast screening in its current structure but were supportive, with some reservations, of the idea of individualized screening. There was good understanding about the factors contributing to personalized risk and a wide range of opinions about the inclusion of genetic testing with genetic testing being considered a foreign and evolving domain. Individualized breast screening that takes account of risk factors such as mammographic density, lifestyle, and genetic factors would be acceptable to a population of women who are invested in the current system. The communication and implementation of a new program would be critical to its acceptance and potential success. Reservations may be had in regards to uptake of genetic testing, motivations behind the change, and management of the women allocated to a lower risk category.

Nudging in screening: Literature review and ethical guidance

OBJECTIVES

Nudging is the purposeful alteration of choices presented to people that aims to make them choose in predicted ways. While nudging has been used to assure high uptake and good outcome of screening programs, it has been criticized for being paternalistic, undermining free choice, and shared decision making. Accordingly, the objective of this study is to explore a) nudging strategies identified in screening, b) arguments for and against nudging; and on basis of this, to c) suggest a tentative conclusion on how to handle nudging in screening.

METHODS

Literature searches in Ovid MEDLINE and PsycINFO for combinations of screening and nudging. Screening based on content analysis of titles, abstracts, and articles.

RESULTS

239 references were identified and 109 were included. Several forms of nudging were identified: framed information, default bias, or authority bias. Uptake and public health outcome were the most important goals. Arguments for nudging were bounded rationality, unavoidability, and beneficence, while lack of transparency, crowding out of intrinsic values, and paternalism were arguments against it. The analysis indicates that nudging can be acceptable for screenings with (high quality) evidence for high benefit-harm ratio (beneficence), where nudging does not infringe other ethical principles, such as justice and non-maleficence. In particular, nudging should not only focus on attendance rates, but also on making people "better choosers."

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Four specific recommendations follow from the review and the analysis: 1) Nudging should be addressed in an explicit and transparent manner. 2) The means of nudging have to be in proportion to the benefit-harm ratio. 3) Disagreement on the evidence for either benefits or harms warrants special care. 4) Assessing and assuring the intended outcome of nudging appears to be crucial, as it can be context dependent.

Defining, Estimating, and Communicating Overdiagnosis in Cancer Screening

The toll of inadequate health care is well-substantiated, but recognition is mounting that "too much" is also possible. Overdiagnosis represents one harm of too much medicine, but the concept can be confusing: It is often conflated with related harms (such as overtreatment, misclassification, false-positive results, and overdetection) and is difficult to measure because it cannot be directly observed. Because the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) issues screening recommendations aimed largely at healthy persons, it has a particular interest in understanding harms related to screening, especially but not limited to overdiagnosis. In support of the USPSTF, the authors summarize the knowledge and provide guidance on defining, estimating, and communicating overdiagnosis in cancer screening. To improve consistency, thinking, and reporting about overdiagnosis, they suggest a specific definition. The authors articulate how variation in estimates of overdiagnosis can arise, identify approaches to estimating overdiagnosis, and describe best practices for communicating the potential for harm due to overdiagnosis.

Improving public understanding of 'overdiagnosis' in England: a population survey assessing familiarity with possible terms for labelling the concept and perceptions of appropriate terminology

OBJECTIVES

Communicating the concept of 'overdiagnosis' to lay individuals is challenging, partly because the term itself is confusing. This study tested whether alternative descriptive labels may be more appropriate.

DESIGN

Questionnaire preceded by a description of overdiagnosis.

SETTING

Home-based, computer-assisted face-to-face survey.

PARTICIPANTS

2111 adults aged 18-70 years in England recruited using random location sampling by a survey company. Data from 1888 participants were analysed after exclusions due to missing data.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants were given one of two pieces of text describing overdiagnosis, allocated at random, adapted from National Health Service breast and prostate cancer screening leaflets.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Main outcomes were which of several available terms (eg, 'overdetection') participants had previously encountered and which they endorsed as applicable labels for the concept described. Demographics and previous exposure to screening information were also measured. Main outcomes were summarised with descriptive statistics. Predictors of previously encountering at least one term, or endorsing at least one as making sense, were assessed using binary logistic regression.

RESULTS

58.0% of participants had not encountered any suggested term; 44.0% did not endorse any as applicable labels. No term was notably familiar; the proportion of participants who had previously encountered each term ranged from 15.9% to 28.3%. Each term was only endorsed as applicable by a minority (range: 27.6% to 40.4%). Notable predictors of familiarity included education, age and ethnicity; participants were less likely to have encountered terms if they were older, not white British or had less education. Findings were similar for both pieces of information.

CONCLUSIONS

Familiarity with suggested terms for overdiagnosis and levels of endorsement were low, and no clear alternative labels for the concept were identified, suggesting that changing terminology alone would do little to improve understanding, particularly for some population groups. Explicit descriptions may be more effective.

Development of a communication aid for explaining hypertrophic cardiomyopathy genetic test results

Background

Large gene panels are now commonplace for hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM), increasing the yield of uncertain genetic findings. Few resources exist which aim to facilitate communication of HCM genetic test results. We sought to develop, pilot, and refine a communication aid for probands receiving HCM genetic test results.

Methods

Development was a multi-step process involving expertise of a multidisciplinary team, literature review, and empirical experience. The aid went through an iterative revision process throughout the piloting phase to incorporate feedback. HCM probands attending a specialized multidisciplinary HCM clinic, aged ≥ 18 years and genetic test results available for disclosure between May and August 2016, or recently received their gene results (January–April 2015) were eligible. A purposive sampling strategy was employed, recruiting those attending clinic during the study period or those who could attend without difficulty.

Results

We developed and pilot tested a genetic counsellor-led communication aid. Based on clinical expertise, the aid addresses (a) what genetic testing is, (b) implications for the patient, (c) reasoning for variant classification, and (d) implications for the family. Pilot data were sought to assess knowledge, feasibility, and acceptability using a self-report survey 2 weeks post-intervention. Twelve of 13 participants completed the follow-up questionnaire. Participants valued the individualised nature of the aid, recommended use of the aid, and indicated genetic knowledge, and family communication was better facilitated. Iterative modification of images helped to more simply depict important genetic concepts.

Conclusions

We have developed a tool that is feasible, acceptable, and helpful to patients receiving genetic results. This is an important first step, and trial of the aid to assess effectiveness compared to usual care will follow.

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.

Development and use of a content search strategy for retrieving studies on patients' views and preferences

BACKGROUND

Identifying scientific literature addressing patients' views and preferences is complex due to the wide range of studies that can be informative and the poor indexing of this evidence. Given the lack of guidance we developed a search strategy to retrieve this type of evidence.

METHODS

We assembled an initial list of terms from several sources, including the revision of the terms and indexing of topic-related studies and, methods research literature, and other relevant projects and systematic reviews. We used the relative recall approach, evaluating the capacity of the designed search strategy for retrieving studies included in relevant systematic reviews for the topic. We implemented in practice the final version of the search strategy for conducting systematic reviews and guidelines, and calculated search's precision and the number of references needed to read (NNR).

RESULTS

We assembled an initial version of the search strategy, which had a relative recall of 87.4% (yield of 132/out of 151 studies). We then added some additional terms from the studies not initially identified, and re-tested this improved version against the studies included in a new set of systematic reviews, reaching a relative recall of 85.8% (151/out of 176 studies, 95% CI 79.9 to 90.2). This final version of the strategy includes two sets of terms related with two domains: "Patient Preferences and Decision Making" and "Health State Utilities Values". When we used the search strategy for the development of systematic reviews and clinical guidelines we obtained low precision values (ranging from 2% to 5%), and the NNR from 20 to 50.

CONCLUSIONS

This search strategy fills an important research gap in this field. It will help systematic reviewers, clinical guideline developers, and policy-makers to retrieve published research on patients' views and preferences. In turn, this will facilitate the inclusion of this critical aspect when formulating heath care decisions, including recommendations.

Use of a computerised decision aid (DA) to inform the decision process on adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with stage II colorectal cancer: development and preliminary evaluation

OBJECTIVES

To develop a computerised decision aid (DA) to inform the decision process on adjuvant chemotherapy in patients with stage II colorectal cancer, and examine perceived usefulness, acceptability and areas for improvement of the DA.

DESIGN

Mixed methods.

SETTING

Single outpatient oncology department in central London.

PARTICIPANTS

Consecutive recruitment of 13 patients with stage II colorectal cancer, 12 of whom completed the study. Inclusion criteria were: age >18 years; complete resection for stage II adenocarcinoma of the colon or rectum; patients within 14-56 days after surgery; no contraindication to adjuvant chemotherapy; able to give written informed consent. Exclusion criterion: previous chemotherapy.

PRIMARY OUTCOMES

Patient perceived usefulness (assessed by the PrepDM questionnaire) and acceptability of the DA.

RESULTS

PrepDM scores, measuring the perceived usefulness of the DA in preparing the patient to communicate with their doctor and make a health decision, were above those reported in other patient groups. Patient acceptability scores were also high; however, interviews showed that there was evidence of a lack of understanding of key information among some patients, in particular their baseline risk of recurrence, the net benefit of combination chemotherapy and the rationale for having chemotherapy when cancer had apparently gone.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients found the DA acceptable and useful in supporting their decision about whether or not to have adjuvant chemotherapy. Suggested improvements for the DA include: sequential presentation of treatment options (eg, no treatment vs 1 drug, 1 drug vs 2 drugs) to enhance patient understanding of the difference between combination and single therapy, diagrams to help patients understand the rationale for chemotherapy to prevent a recurrence and inbuilt checks on patient understanding of baseline risk of recurrence and net benefit of chemotherapy.

Survey of public definitions of the term 'overdiagnosis' in the UK

OBJECTIVES

To determine how 'overdiagnosis' is currently conceptualised among adults in the UK in light of previous research, which has found that the term is difficult for the public to understand and awareness is low. This study aimed to add to current debates on healthcare in which overdiagnosis is a prominent issue.

DESIGN

An observational, web-based survey was administered by a survey company.

SETTING

Participants completed the survey at a time and location of their choosing.

PARTICIPANTS

390 consenting UK adults aged 50-70 years. Quota sampling was used to achieve approximately equal numbers in three categories of education and equal numbers of men and women.

PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Participants were asked whether they had seen or heard the term 'overdiagnosis'. If they had, they were then invited to explain in a free-text field what they understood it to mean. If they had not previously encountered it, they were invited to say what they thought it meant. Responses were coded and interpreted using content analysis and descriptive statistics.

RESULTS

Data from 390 participants were analysed. Almost a third (30.0%) of participants reported having previously encountered the term. However, their responses often indicated that they had no knowledge of its meaning. The most prevalent theme consisted of responses related to the diagnosis itself. Subthemes indicated common misconceptions, including an 'overly negative or complicated diagnosis', 'false-positive diagnosis' or 'misdiagnosis'. Other recurring themes consisted of responses related to testing (ie, 'too many tests'), treatment (eg, 'overtreatment') and patient psychology (eg, 'overthinking'). Responses categorised as consistent with 'overdiagnosis' (defined as detection of a disease that would not cause symptoms or death) were notably rare (n=10; 2.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

Consistent with previous research, public awareness of 'overdiagnosis' in the UK is low and its meaning is often misunderstood or misinterpreted.

Public Perceptions of the Benefits and Risks of Newborn Screening

BACKGROUND

Growing technological capacity and parent and professional advocacy highlight the need to understand public expectations of newborn population screening.

METHODS

We administered a bilingual (French, English) Internet survey to a demographically proportional sample of Canadians in 2013 to assess preferences for the types of diseases to be screened for in newborns by using a discrete choice experiment. Attributes were: clinical benefits of improved health, earlier time to diagnosis, reproductive risk information, false-positive (FP) results, and overdiagnosed infants. Survey data were analyzed with a mixed logit model to assess preferences and trade-offs among attributes, interaction between attributes, and preference heterogeneity.

RESULTS

On average, respondents were favorable toward screening. Clinical benefits were the most important outcome; reproductive risk information and early diagnosis were also valued, although 8% disvalued early diagnosis, and reproductive risk information was least important. All respondents preferred to avoid FP results and overdiagnosis but were willing to accept these to achieve moderate clinical benefit, accepting higher rates of harms to achieve significant benefit. Several 2-way interactions between attributes were statistically significant: respondents were willing to accept a higher FP rate for significant clinical benefit but preferred a lower rate for moderate benefit; similarly, respondents valued early diagnosis more when associated with significant rather than moderate clinical benefit.

CONCLUSIONS

Members of the public prioritized clinical benefits for affected infants and preferred to minimize harms. These findings suggest support for newborn screening policies prioritizing clinical benefits over solely informational benefits, coupled with concerted efforts to avoid or minimize harms.

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.

Use of a decision aid including information on overdetection to support informed choice about breast cancer screening: a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Mammography screening can reduce breast cancer mortality. However, most women are unaware that inconsequential disease can also be detected by screening, leading to overdiagnosis and overtreatment. We aimed to investigate whether including information about overdetection of breast cancer in a decision aid would help women aged around 50 years to make an informed choice about breast screening.

METHODS

We did a community-based, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial in New South Wales, Australia, using a random cohort of women aged 48-50 years. Recruitment to the study was done by telephone; women were eligible if they had not had mammography in the past 2 years and did not have a personal or strong family history of breast cancer. With a computer program, we randomly assigned 879 participants to either the intervention decision aid (comprising evidence-based explanatory and quantitative information on overdetection, breast cancer mortality reduction, and false positives) or a control decision aid (including information on breast cancer mortality reduction and false positives). Participants and interviewers were masked to group assignment. The primary outcome was informed choice (defined as adequate knowledge and consistency between attitudes and screening intentions), which we assessed by telephone interview about 3 weeks after random allocation. The primary outcome was analysed in all women who completed the relevant follow-up interview questions fully. This trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, number ACTRN12613001035718.

FINDINGS

Between January, 2014, and July, 2014, 440 women were allocated to the intervention group and 439 were assigned to the control group. 21 women in the intervention group and 20 controls were lost to follow-up; a further ten women assigned to the intervention and 11 controls did not answer all questions on attitudes. Therefore, 409 women in the intervention group and 408 controls were analysed for the primary outcome. 99 (24%) of 409 women in the intervention group made an informed choice compared with 63 (15%) of 408 in the control group (difference 9%, 95% CI 3-14; p=0·0017). Compared with controls, more women in the intervention group met the threshold for adequate overall knowledge (122/419 [29%] vs 71/419 [17%]; difference 12%, 95% CI 6-18; p<0·0001), fewer women expressed positive attitudes towards screening (282/409 [69%] vs 340/408 [83%]; 14%, 9-20; p<0·0001), and fewer women intended to be screened (308/419 [74%] vs 363/419 [87%]; 13%, 8-19; p<0·0001). When conceptual knowledge alone was considered, 203 (50%) of 409 women in the intervention group made an informed choice compared with 79 (19%) of 408 in the control group (p<0·0001).

INTERPRETATION

Information on overdetection of breast cancer provided within a decision aid increased the number of women making an informed choice about breast screening. Becoming better informed might mean women are less likely to choose screening.

FUNDING

Australian National Health and Medical Research Council.