Literature DB >> 16266417

Informed consent for mammography screening: modelling the risks and benefits for American women.

Tom Marshall1.   

Abstract

INTRODUCTION: In order to facilitate informed decision making, women require information on the probabilities of different outcomes with mammography screening. This paper derives these probabilities for a US population and illustrates them visually in a readily understandable format.
METHODS: Probabilities of the breast cancer mortality, all cause mortality and further investigation are derived from published data on mortality from breast cancer and published estimates of effectiveness using a life-table method. Probabilities are calculated of surviving to age 75 from age 40 with and without two-yearly mammography screening from age 40 and age 50. Probabilities are also calculated that a woman will be referred for further assessment or biopsy or die from breast cancer despite screening. To avoid being misled, these outcomes are presented in the form of a single decision aid illustrating the outcomes for 1000 women choosing each alternative: mammography screening or no mammography screening.
RESULTS: Of 1000 women undergoing two-yearly mammography screening from age 40 an additional four (3.7 per 1000) will reach the age of 75; of the survivors 514 will be referred for further investigation and 138 will undergo biopsy. Of 1000 women screened from age 50 an additional three (3.3 per 1000) will reach age 75; of the survivors 408 will be referred for further investigation and 94 will undergo biopsy. Mammography from age 40 to 49 reduces mortality by 0.4 in 1000. This information is readily presented visually.
CONCLUSIONS: It is possible to provide realistic estimates of the effects of mammography screening on mortality in a readily understandable format. Women require this information if they are to make informed choices about mammography screening.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2005        PMID: 16266417      PMCID: PMC5060317          DOI: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2005.00345.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Expect        ISSN: 1369-6513            Impact factor:   3.377


  27 in total

Review 1.  Explaining risks: turning numerical data into meaningful pictures.

Authors:  Adrian Edwards; Glyn Elwyn; Al Mulley
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2002-04-06

2.  Informed choice in cancer screening.

Authors:  H G Welch
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2001-06-06       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  Clinicians' preferences for treatments to prevent coronary heart disease: a postal survey.

Authors:  S Bryan; P Gill; S Greenfield; K Gutridge; T Marshall
Journal:  Heart       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 5.994

4.  Does the frame affect the picture? A study into how attitudes to screening for cancer are affected by the way benefits are expressed.

Authors:  D Sarfati; P Howden-Chapman; A Woodward; C Salmond
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  1998       Impact factor: 2.136

5.  Who truly represents the needs of the consumer diagnosed with breast cancer? Who are these patients' advocates? How are they informed? What, if any, are their secret agendas?

Authors:  M Baum
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  1997-05       Impact factor: 9.162

6.  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

7.  Predicting the cumulative risk of false-positive mammograms.

Authors:  C L Christiansen; F Wang; M B Barton; W Kreuter; J G Elmore; A E Gelfand; S W Fletcher
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2000-10-18       Impact factor: 13.506

8.  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

9.  The framing effect of relative and absolute risk.

Authors:  D J Malenka; J A Baron; S Johansen; J W Wahrenberger; J M Ross
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1993-10       Impact factor: 5.128

10.  Reaching targets in the national cervical screening programme: are current practices unethical?

Authors:  P Foster; C M Anderson
Journal:  J Med Ethics       Date:  1998-06       Impact factor: 2.903

View more
  3 in total

1.  All-cause mortality versus cancer-specific mortality as outcome in cancer screening trials: A review and modeling study.

Authors:  Eveline A M Heijnsdijk; Marcell Csanádi; Andrea Gini; Kevin Ten Haaf; Rita Bendes; Ahti Anttila; Carlo Senore; Harry J de Koning
Journal:  Cancer Med       Date:  2019-08-18       Impact factor: 4.452

2.  What is the point: will screening mammography save my life?

Authors:  John D Keen; James E Keen
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2009-04-02       Impact factor: 2.796

3.  Social patterning of screening uptake and the impact of facilitating informed choices: psychological and ethical analyses.

Authors:  Rachel Crockett; Timothy M Wilkinson; Theresa M Marteau
Journal:  Health Care Anal       Date:  2007-06-28
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.