Xiaofei He1, Karen E Schifferdecker2,3, Elissa M Ozanne4, Anna N A Tosteson2,5, Steven Woloshin2,3,5, Lisa M Schwartz2,3,5. 1. Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Lebanon, NH, USA. xiaofei.he@dartmouth.edu. 2. Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Lebanon, NH, USA. 3. Department of Community and Family Medicine, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Lebanon, NH, USA. 4. Department of Population Health Sciences, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA. 5. Dartmouth-Hitchcock Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Lebanon, NH, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Decades of persuasive messages have reinforced the importance of traditional screening mammography at regular intervals. A potential new paradigm, risk-based screening, adjusts mammography frequency based on a woman's estimated breast cancer risk in order to maximize mortality reduction while minimizing false positives and overdiagnosis. Women's views of risk-based screening are unknown. OBJECTIVE: To explore women's views and personal acceptability of a potential risk-based mammography screening paradigm. DESIGN: Four semi-structured focus group discussions about screening mammography and surveys before provision of information about risk-based screening. We analyzed coded focus group transcripts using a mixed deductive (content analysis) and inductive (grounded theory) approach. PARTICIPANTS: Convenience sample of 29 women (40-74 years old) with no personal history of breast cancer recruited by print and online media in New Hampshire and Vermont. RESULTS: Twenty-seven out of 29 women reported having undergone mammography screening. All participants were white and most were highly educated. Some women accepted the idea that early cancer detection with traditional screening was beneficial-although many also reported hearing inconsistent recommendations from clinicians and mixed messages from media reports about mammography. Some women were familiar with a risk-based screening paradigm (primarily related to cervical cancer, n = 8) and thought matching screening mammography frequency to personal risk made sense (n = 8). Personal acceptability of risk-based screening was mixed. Some believed risk-based screening could reduce the harms of false positives and overdiagnosis (n = 7). Others thought screening less often might result in missing a dangerous diagnosis (n = 14). Many (n = 18) expressed concerns about the feasibility of risk-based screening and questioned whether breast cancer risk estimates could be accurate. Some suspected that risk-based mammography was motivated by a desire to save money (n = 6). CONCLUSION: Some women thought risk-based screening made sense. Willingness to abandon traditional screening for the new paradigm was mixed. Broad acceptability of risk-based screening will require clearer communication about its rationale and feasibility and consistent messages from the health care team.
BACKGROUND: Decades of persuasive messages have reinforced the importance of traditional screening mammography at regular intervals. A potential new paradigm, risk-based screening, adjusts mammography frequency based on a woman's estimated breast cancer risk in order to maximize mortality reduction while minimizing false positives and overdiagnosis. Women's views of risk-based screening are unknown. OBJECTIVE: To explore women's views and personal acceptability of a potential risk-based mammography screening paradigm. DESIGN: Four semi-structured focus group discussions about screening mammography and surveys before provision of information about risk-based screening. We analyzed coded focus group transcripts using a mixed deductive (content analysis) and inductive (grounded theory) approach. PARTICIPANTS: Convenience sample of 29 women (40-74 years old) with no personal history of breast cancer recruited by print and online media in New Hampshire and Vermont. RESULTS: Twenty-seven out of 29 women reported having undergone mammography screening. All participants were white and most were highly educated. Some women accepted the idea that early cancer detection with traditional screening was beneficial-although many also reported hearing inconsistent recommendations from clinicians and mixed messages from media reports about mammography. Some women were familiar with a risk-based screening paradigm (primarily related to cervical cancer, n = 8) and thought matching screening mammography frequency to personal risk made sense (n = 8). Personal acceptability of risk-based screening was mixed. Some believed risk-based screening could reduce the harms of false positives and overdiagnosis (n = 7). Others thought screening less often might result in missing a dangerous diagnosis (n = 14). Many (n = 18) expressed concerns about the feasibility of risk-based screening and questioned whether breast cancer risk estimates could be accurate. Some suspected that risk-based mammography was motivated by a desire to save money (n = 6). CONCLUSION: Some women thought risk-based screening made sense. Willingness to abandon traditional screening for the new paradigm was mixed. Broad acceptability of risk-based screening will require clearer communication about its rationale and feasibility and consistent messages from the health care team.
Entities:
Keywords:
health communication; over-diagnosis; risk-based screening mammography
Authors: Lynn Rosenberg; Lauren A Wise; Julie R Palmer; Nicholas J Horton; Lucile L Adams-Campbell Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Kirsten J McCaffery; Jesse Jansen; Laura D Scherer; Hazel Thornton; Jolyn Hersch; Stacy M Carter; Alexandra Barratt; Stacey Sheridan; Ray Moynihan; Jo Waller; John Brodersen; Kristen Pickles; Adrian Edwards Journal: BMJ Date: 2016-02-05
Authors: Shagufta Yasmeen; Patrick S Romano; Daniel J Tancredi; Naomi H Saito; Julie Rainwater; Richard L Kravitz Journal: BMC Health Serv Res Date: 2012-02-06 Impact factor: 2.655
Authors: Karen E Schifferdecker; Anna N A Tosteson; Celia Kaplan; Karla Kerlikowske; Diana S M Buist; Louise M Henderson; Dianne Johnson; Jill Jaworski; Gloria Jackson-Nefertiti; Kelly Ehrlich; Mary W Marsh; Lisa Vu; Tracy Onega; Karen J Wernli Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2019-12-02 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Linda Rainey; Anna Jervaeus; Louise S Donnelly; D Gareth Evans; Mattias Hammarström; Per Hall; Yvonne Wengström; Mireille J M Broeders; Daniëlle van der Waal Journal: Psychooncology Date: 2019-03-25 Impact factor: 3.894
Authors: Victoria G Woof; Helen Ruane; David P French; Fiona Ulph; Nadeem Qureshi; Nasaim Khan; D Gareth Evans; Louise S Donnelly Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2020-05-20 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Victoria G Woof; Lorna McWilliams; Louise S Donnelly; Anthony Howell; D Gareth Evans; Anthony J Maxwell; David P French Journal: Womens Health (Lond) Date: 2021 Jan-Dec
Authors: Celmira Laza-Vásquez; Núria Codern-Bové; Àngels Cardona-Cardona; Maria José Hernández-Leal; Maria José Pérez-Lacasta; Misericòrdia Carles-Lavila; Montserrat Rué Journal: PLoS One Date: 2022-02-04 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Wei-Ying Sung; Hui-Chuan Yang; I-Chen Liao; Yu-Ting Su; Fu-Husan Chen; Shu-Ling Chen Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-01-18 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Lorna McWilliams; Victoria G Woof; Louise S Donnelly; Anthony Howell; D Gareth Evans; David P French Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2021-05-29 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Emily Grayek; Yanran Yang; Baruch Fischhoff; Karen E Schifferdecker; Steven Woloshin; Karla Kerlikowske; Diana L Miglioretti; Anna N A Tosteson Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2022-01-22 Impact factor: 2.749
Authors: Lorna McWilliams; Victoria G Woof; Louise S Donnelly; Anthony Howell; D Gareth Evans; David P French Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2020-07-22 Impact factor: 4.430