Literature DB >> 15782876

Reconciling population benefits and women's individual autonomy in mammographic screening: in-depth interviews to explore women's views about 'informed choice'.

Claire Davey1, Victoria White, Melina Gattellari, Jeanette E Ward.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To explore women's reactions to 'informed choice' in mammographic screening. SETTING AND METHODS: Telephone interviews with a convenience sample of 106 women aged 45-70 years recruited from general practices in Sydney.
RESULTS: Many (42%) women preferred an active role in decision-making. Respondents had low scores for 'uncertainty' and 'factors contributing to uncertainty' in response to explicit questions about the decision to have mammographic screening. Yet respondents indicated significantly greater willingness to have a test when the benefit of a 'new' screening test for breast cancer was expressed as relative risk reduction (RRR) (88%) than either absolute risk reduction (ARR) (78%) (McNemar's test: chi(2)1=7.14, p=0.013) or all-cause mortality (53%) (McNemar's test: chi(2)1=35.1, p<0.01). Significantly more respondents considered information about ARR 'new' to them (65%) compared with RRR information (30%) (McNemar's test: chi(2)1=25.83, p<0.01).
CONCLUSIONS: As mammographic screening exposes well women to potential harms for an overall population benefit, it is challenging to ensure 'informed choice'. Our results suggest women will likely appreciate individual consultations as the context in which to share complex information that women in our study agreed they need to know about mammographic screening. Our results also demonstrate that women's willingness as individuals to participate in mammographic screening is influenced by 'framing effect'. Hence, the quantitative content of decision aids to promote 'informed choice' must be comprehensive and balanced.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Empirical Approach; Health Care and Public Health; Professional Patient Relationship

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 15782876     DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-842x.2005.tb00752.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Aust N Z J Public Health        ISSN: 1326-0200            Impact factor:   2.939


  5 in total

1.  Framing, truth telling and the problem with non-directive counselling.

Authors:  D Kirklin
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 2.903

2.  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

3.  Public perceptions of communicating information about bowel cancer screening.

Authors:  Chris Woodrow; Eila Watson; Linda Rozmovits; Ronald Parker; Joan Austoker
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2008-03       Impact factor: 3.377

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

Authors:  Lisa M Parker; Lucie Rychetnik; Stacy M Carter
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2015-10-19       Impact factor: 4.430

5.  Engaging Women with Limited Health Literacy in Mammography Decision-Making: Perspectives of Patients and Primary Care Providers.

Authors:  Christine M Gunn; Ariel Maschke; Michael K Paasche-Orlow; Nancy R Kressin; Mara A Schonberg; Tracy A Battaglia
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2020-09-15       Impact factor: 5.128

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.