The role of communication in breast cancer screening: a qualitative study with Australian experts

Women's experience of the information provided along with invitation to participate in BreastScreen Norway

OBJECTIVES

To explore how women aged 50-69 invited to BreastScreen Norway perceived the information provided along with the invitation letter, as well as time spent on reading this information.

METHODS

An anonymous questionnaire was sent, as a paper-based form along with a physical invitation letter, or as a link to a digital form in a digital invitation letter, to 84,543 women invited to BreastScreen Norway in 2022. The paper-based forms were handed in upon screening attendance. The women were invited to screening by physical or digital invitation including an information leaflet describing benefits and harms, or a link to similar information on a webpage. The questionnaire assessed women's perception of the information and time spent on reading it. Responses were presented by screening invitation type (physical/digital).

RESULTS

A total of 9.9% (8355/84,543) of the women responded to the questionnaire. Among women invited by a physical letter, information about the screening examination and about benefits and harms was considered sufficient by 90% (4338/4797) and 89% (4246/4790), respectively, and 92% (4246/4790) reported the information to be sufficient to make an informed decision on participation. Among those invited digitally, the percentages were 83% (2788/3379), 78% (2618/3369), and 88% (2962/3370), respectively. About 59% (4807/8169) spent <5 min reading the information.

CONCLUSIONS

Most of the respondents perceived the information received upon invitation to BreastScreen Norway sufficient to make an informed decision on participation and used <5 min to read the information. The results should be interpreted with caution due to the low response rate.

Factors Associated with Increased Knowledge about Breast Density in South Australian Women Undergoing Breast Cancer Screening

Background: There is growing awareness of breast density in women attending breast cancer screening; however, it is unclear whether this awareness is associated with increased knowledge. This study aims to evaluate breast density knowledge among Australian women attending breast cancer screening. Method: This cross-sectional study was conducted on women undergoing breast cancer screening at The Queen Elizabeth Hospital Breast/Endocrine outpatient department. Participants were provided with a questionnaire to assess knowledge, awareness, and desire to know their own breast density. Result: Of the 350 women who participated, 61% were familiar with 'breast density' and 57% had 'some knowledge'. Prior breast density notification (OR = 4.99, 95% CI = 2.76, 9.03; p = 0.004), awareness (OR = 4.05, 95% CI = 2.57, 6.39; p = 0.004), younger age (OR = 0.97, 95% CI = 0.96, 0.99; p = 0.02), and English as the language spoken at home (OR = 3.29, 95% CI = 1.23, 8.77; p = 0.02) were independent predictors of 'some knowledge' of breast density. A significant proportion of participants (82%) expressed desire to ascertain their individual breast density. Conclusions: While knowledge of breast density in this Australian cohort is generally quite low, we have identified factors associated with increased knowledge. Further research is required to determine optimal interventions to increase breast density knowledge.

Determinants of guideline-concordant breast cancer screening by family physicians for women aged 40-49 years: a qualitative analysis

BACKGROUND

Although the current Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care guideline recommends that physicians should inform women aged 40-49 years of the potential benefits and harms of screening mammography to support individualized decisions, previous reports of variation in clinical practice at the physician level suggest a lack of guideline-concordant care. We explored determinants (barriers and facilitators) of guideline-concordant care by family physicians regarding screening mammography in this age group.

METHODS

We conducted qualitative semi-structured interviews by phone with family physicians in the Greater Toronto Area from January to November 2020. We structured interviews using the Theoretical Domains Framework to explore determinants (barriers and facilitators) of 5 physician screening behaviours, namely risk assessment, discussion regarding benefits and harms, decision or referral for mammography, referral for genetic counselling and referral to high-risk screening programs. Two independent researchers iteratively analyzed interview transcripts and deductively coded for each behaviour by domain to identify key behavioural determinants until saturation was reached.

RESULTS

We interviewed 18 physicians (mean age 48 yr, 72% self-identified as women). Risk assessment was influenced by physicians' knowledge of risk factors, skills to synthesize risk and beliefs about utility. Physicians had beliefs in their capabilities to have informed patient-centred discussions, but insufficient knowledge regarding the harms of screening. The decision or referral for mammography was affected by emotions related to past patient outcomes, social influences of patients and radiology departments, and knowledge and beliefs about consequences (benefits and harms of screening). Referrals for genetic counselling and to high-risk screening programs were facilitated by their availability and by the knowledge and skills to complete forms. Lack of knowledge regarding which patients qualify and beliefs about consequences were barriers to referral.

INTERPRETATION

Insufficient knowledge and skills for performance of risk assessment, combined with a tendency to overestimate benefits of screening relative to harms affected provision of guideline-concordant care. These may be effective targets for future interventions to improve guideline-concordant care.

The experience of under-screened and never-screened participants using clinician-supported self-collection cervical screening within the Australian National Cervical Screening Program

Background:

Australia has had significant successes in the prevention of cervical cancer. However, there is considerable scope for improving screening participation. In December 2017, Australia shifted from cytology to a human papillomavirus–based screening program as part of the renewed National Cervical Screening Program. This provided the opportunity to introduce a clinician-supported self-collection cervical screening pathway, which allows screening participants aged 30 years or more and who are under-screened or never-screened to screen via a self-collected human papillomavirus test.

Objective:

This study aimed to explore screening participant experiences of a clinician-supported self-collection cervical screening pathway.

Methods:

Interviews (n = 45) were conducted with participants who had used the clinician-supported self-collection cervical screening pathway in the Australian National Cervical Screening Program between December 2017 and April 2019. Interviews were analyzed using template analysis.

Results:

Under-screened and never-screened participants reported a variety of interrelated barriers to cervical screening due to the nature of the test. For these participants, self-collection was a preferable way to perform screening as it overcame various barriers, was easy to use and promoted a sense of empowerment. Participants reported that the role of their practitioner was influential in their decision to undertake cervical screening, and that the support and information provided was a key factor in their experiences of the self-collection pathway.

Conclusion:

Findings support the use of a clinician-supported model of care, as an alternative screening modality in Australia’s National Cervical Screening Program. As more countries consider the move from a cytology to human papillomavirus–based cervical screening program, this model may assist in greater engagement of under-screened participants.

Transforming Screening Uptake in Low-resource and Underinformed Populations: A Preliminary Study of Factors Influencing Women's Decisions to Uptake Screening

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to assess the factors influencing women's decision to uptake screening mammography in an underinformed population.

STUDY DESIGN

The study is a cross-sectional survey of factors influencing screening uptake.

METHODS

A modified breast cancer awareness measure was used to assess women's knowledge of breast cancer, mammography, and factors that influence screening uptake. A second questionnaire investigated health professionals' (HPs') attitude to screening and the criteria for screening recommendation. Descriptive statistics were used to assess women's breast cancer awareness, factors that influence screening uptake, and HPs' attitude to breast cancer education and mammography recommendation. We ranked HPs' responses pertaining to criteria for screening recommendation using a Kendall's W test.

RESULTS

Sixty-nine percent (n = 180) of women were aware of breast cancer, and half of them had performed breast self-examination (n = 131). About 53% (n = 138) of women were not aware of mammography, and only 15.4% (n = 40) of them have had a screening mammogram. Women's awareness of breast cancer risk factors and symptoms was poor. Many women would consider having a screening mammogram if instructed to do so by their husbands (87.7%; n = 228), HPs (96.2%; n = 250), and if government-funded screening programmes are available (90%; n = 234). Less than 40% (n = 21) of HPs had referred at least one woman for screening mammography within the last 6 months. Family history, age, and reproductive factors ranked as the highest criteria for screening recommendation.

CONCLUSIONS

Spouses and HPs may be crucial to changing the current status quo around screening utilisation and government-funded screening programmes may increase screening uptake.

Analysing the ethics of breast cancer overdiagnosis: a pathogenic vulnerability

Breast cancer screening aims to help women by early identification and treatment of cancers that might otherwise be life-threatening. However, breast cancer screening also leads to the detection of some cancers that, if left undetected and untreated, would not have damaged the health of the women concerned. At the time of diagnosis, harmless cancers cannot be identified as non-threatening, therefore women are offered invasive breast cancer treatment. This phenomenon of identifying (and treating) non-harmful cancers is called overdiagnosis. Overdiagnosis is morally problematic as it leads to overall patient harm rather than benefit. Further, breast cancer screening is offered in a context that exaggerates cancer risk and screening benefit, minimises risk of harm and impedes informed choice. These factors combine to create pathogenic vulnerability. That is, breast cancer screening exacerbates rather than reduces women's vulnerability and undermines women's agency. This paper provides an original way of conceptualising agency-supporting responses to the harms of breast cancer overdiagnosis through application of the concept of pathogenic vulnerability.

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.

Scrutinizing screening: a critical interpretive review of primary care provider perspectives on mammography decision-making with average-risk women

CONTEXT

A decision to undertake screening for breast cancer often takes place within the primary care setting, but current controversies such as overdiagnosis and inconsistent screening recommendations based on evolving evidence render this a challenging process, particularly for average-risk women. Given the responsibility of primary care providers in counseling women in this decision-making process, it is important to understand their thoughts on these controversies and how they manage uncertainty in their practice.

OBJECTIVE

To review the perspectives and approaches of primary care providers regarding mammography decision-making with average-risk women.

DESIGN AND METHODS

This study is a critical interpretive review of peer-review literature that reports primary care provider perspectives on mammography screening decision-making. Ovid MEDLINE®, Ovid PsycInfo, and Scopus databases were searched with dates from 2002 to 2017 using search terms related to mammography screening, uncertainty, counseling, decision-making, and primary health care providers.

RESULTS

Nine articles were included following a review process involving the three authors. Using an inductive and iterative approach, data were grouped into four thematic categories: (1) perceptions on the effectiveness of screening, screening initiation age, and screening frequency; (2) factors guiding primary care providers in the screening decision-making process, including both provider and patient-related factors, (3) uncertainty faced by primary care providers regarding guidelines and screening discussions with their patients; and (4) informed decision-making with average-risk women, including factors that facilitate and hinder this process.

DISCUSSION

The discussion of results addresses several factors about the diversity of perspectives and practices of physicians counseling average-risk women regarding breast cancer screening. This has implications for the challenge of understanding and explaining evidence, what should be shared with average-risk women considering screening, the forms of knowledge that physicians value to guide screening decision-making, and the consent process for population-based screening initiatives. Within the data, there was little attention placed on how physicians coped with uncertainty in practice. Given the dual responsibility of physicians in caring for both individuals and the larger population, further research should probe more deeply into how they balance their duties to individual patients with those to the larger population they serve.

Investigating young women's motivations to engage in early mammography screening in Switzerland: results of a cross-sectional study

BACKGROUND

The scientific and public debate concerning organized mammography screening is unprecedentedly strong. With research evidence concerning its efficacy being ambiguous, the recommendations pertaining to the age-thresholds for program inclusion vary between - and even within - countries. Data shows that young women who are not yet eligible for systematic screening, have opportunistic mammograms relatively often and, moreover, want to be included in organized programs. Yet, to date, little is known about the precise motivations underlying young women's desire and intentions to go for, not medically indicated, mammographic screening.

METHODS

A cross-sectional online survey was carried out among women aged 30-49 years (n = 918) from Switzerland.

RESULTS

The findings show that high fear (β = .08, p ≤ .05), perceived susceptibility (β = .10, p ≤ .05), and ego-involvement (β = .34, p ≤ .001) are the main predictors of screening intentions among women who are not yet eligible for the systematic program. Also, geographical location (Swiss-French group: β = .15, p ≤ .001; Swiss-Italian group: β = .26, p ≤ .001) and age (β = .11, p ≤ .001) play a role. In turn, breast cancer knowledge, risk perceptions, and educational status do not have a significant impact.

CONCLUSIONS

Young women seem to differ inherently from those who are already eligible for systematic screening in terms of the factors underlying their intentions to engage in mammographic screening. Thus, when striving to promote adherence to systematic screening guidelines - whether based on unequivocal scientific evidence or policy decisions - and to allow women to make evidence-based, informed decisions about mammography, differential strategies are needed to reach different age-groups.