1
|
Tosteson AN, Schifferdecker KE, Smith RE, Wernli KJ, Zhao W, Kaplan CP, Buist DS, Henderson LM, Sprague BL, Onega T, Budesky J, Jackson-Nefertiti G, Johnson D, Miglioretti DL, Kerlikowske K. Women's Breast Cancer Screening Confidence by Screening Modality and Breast Density: A Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium Survey Study. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 2022; 31:1547-1556. [PMID: 36356184 PMCID: PMC9700351 DOI: 10.1089/jwh.2021.0649] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/12/2022] Open
Abstract
Objective: Little is known about women's confidence in their breast cancer screening. We sought to characterize breast cancer screening confidence by imaging modality and clinically assessed breast density. Materials and Methods: We undertook a cross-sectional survey of women ages 40-74 years who received digital mammography (DM), digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT), and/or breast magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) with a normal screening exam in the prior year. The main outcome was women's confidence (Very, Somewhat, A little, Not at all) in their breast cancer screening detecting any cancer. Multivariable logistic regression identified correlates of being very confident in breast cancer screening by screening modality group: Group 1) DM vs. DBT and Group 2) DM or DBT alone vs. with supplemental MRI. Results: Overall, 2329 of 7439 (31.3%) invitees participated, with 30%-61% being very confident in their screening across modality and density subgroups. Having dense versus nondense breasts was associated with lower odds of being very confident (Group 1: odds ratio [OR]: 0.58; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.46-0.79; Group 2: OR: 0.56; 95% CI: 0.40-0.79). There were no differences by modality within Group 1, but for Group 2, women undergoing MRI had higher odds of being very confident (OR: 1.69; 95% CI: 1.21-2.37). Other correlates of greater screening confidence were as follows: Group 1-being offered a screening test choice and cost not influencing modality received, and Group 2-decision satisfaction and worry. Conclusions: Women with dense breasts had lower screening confidence regardless of screening modality and those undergoing MRI had higher confidence regardless of density. The importance of informing women about screening options is underscored by observed associations between screening choice, decision satisfaction, and screening confidence. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02980848.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anna N.A. Tosteson
- The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth College, Lebanon, New Hampshire, USA
- Dartmouth Cancer Center, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, New Hampshire, USA
| | - Karen E. Schifferdecker
- The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth College, Lebanon, New Hampshire, USA
| | - Rebecca E. Smith
- The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth College, Lebanon, New Hampshire, USA
| | - Karen J. Wernli
- Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Kaiser Permanente Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
| | - Wenyan Zhao
- The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth College, Lebanon, New Hampshire, USA
| | - Celia P. Kaplan
- Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, California, USA
| | - Diana S.M. Buist
- Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Kaiser Permanente Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
| | - Louise M. Henderson
- Department of Radiology, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA
| | - Brian L. Sprague
- Department of Surgery, University of Vermont Cancer Center, University of Vermont, Burlington, Vermont, USA
| | - Tracy Onega
- Department of Population Health Science, Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
| | - Jill Budesky
- Department of Public Health Sciences, University of California, Davis, California, USA
| | | | - Dianne Johnson
- Department of Public Health Sciences, University of California, Davis, California, USA
| | - Diana L. Miglioretti
- Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Kaiser Permanente Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA
- Department of Public Health Sciences, University of California, Davis, California, USA
| | - Karla Kerlikowske
- Department of Medicine and Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, California, USA
| |
Collapse
|