Literature DB >> 31792869

Knowledge and Perception of Breast Density, Screening Mammography, and Supplemental Screening: in Search of "Informed".

Karen E Schifferdecker1,2,3, Anna N A Tosteson4,5,6,7, Celia Kaplan8, Karla Kerlikowske8,9,10,11, Diana S M Buist12, Louise M Henderson13, Dianne Johnson14, Jill Jaworski14, Gloria Jackson-Nefertiti14, Kelly Ehrlich12, Mary W Marsh13, Lisa Vu8, Tracy Onega5,6,15,16, Karen J Wernli12.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: As of 2019, 37 US states have breast density notification laws. No qualitative study to date has examined women's perspectives about breast density in general or by states with and without notification laws.
OBJECTIVE: Explore women's knowledge and perceptions of breast density and experiences of breast cancer screening across three states with and without notification laws.
DESIGN: Qualitative research design using four focus groups conducted in 2017. PARTICIPANTS: Forty-seven women who had a recent normal mammogram and dense breasts in registry data obtained through the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium. APPROACH: Focus groups were 90 min, audio recorded, and transcribed for analysis. Data were analyzed using mixed deductive and inductive coding. KEY
RESULTS: Women reported variable knowledge levels of personal breast density and breast density in general, even among women living in states with a notification law. A number of women were aware of the difficulty of detecting cancer with dense breasts, but only one knew that density increased breast cancer risk. Across all states, very few women reported receiving information about breast density during healthcare visits beyond being encouraged to get supplemental imaging or to pay for new mammography technology (i.e., breast tomosynthesis). Women offered more imaging or different technology held strong convictions that these were "better," even though knowledge of differences, effectiveness, or harms across technologies seemed limited. Women from all states expressed a strong desire for more information about breast density.
CONCLUSIONS: More research needs to be done to understand how the medical community can best assist women in making informed decisions related to breast density, mammography, and supplemental screening. Options to explore include improved breast density notifications and education materials about breast density, continued development of personalized risk information tools, strategies for providers to discuss evidence and options based on risk stratification, and shared decision-making.

Entities:  

Keywords:  breast cancer; patient education; patient preferences; qualitative; screening

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31792869      PMCID: PMC7280373          DOI: 10.1007/s11606-019-05560-z

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


  20 in total

1.  Three approaches to qualitative content analysis.

Authors:  Hsiu-Fang Hsieh; Sarah E Shannon
Journal:  Qual Health Res       Date:  2005-11

2.  Decade of 'normal' mammography reports--the happygram.

Authors:  Nancy M Cappello
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 5.532

Review 3.  The impact of legislation mandating breast density notification - Review of the evidence.

Authors:  Nehmat Houssami; Christoph I Lee
Journal:  Breast       Date:  2018-09-11       Impact factor: 4.380

4.  Randomized Trial of Personalized Breast Density and Breast Cancer Risk Notification.

Authors:  Jennifer S Haas; Catherine S Giess; Kimberly A Harris; Julia Ansolabehere; Celia P Kaplan
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2018-08-08       Impact factor: 5.128

5.  Breast density and parenchymal patterns as markers of breast cancer risk: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Valerie A McCormack; Isabel dos Santos Silva
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2006-06       Impact factor: 4.254

6.  The Divide Between Breast Density Notification Laws and Evidence-Based Guidelines for Breast Cancer Screening: Legislating Practice.

Authors:  Jennifer S Haas; Celia P Kaplan
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2015-09       Impact factor: 21.873

7.  Impact of the California breast density law on primary care physicians.

Authors:  Kathleen A Khong; Jonathan Hargreaves; Shadi Aminololama-Shakeri; Karen K Lindfors
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2014-12-24       Impact factor: 5.532

8.  Identifying women with dense breasts at high risk for interval cancer: a cohort study.

Authors:  Karla Kerlikowske; Weiwei Zhu; Anna N A Tosteson; Brian L Sprague; Jeffrey A Tice; Constance D Lehman; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2015-05-19       Impact factor: 25.391

9.  Primary Care Provider Experience with Breast Density Legislation in Massachusetts.

Authors:  Christine M Gunn; Nancy R Kressin; Kristina Cooper; Cinthya Marturano; Karen M Freund; Tracy A Battaglia
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2018-01-17       Impact factor: 2.681

10.  Patient and Provider Perspectives on Mammographic Breast Density Notification Legislation.

Authors:  Elissa V Klinger; Celia P Kaplan; Stella St Hubert; Robyn L Birdwell; Jennifer S Haas
Journal:  MDM Policy Pract       Date:  2016-11-17
View more
  9 in total

1.  Capsule Commentary on Schifferdecker et al., Knowledge and Perception of Breast Density, Screening Mammography, and Supplemental Screening: in Search of "Informed".

Authors:  H Douglas Walden
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2020-06       Impact factor: 5.128

2.  Evaluating educational interventions to increase breast density awareness among Latinas: A randomized trial in a Federally Qualified Health Center.

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

3.  Breast Density Knowledge in a Screening Mammography Population Exposed to Density Notification.

Authors:  Rebecca E Smith; Brian Sprague; Louise M Henderson; Karla Kerlikowske; Diana L Miglioretti; Diana S M Buist; Karen J Wernli; Tracy Onega; Karen Schifferdecker; Gloria Jackson-Nefertiti; Dianne Johnson; Jill Budesky; Anna N A Tosteson
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2022-03-24       Impact factor: 6.240

4.  Factors to Consider in Developing Breast Cancer Risk Models to Implement into Clinical Care.

Authors:  Diana S M Buist
Journal:  Curr Epidemiol Rep       Date:  2020-04-29

5.  The Impact of Breast Density Information or Notification on Women's Cognitive, Psychological, and Behavioral Outcomes: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Brooke Nickel; Tessa Copp; Meagan Brennan; Rachel Farber; Kirsten McCaffery; Nehmat Houssami
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2021-10-01       Impact factor: 13.506

6.  Effect of a Randomized Trial of a Web-Based Intervention on Patient-Provider Communication About Breast Density.

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

7.  Comparative Access to and Use of Digital Breast Tomosynthesis Screening by Women's Race/Ethnicity and Socioeconomic Status.

Authors:  Christoph I Lee; Weiwei Zhu; Tracy Onega; Louise M Henderson; Karla Kerlikowske; Brian L Sprague; Garth H Rauscher; Ellen S O'Meara; Anna N A Tosteson; Jennifer S Haas; Roberta diFlorio-Alexander; Celia Kaplan; Diana L Miglioretti
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2021-02-01

8.  Effect of Personalized Breast Cancer Risk Tool on Chemoprevention and Breast Imaging: ENGAGED-2 Trial.

Authors:  Karen J Wernli; Sarah Knerr; Tengfei Li; Kathleen Leppig; Kelly Ehrlich; David Farrell; Hongyuan Gao; Erin J A Bowles; Amanda L Graham; George Luta; Jinani Jayasekera; Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Marc D Schwartz; Suzanne C O'Neill
Journal:  JNCI Cancer Spectr       Date:  2021-01-14

Review 9.  The current status of risk-stratified breast screening.

Authors:  Ash Kieran Clift; David Dodwell; Simon Lord; Stavros Petrou; Sir Michael Brady; Gary S Collins; Julia Hippisley-Cox
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2021-10-26       Impact factor: 9.075

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.