Literature DB >> 14687272

A randomized trial of three videos that differ in the framing of information about mammography in women 40 to 49 years old.

Carmen L Lewis1, Michael P Pignone, Stacey L Sheridan, Stephen M Downs, Linda S Kinsinger.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of providing structured information about the benefits and harms of mammography in differing frames on women's perceptions of screening.
DESIGN: Randomized control trial.
SETTING: General internal medicine academic practice. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred seventy-nine women aged 35 through 49. INTERVENTION: Women received 1 of 3 5-minute videos about the benefits and harms of screening mammography in women aged 40 to 49. These videos differed only in the way the probabilities of potential outcomes were framed (positive, neutral, or negative).
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We measured the change in accurate responses to questions about potential benefits and harms of mammography, and the change in the proportion of participants who perceived that the benefits of mammography were more important than the harms. Before seeing the videos, women's knowledge about the benefits and harms of mammography was inaccurate (82% responded incorrectly to all 3 knowledge questions). After seeing the videos, the proportion that answered correctly increased by 52%, 43%, and 30% for the 3 knowledge questions, respectively, but there were no differences between video frames. At baseline, most women thought the benefits of mammography outweighed the harms (79% positive frame, 80% neutral frame, and 85% negative frame). After the videos, these proportions were similar among the 3 groups (84%, 81%, 83%, P =.93).
CONCLUSIONS: Women improved the accuracy of their responses to questions about the benefits and harms of mammography after seeing the videos, but this change was not affected by the framing of information. Women strongly perceived that the benefits of mammography outweighed the harms, and providing accurate information had no effect on these perceptions, regardless of how it was framed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14687272      PMCID: PMC1494949          DOI: 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2003.21152.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Gen Intern Med        ISSN: 0884-8734            Impact factor:   5.128


  44 in total

1.  Assessing elements of women's decisions about mammography.

Authors:  W Rakowski; C E Dube; B H Marcus; J O Prochaska; W F Velicer; D B Abrams
Journal:  Health Psychol       Date:  1992       Impact factor: 4.267

2.  What's the relative risk? A method of correcting the odds ratio in cohort studies of common outcomes.

Authors:  J Zhang; K F Yu
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1998-11-18       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  Framing effects on expectations, decisions, and side effects experienced: the case of influenza immunization.

Authors:  A M O'Connor; R A Pennie; R E Dales
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1996-11       Impact factor: 6.437

4.  Age-related differences in mammography use and in breast cancer knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors.

Authors:  L C Friedman; N E Neff; J A Webb; C K Latham
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  1998       Impact factor: 2.037

5.  Validation of the Gail et al. model of breast cancer risk prediction and implications for chemoprevention.

Authors:  B Rockhill; D Spiegelman; C Byrne; D J Hunter; G A Colditz
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2001-03-07       Impact factor: 13.506

6.  A cross-cultural consumer-based decision aid for screening mammography.

Authors:  V A Lawrence; D Streiner; H P Hazuda; R Naylor; M Levine; A Gafni
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 4.018

7.  Ten-year risk of false positive screening mammograms and clinical breast examinations.

Authors:  J G Elmore; M B Barton; V M Moceri; S Polk; P J Arena; S W Fletcher
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1998-04-16       Impact factor: 91.245

8.  US women's attitudes to false-positive mammography results and detection of ductal carcinoma in situ: cross-sectional survey.

Authors:  L M Schwartz; S Woloshin; H C Sox; B Fischhoff; H G Welch
Journal:  West J Med       Date:  2000-11

9.  Breast cancer screening: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Authors:  Linda L Humphrey; Mark Helfand; Benjamin K S Chan; Steven H Woolf
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2002-09-03       Impact factor: 25.391

10.  Cancer patients' decision making and trial-entry preferences: the effects of "framing" information about short-term toxicity and long-term survival.

Authors:  H A Llewellyn-Thomas; M J McGreal; E C Thiel
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  1995 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 2.583

View more
  6 in total

1.  Recommendations on screening for breast cancer in women aged 40-74 years who are not at increased risk for breast cancer.

Authors:  Scott Klarenbach; Nicki Sims-Jones; Gabriela Lewin; Harminder Singh; Guylène Thériault; Marcello Tonelli; Marion Doull; Susan Courage; Alejandra Jaramillo Garcia; Brett D Thombs
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2018-12-10       Impact factor: 8.262

Review 2.  A systematic review of information in decision aids.

Authors:  Deb Feldman-Stewart; Sarah Brennenstuhl; Kathryn McIssac; Joan Austoker; Agathe Charvet; Paul Hewitson; Karen R Sepucha; Tim Whelan
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2007-03       Impact factor: 3.377

3.  Informed decision making before initiating screening mammography: does it occur and does it make a difference?

Authors:  Larissa Nekhlyudov; Rong Li; Suzanne W Fletcher
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2008-12       Impact factor: 3.377

Review 4.  What is lacking in current decision aids on cancer screening?

Authors:  Masahito Jimbo; Gurpreet K Rana; Sarah Hawley; Margaret Holmes-Rovner; Karen Kelly-Blake; Donald E Nease; Mack T Ruffin
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2013-03-15       Impact factor: 508.702

Review 5.  Use of patient decision aids increased younger women's reluctance to begin screening mammography: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Ilya Ivlev; Erin N Hickman; Marian S McDonagh; Karen B Eden
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2017-03-13       Impact factor: 5.128

6.  Using an informed consent in mammography screening: a randomized trial.

Authors:  José M Baena-Cañada; Petra Rosado-Varela; Inmaculada Expósito-Álvarez; Macarena González-Guerrero; Juan Nieto-Vera; Encarnación Benítez-Rodríguez
Journal:  Cancer Med       Date:  2015-09-17       Impact factor: 4.452

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.