OBJECTIVE: In Germany, approximately 10 million women between the ages of 50 and 69 are eligible for biennial mammography screening. Mammography is at the center of much controversy, however, which means gynecologists must provide women considering mammography with sufficient and transparent information. The present study analyzed the information gynecologists share with a person seeking advice about the benefit and harms of mammography screening. METHOD: To receive realistic data, we called 20 gynecologists practicing in different large cities across Germany and took telephone counseling sessions on the benefit and harms of mammography. RESULTS: The majority of gynecologists described mammography as safe and scientifically well grounded. Harms were rarely mentioned or described as negligible. A minority of gynecologists provided numerical information; when they did, they often quantified the benefit using relative risk reduction and harms using absolute risk increase. CONCLUSION: A sample of German gynecologists was not able to correctly and transparently communicate the benefit and harms of mammography screening to a patient. PRACTICE IMPLICATION: Gynecologists should be taught how to understand and transparently explain medical risk information in simple terms.
OBJECTIVE: In Germany, approximately 10 million women between the ages of 50 and 69 are eligible for biennial mammography screening. Mammography is at the center of much controversy, however, which means gynecologists must provide women considering mammography with sufficient and transparent information. The present study analyzed the information gynecologists share with a person seeking advice about the benefit and harms of mammography screening. METHOD: To receive realistic data, we called 20 gynecologists practicing in different large cities across Germany and took telephone counseling sessions on the benefit and harms of mammography. RESULTS: The majority of gynecologists described mammography as safe and scientifically well grounded. Harms were rarely mentioned or described as negligible. A minority of gynecologists provided numerical information; when they did, they often quantified the benefit using relative risk reduction and harms using absolute risk increase. CONCLUSION: A sample of German gynecologists was not able to correctly and transparently communicate the benefit and harms of mammography screening to a patient. PRACTICE IMPLICATION: Gynecologists should be taught how to understand and transparently explain medical risk information in simple terms.
Authors: Martina Albrecht; Florian Isenbeck; Jüürgen Kasper; Ingrid Mühlhauser; Anke Steckelberg Journal: Dtsch Arztebl Int Date: 2016-06-06 Impact factor: 5.594
Authors: Martin Widschwendter; Allison Jones; Iona Evans; Daniel Reisel; Joakim Dillner; Karin Sundström; Ewout W Steyerberg; Yvonne Vergouwe; Odette Wegwarth; Felix G Rebitschek; Uwe Siebert; Gaby Sroczynski; Inez D de Beaufort; Ineke Bolt; David Cibula; Michal Zikan; Line Bjørge; Nicoletta Colombo; Nadia Harbeck; Frank Dudbridge; Anne-Marie Tasse; Bartha M Knoppers; Yann Joly; Andrew E Teschendorff; Nora Pashayan Journal: Nat Rev Clin Oncol Date: 2018-02-27 Impact factor: 66.675
Authors: Laura E Brotzman; Rachel C Shelton; Jessica D Austin; Carmen B Rodriguez; Mariangela Agovino; Nathalie Moise; Parisa Tehranifar Journal: Cancer Med Date: 2022-05-26 Impact factor: 4.711
Authors: Ariel Maschke; Michael K Paasche-Orlow; Nancy R Kressin; Mara A Schonberg; Tracy A Battaglia; Christine M Gunn Journal: J Health Commun Date: 2021-01-17