Sendoa Ballesteros-Peña1,2, Enrique Gavilán-Moral3. 1. Facultad de Medicina y Enfermería Universidad del País Vasco (UPV/EHU). Leioa. Bizkaia. España. 2. Unidad de Docencia e Investigación de Enfermería de la OSI Bilbao Basurto. Bilbao. Bizkaia. España. 3. Consultorio Rural Mirabel. Mirabel. Cáceres. España.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: There are several methods to promote informed decision making before undergoing a screening program. This research aimed to analyze the contents of official documents about breast cancer screening programs. METHODS: A descriptive research was performed. After a literature review an agreed checklist was performed with the information needed to make decisions about participation in mammography screening programs. Informative documents about mammography screening valid in Spain in 2016 were analyzed by two independent researchers. The inter-rater agreement was verified and the discrepancies were solved by consensus. Absolute and relative frequencies of each item were calculated. RESULTS: 8 invitations and 14 citation letters, 12 leaflets, 8 brochures and 14 websites, from 18 screening programs, were reviewed. The information turned out to be very different according to each program. Only a third warned that participation is voluntary. 8 programs (44.4%) offered information on what is breast cancer and 7 (38.9%) on the cumulative risk of developing the disease. 15 (83.3%) explained the objectives of the program and 14 (77.8%) explained what mammography is. 14 programs (77.8%) presented as screening benefits the least invasive treatments, 12 the increase in survival (66.7%) and 10 the decrease in specific mortality (55.6%). Most of the programs did not report the possibility of false positives (27.8%) or false negatives (38.9%). Only 7 (38.9%) mentioned the possibility of overdiagnosis and 6 (33.3%) of overtreatment. CONCLUSIONS: The information provided by the different breast cancer screening programs is variable and does not contain sufficient information for informed decision-making.
OBJECTIVE: There are several methods to promote informed decision making before undergoing a screening program. This research aimed to analyze the contents of official documents about breast cancer screening programs. METHODS: A descriptive research was performed. After a literature review an agreed checklist was performed with the information needed to make decisions about participation in mammography screening programs. Informative documents about mammography screening valid in Spain in 2016 were analyzed by two independent researchers. The inter-rater agreement was verified and the discrepancies were solved by consensus. Absolute and relative frequencies of each item were calculated. RESULTS: 8 invitations and 14 citation letters, 12 leaflets, 8 brochures and 14 websites, from 18 screening programs, were reviewed. The information turned out to be very different according to each program. Only a third warned that participation is voluntary. 8 programs (44.4%) offered information on what is breast cancer and 7 (38.9%) on the cumulative risk of developing the disease. 15 (83.3%) explained the objectives of the program and 14 (77.8%) explained what mammography is. 14 programs (77.8%) presented as screening benefits the least invasive treatments, 12 the increase in survival (66.7%) and 10 the decrease in specific mortality (55.6%). Most of the programs did not report the possibility of false positives (27.8%) or false negatives (38.9%). Only 7 (38.9%) mentioned the possibility of overdiagnosis and 6 (33.3%) of overtreatment. CONCLUSIONS: The information provided by the different breast cancer screening programs is variable and does not contain sufficient information for informed decision-making.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast neoplasm; Decision making; Health Communication; Health Literacy; Information services; Mammography; Secondary prevention; Spain; Straining; Use of scientific information for health decision making
Authors: Anna Zagaja; Renata Bogusz; Jarosław Sak; Michał Wiechetek; Jakub Pawlikowski Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2022-05-31 Impact factor: 4.614