Literature DB >> 30030738

Key Elements of Mammography Shared Decision-Making: a Scoping Review of the Literature.

Lori L DuBenske1, Sarina B Schrager2, Mary E Hitchcock3, Amanda K Kane2, Terry A Little2, Helene E McDowell4, Elizabeth S Burnside2.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: New guidelines recommend shared decision-making (SDM) for women and their clinician in consideration of breast cancer screening, particularly for women ages 35-50 where guidelines for routine mammography are controversial. A number of models offer general guidelines for SDM across clinical practice, yet they do not offer specific guidance about conducting SDM in mammography. We conducted a scoping review of the literature to identify the key elements of breast cancer screening SDM and synthesize these key elements for utilization by primary care clinicians.
METHODS: The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL Plus); PsycInfo, PubMed (MEDLINE), Scopus, and SocIndex databases were searched. Inclusion criteria were original studies from peer-reviewed publications (from 2009 or later) reporting breast cancer screening (mammography), medical decision-making, and patient-centered care. Study populations needed to include female patients 18+ years of age facing a real-life breast cancer screening decision. Article findings were specific to shared decision-making and/or use of a decision aid. Data extracted includes study design, population, setting, intervention, and critical findings related to breast cancer screening SDM elements. Scoping analysis includes descriptive analysis of study features and content analysis to identify the SDM key elements.
RESULTS: Twenty-four articles were retained. Three thematic categories of key elements emerged from the extracted elements: information delivery/patient education (specific content and delivery modes), interpersonal clinician-patient communication (aspects of interpersonal relationship impacting SDM), and framework of the decision (sociocultural factors beyond direct SDM deliberation). A number of specific breast cancer screening SDM elements relevant to primary care clinical practice are delineated. DISCUSSION: The findings underscore the importance of the relationship between the patient and clinician and the necessity of spelling out each step in the SDM process. The clinician needs to be explicit in telling a woman that she has a choice about whether to get a mammogram and the benefits and harms of screening mammography. Finally, clinicians need to be aware of sociocultural factors that can influence their relationships and their patients' decision-making processes and attempt to identify and address these factors.

Entities:  

Keywords:  breast cancer screening; health communication; mammography; patient-centered care; primary care; shared decision-making; women’s health

Mesh:

Year:  2018        PMID: 30030738      PMCID: PMC6153221          DOI: 10.1007/s11606-018-4576-6

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


  34 in total

1.  Understanding the Harms and Benefits of Cancer Screening: A Model of Factors That Shape Informed Decision Making.

Authors:  Dafina Petrova; Rocio Garcia-Retamero; Edward T Cokely
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2015-06-04       Impact factor: 2.583

2.  Lack of shared decision making in cancer screening discussions: results from a national survey.

Authors:  Richard M Hoffman; Joann G Elmore; Kathleen M Fairfield; Bethany S Gerstein; Carrie A Levin; Michael P Pignone
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2014-06-09       Impact factor: 5.043

3.  Effects of a risk-based online mammography intervention on accuracy of perceived risk and mammography intentions.

Authors:  Holli H Seitz; Laura Gibson; Christine Skubisz; Heather Forquer; Susan Mello; Marilyn M Schapira; Katrina Armstrong; Joseph N Cappella
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2016-05-04

4.  Evaluation of risk communication in a mammography patient decision aid.

Authors:  Krystal A Klein; Lindsey Watson; Joan S Ash; Karen B Eden
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2016-02-26

5.  Perceived risk of cancer and patient reports of participation in decisions about screening: the DECISIONS study.

Authors:  Amanda J Dillard; Mick P Couper; Brian J Zikmund-Fisher
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2010 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.583

6.  Mammography decision making: Trends and predictors of provider communication in the Health Information National Trends Survey, 2011 to 2014.

Authors:  Laura M Spring; Megan R Marshall; Erica T Warner
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2016-10-11       Impact factor: 6.860

7.  Practice Bulletin Number 179: Breast Cancer Risk Assessment and Screening in Average-Risk Women.

Authors: 
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2017-07       Impact factor: 7.661

Review 8.  Personalised risk communication for informed decision making about taking screening tests.

Authors:  Adrian G K Edwards; Gurudutt Naik; Harry Ahmed; Glyn J Elwyn; Timothy Pickles; Kerry Hood; Rebecca Playle
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2013-02-28

9.  Shared decision making about screening and chemoprevention. a suggested approach from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Authors:  Stacey L Sheridan; Russell P Harris; Steven H Woolf
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 5.043

10.  Patient and primary care provider experience using a family health history collection, risk stratification, and clinical decision support tool: a type 2 hybrid controlled implementation-effectiveness trial.

Authors:  R Ryanne Wu; Lori A Orlando; Tiffany L Himmel; Adam H Buchanan; Karen P Powell; Elizabeth R Hauser; Astrid B Agbaje; Vincent C Henrich; Geoffrey S Ginsburg
Journal:  BMC Fam Pract       Date:  2013-08-06       Impact factor: 2.497

View more
  11 in total

1.  "It's something I'll do until I die": A qualitative examination into why older women in the U.S. continue screening mammography.

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

2.  Hospitalized Women's Perspective on Willingness-to-Screen for Cancers in Relation to Life Expectancy.

Authors:  Jocelyn Shubella; Gina Kauffman; Waseem Khaliq
Journal:  Cureus       Date:  2022-06-07

Review 3.  Shared decision making in high-grade glioma patients-a systematic review.

Authors:  Helle Sorensen von Essen; Karin Piil; Karina Dahl Steffensen; Frantz Rom Poulsen
Journal:  Neurooncol Pract       Date:  2020-07-24

4.  Core Elements of Shared Decision-making for Women Considering Breast Cancer Screening: Results of a Modified Delphi Survey.

Authors:  Kenneth D Croes; Nathan R Jones; Lori L DuBenske; Sarina B Schrager; Jane E Mahoney; Terry A Little; Elizabeth S Burnside
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2020-03-19       Impact factor: 5.128

5.  Discussions of Potential Mammography Benefits and Harms among Patients with Limited Health Literacy and Providers: "Oh, There are Harms?"

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

6.  Preliminary Evaluation of a Breast Cancer Screening Shared Decision-Making Aid Utilized Within the Primary Care Clinical Encounter.

Authors:  Lori DuBenske; Viktoriya Ovsepyan; Terry Little; Sarina Schrager; Elizabeth Burnside
Journal:  J Patient Exp       Date:  2021-07-31

7.  Exploring the Key Factors of Shared Decision-Making Through an Influential Network Relation Map: The Orthopedic Nurse's Perspective.

Authors:  Yanjun Jin; Haiyan Hong; Chao Liu; Ching-Wen Chien; Yen-Ching Chuang; Tao-Hsin Tung
Journal:  Front Med (Lausanne)       Date:  2022-01-20

8.  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

9.  An Evaluation of Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening Outcomes in an Education and Patient Navigation Program in Rural and Border Texas.

Authors:  Derek Falk; Kristie Foley; Kathryn E Weaver; Barbara Jones; Catherine Cubbin
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2020-11-05       Impact factor: 1.771

10.  The emerging role of real-world data in advanced breast cancer therapy: Recommendations for collaborative decision-making.

Authors:  Paul Cottu; Scott David Ramsey; Oriol Solà-Morales; Patricia A Spears; Lockwood Taylor
Journal:  Breast       Date:  2021-12-22       Impact factor: 4.380

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.