Jennifer S Haas1, Catherine S Giess2, Kimberly A Harris3, Julia Ansolabehere3, Celia P Kaplan4. 1. Division of General Medicine and Primary Care, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. jhaas@bwh.harvard.edu. 2. Department of Radiology, Division of Breast Imaging, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 3. Division of General Medicine and Primary Care, Department of Medicine, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 4. Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Despite widespread implementation of mammographic breast density (MBD) notification laws, the impact of these laws on knowledge of MBD and knowledge of breast cancer risk is limited by the lack of tools to promote informed decision-making in practice. OBJECTIVE: To develop and evaluate whether brief, personalized informational videos following a normal mammogram in addition to a legislatively required letter about MBD result can improve knowledge of MBD and breast cancer risk compared to standard care (i.e., legislatively required letter about MBD included with the mammogram result). DESIGN/PARTICIPANTS: Prospective randomized controlled trial of English-speaking women, age 40-74 years, without prior history of breast cancer, receiving a screening mammogram with a normal or benign finding (intervention group n = 235, control group n = 224). INTERVENTION: brief (3-5 min) video, personalized to a woman's MBD result and breast cancer risk. MAIN MEASURES: Primary outcomes were a woman's knowledge of her MBD and risk of breast cancer. Secondary outcomes included whether a woman reported that she discussed the results of her mammogram with her primary care provider (PCP). KEY RESULTS: Relative to women in the control arm, women in the intervention arm had greater improvement in their knowledge of both their personal MBD (intervention pre/post 39.2%/ 77.5%; control pre/post 36.2%/ 37.5%; odds ratio (OR) 5.34 for change for intervention vs. control, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.87-7.36; p < 0.001) and risk of breast cancer (intervention pre/post: 66.8%/74.0%; control pre/post 67.9%/ 65.2%; OR 1.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09-1.84; p = 0.01). Women in the intervention group were more likely than those in the control group to report discussing the results of their mammogram with their PCP (p = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Brief, personalized videos following mammography can improve knowledge of MBD and personal risk of breast cancer compared to a legislatively mandated informational letter. Trial Registration Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02986360).
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Despite widespread implementation of mammographic breast density (MBD) notification laws, the impact of these laws on knowledge of MBD and knowledge of breast cancer risk is limited by the lack of tools to promote informed decision-making in practice. OBJECTIVE: To develop and evaluate whether brief, personalized informational videos following a normal mammogram in addition to a legislatively required letter about MBD result can improve knowledge of MBD and breast cancer risk compared to standard care (i.e., legislatively required letter about MBD included with the mammogram result). DESIGN/PARTICIPANTS: Prospective randomized controlled trial of English-speaking women, age 40-74 years, without prior history of breast cancer, receiving a screening mammogram with a normal or benign finding (intervention group n = 235, control group n = 224). INTERVENTION: brief (3-5 min) video, personalized to a woman's MBD result and breast cancer risk. MAIN MEASURES: Primary outcomes were a woman's knowledge of her MBD and risk of breast cancer. Secondary outcomes included whether a woman reported that she discussed the results of her mammogram with her primary care provider (PCP). KEY RESULTS: Relative to women in the control arm, women in the intervention arm had greater improvement in their knowledge of both their personal MBD (intervention pre/post 39.2%/ 77.5%; control pre/post 36.2%/ 37.5%; odds ratio (OR) 5.34 for change for intervention vs. control, 95% confidence interval (CI) 3.87-7.36; p < 0.001) and risk of breast cancer (intervention pre/post: 66.8%/74.0%; control pre/post 67.9%/ 65.2%; OR 1.42, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09-1.84; p = 0.01). Women in the intervention group were more likely than those in the control group to report discussing the results of their mammogram with their PCP (p = 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Brief, personalized videos following mammography can improve knowledge of MBD and personal risk of breast cancer compared to a legislatively mandated informational letter. Trial Registration Clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02986360).
Entities:
Keywords:
breast cancer risk; breast density; mammography; patient education
Authors: Celia P Kaplan; Jennifer Livaudais-Toman; Jeffrey A Tice; Karla Kerlikowske; Steven E Gregorich; Eliseo J Pérez-Stable; Rena J Pasick; Alice Chen; Jessica Quinn; Leah S Karliner Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2014-04-24 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Deborah J Rhodes; Carmen Radecki Breitkopf; Jeanette Y Ziegenfuss; Sarah M Jenkins; Celine M Vachon Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2015-03-02 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Gareth J R Porter; Andrew J Evans; Eleanor J Cornford; Helen C Burrell; Jonathan J James; Andrew H S Lee; Jayeta Chakrabarti Journal: AJR Am J Roentgenol Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 3.959
Authors: Brian L Sprague; Ronald E Gangnon; Veronica Burt; Amy Trentham-Dietz; John M Hampton; Robert D Wellman; Karla Kerlikowske; Diana L Miglioretti Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2014-09-12 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Karla Kerlikowske; Weiwei Zhu; Rebecca A Hubbard; Berta Geller; Kim Dittus; Dejana Braithwaite; Karen J Wernli; Diana L Miglioretti; Ellen S O'Meara Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2013-05-13 Impact factor: 21.873
Authors: Jeffrey A Tice; Steven R Cummings; Rebecca Smith-Bindman; Laura Ichikawa; William E Barlow; Karla Kerlikowske Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2008-03-04 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Mara A Schonberg; Mary Beth Hamel; Roger B Davis; M Cecilia Griggs; Christina C Wee; Angela Fagerlin; Edward R Marcantonio Journal: JAMA Intern Med Date: 2014-03 Impact factor: 21.873
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: Erin J Aiello Bowles; Suzanne C O'Neill; Tengfei Li; Sarah Knerr; Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Marc D Schwartz; Jinani Jayasekera; Kathleen Leppig; Kelly Ehrlich; David Farrell; Hongyuan Gao; Amanda L Graham; George Luta; Karen J Wernli Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2021-09-28 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Louise M Henderson; Mary W Marsh; Kathryn Earnhardt; Michael Pritchard; Thad S Benefield; Robert P Agans; Sheila S Lee Journal: Cancer Date: 2020-09-14 Impact factor: 6.860