Christine M Gunn1, Tracy A Battaglia2, Michael K Paasche-Orlow3, Amanda K West2, Nancy R Kressin4. 1. Women's Health Unit, Section of General Internal Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA; Department of Health Law, Policy & Management, Boston University School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA. Electronic address: cgunn@bu.edu. 2. Women's Health Unit, Section of General Internal Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA. 3. Section of General Internal Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA; Boston Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA. 4. Section of General Internal Medicine, Boston University School of Medicine, Boston, MA, USA; VA Boston Healthcare System, Jamaica Plain, MA, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Currently, 30 US states mandate that radiologists notify women when dense breast tissue is found on mammography. Little is understood about how notifications are perceived by recipients. This qualitative study sought to understand how dense breast notifications (DBNs) impact women's perceptions and their participation in follow-up care. METHODS: We assessed rates of DBN recall and conducted semi-structured telephone interviews with 30 English-speaking women ages 40 to 74 after receiving a DBN from a Massachusetts hospital. Content coding characterized women's recall of the notification content, perceptions of breast density, and planned or actual participation in follow-up care. RESULTS: Most women (81%) recalled receiving a DBN, but few could recall specific content. Women described struggling to understand the meaning of breast density and created their own explanatory models of dense breasts that differed from medical explanations. Many women planned to or did talk with their doctors about breast density as a result of receiving the notification. CONCLUSIONS: Women receiving DBNs have limited knowledge and many misperceptions about the implications of having dense breasts. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Educational support is needed to promote informed decision- making about breast cancer screening that incorporates personal risk in the setting of dense breast legislation.
OBJECTIVE: Currently, 30 US states mandate that radiologists notify women when dense breast tissue is found on mammography. Little is understood about how notifications are perceived by recipients. This qualitative study sought to understand how dense breast notifications (DBNs) impact women's perceptions and their participation in follow-up care. METHODS: We assessed rates of DBN recall and conducted semi-structured telephone interviews with 30 English-speaking women ages 40 to 74 after receiving a DBN from a Massachusetts hospital. Content coding characterized women's recall of the notification content, perceptions of breast density, and planned or actual participation in follow-up care. RESULTS: Most women (81%) recalled receiving a DBN, but few could recall specific content. Women described struggling to understand the meaning of breast density and created their own explanatory models of dense breasts that differed from medical explanations. Many women planned to or did talk with their doctors about breast density as a result of receiving the notification. CONCLUSIONS:Women receiving DBNs have limited knowledge and many misperceptions about the implications of having dense breasts. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Educational support is needed to promote informed decision- making about breast cancer screening that incorporates personal risk in the setting of dense breast legislation.
Authors: Alsacia L Pacsi-Sepulveda; Rachel C Shelton; Carmen B Rodriguez; Arielle T Coq; Parisa Tehranifar Journal: Cancer Date: 2019-02-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Christine Gunn; Ariel Maschke; Timothy Bickmore; Mark Kennedy; Margaret F Hopkins; Michael D C Fishman; Michael K Paasche-Orlow; Erica T Warner Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2020-01-09 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Kelly A Kyanko; Jessica Hoag; Susan H Busch; Jenerius A Aminawung; Xiao Xu; Ilana B Richman; Cary P Gross Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2020-01-08 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Jennifer L Ridgeway; Sarah M Jenkins; Bijan J Borah; Vera J Suman; Bhavika K Patel; Karthik Ghosh; Deborah J Rhodes; Aaron Norman; Edna P Ramos; Matt Jewett; Crystal R Gonzalez; Valentina Hernandez; Davinder Singh; Miranda Sosa; Carmen Radecki Breitkopf; Celine M Vachon Journal: Cancer Date: 2021-12-02 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Christine M Gunn; Amy Fitzpatrick; Sarah Waugh; Michelle Carrera; Nancy R Kressin; Michael K Paasche-Orlow; Tracy A Battaglia Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2018-10-22 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Siobhan S Mahorter; Sarah Knerr; Erin J Aiello Bowles; Karen J Wernli; Hongyuan Gao; Marc D Schwartz; Suzanne C O'Neill Journal: Cancer Date: 2020-01-24 Impact factor: 6.860