Literature DB >> 31919723

Acceptability of an Interactive Computer-Animated Agent to Promote Patient-Provider Communication About Breast Density: a Mixed Method Pilot Study.

Christine Gunn1, Ariel Maschke2, Timothy Bickmore3, Mark Kennedy4, Margaret F Hopkins5, Michael D C Fishman6, Michael K Paasche-Orlow7, Erica T Warner5.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Half of women undergoing mammography have dense breasts. Mandatory dense breast notification and educational materials have been shown to confuse women, rather than empower them.
OBJECTIVE: This study used a mixed method, multi-stakeholder approach to assess acceptability of an interactive, computer-animated agent that provided breast density information to women and changes in knowledge, satisfaction, and informational needs.
DESIGN: A pre-post survey and qualitative focus groups assessed the acceptability of the computer-animated agent among women. An anonymous, online survey measuring acceptability was delivered to a multi-stakeholder group. PARTICIPANTS: English-speaking, mammography-eligible women ages 40-74 were invited and 44 women participated in one of nine focus groups. In addition, 14 stakeholders representing primary care, radiology, patient advocates, public health practitioners, and researchers completed the online survey.
INTERVENTIONS: A prototype of a computer-animated agent was delivered to women in a group setting; stakeholders viewed the prototype independently. MAIN MEASURES: Data collected included open-ended qualitative questions that guided discussion about the content and form of the computer-animated agent. Structured surveys included domains related to knowledge, acceptability, and satisfaction. Stakeholder acceptability was measured with a series of statements about aspects of the intervention and delivery approach and are reported as the proportion of respondents who endorsed each statement. KEY
RESULTS: Six of 12 knowledge items demonstrated improvement post-intervention, satisfaction with the agent was high (81%), but the number of unanswered questions did not improve (67% vs. 54%, p = 0.37). Understanding of the distinction between connective and fatty tissue in the breast did not increase (30% vs. 26%, p = 0.48). Results of the multi-stakeholder survey suggest broad acceptability of the approach and agent.
CONCLUSIONS: Findings highlight the benefits of a brief interactive educational exposure as well as misperceptions that persisted. Results demonstrate the need for an evidence-based, accessible intervention that is easy to understand for patients.

Entities:  

Keywords:  acceptability; breast density; health information technology; mammography; patient-provider communication

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 31919723      PMCID: PMC7174461          DOI: 10.1007/s11606-019-05622-2

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


  47 in total

Review 1.  Breast density and breast cancer risk: a practical review.

Authors:  Amy T Wang; Celine M Vachon; Kathleen R Brandt; Karthik Ghosh
Journal:  Mayo Clin Proc       Date:  2014-04       Impact factor: 7.616

2.  Patient awareness of breast density and interest in supplemental screening tests: comparison of an academic facility and a county hospital.

Authors:  Long Trinh; Debra M Ikeda; Kanae K Miyake; Jennifer Trinh; Kevin K Lee; Haatal Dave; Kei Hanafusa; Jafi Lipson
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2014-11-04       Impact factor: 5.532

3.  Dense breast tissue notification: impact on women's perceived risk, anxiety, and intentions for future breast cancer screening.

Authors:  Vivian M Yeh; Julie B Schnur; Laurie Margolies; Guy H Montgomery
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2014-11-04       Impact factor: 5.532

4.  Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers.

Authors:  M T Mandelson; N Oestreicher; P L Porter; D White; C A Finder; S H Taplin; E White
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2000-07-05       Impact factor: 13.506

5.  Impact of Breast Density Legislation on Breast Cancer Risk Assessment and Supplemental Screening: A Survey of 110 Radiology Facilities.

Authors:  Lina Nayak; Kanae K Miyake; Jessica W T Leung; Elissa R Price; Yueyi I Liu; Bonnie N Joe; Edward A Sickles; William R Thomas; Jafi A Lipson; Bruce L Daniel; Jonathan Hargreaves; R James Brenner; Lawrence W Bassett; Haydee Ojeda-Fournier; Karen K Lindfors; Stephen A Feig; Debra M Ikeda
Journal:  Breast J       Date:  2016-06-14       Impact factor: 2.431

6.  The Pink Underside: The Commercialization of Medical Risk Assessment and Decision-Making Tools for Hereditary Breast Cancer Risk.

Authors:  Sharlene Hesse-Biber; Bailey Flynn; Keeva Farrelly
Journal:  Qual Health Res       Date:  2018-04-11

7.  Between-race differences in the effects of breast density information and information about new imaging technology on breast-health decision-making.

Authors:  Mark Manning; Kristen Purrington; Louis Penner; Neb Duric; Terrance L Albrecht
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2016-01-18

8.  Poor patient comprehension of abnormal mammography results.

Authors:  Leah S Karliner; Celia Patricia Kaplan; Teresa Juarbe; Rena Pasick; Eliseo J Pérez-Stable
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 5.128

9.  Toward Minimum Standards for Certifying Patient Decision Aids: A Modified Delphi Consensus Process.

Authors:  Natalie Joseph-Williams; Robert Newcombe; Mary Politi; Marie-Anne Durand; Stephanie Sivell; Dawn Stacey; Annette O'Connor; Robert J Volk; Adrian Edwards; Carol Bennett; Michael Pignone; Richard Thomson; Glyn Elwyn
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2013-08-20       Impact factor: 2.583

10.  Pre-counseling education for low literacy women at risk of Hereditary Breast and Ovarian Cancer (HBOC): patient experiences using the Cancer Risk Education Intervention Tool (CREdIT).

Authors:  Galen Joseph; Mary S Beattie; Robin Lee; Dejana Braithwaite; Carolina Wilcox; Maya Metrikin; Kate Lamvik; Judith Luce
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2010-05-19       Impact factor: 2.537

View more
  7 in total

1.  Capsule Commentary on Gunn et al. "Acceptability of an Interactive Computer-Animated Agent to Promote Patient-Provider Communication about Breast Density: a Mixed-Methods Pilot Study".

Authors:  Neda Laiteerapong
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2020-04       Impact factor: 5.128

2.  Australian Women's Intentions and Psychological Outcomes Related to Breast Density Notification and Information: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Hankiz Dolan; Kirsten McCaffery; Nehmat Houssami; Erin Cvejic; Meagan Brennan; Jolyn Hersch; Melanie Dorrington; Angela Verde; Lisa Vaccaro; Brooke Nickel
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2022-06-01

3.  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

Review 4.  Computer-Controlled Virtual Humans in Patient-Facing Systems: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Authors:  Debaleena Chattopadhyay; Tengteng Ma; Hasti Sharifi; Pamela Martyn-Nemeth
Journal:  J Med Internet Res       Date:  2020-07-30       Impact factor: 5.428

5.  Copresence With Virtual Humans in Mixed Reality: The Impact of Contextual Responsiveness on Social Perceptions.

Authors:  Daniel Pimentel; Charlotte Vinkers
Journal:  Front Robot AI       Date:  2021-04-12

6.  Effects of an eHealth Intervention on Patient-Provider Interaction and Functional Health Literacy in Adults With Hypertension.

Authors:  Ronald L Hickman; John M Clochesy; Marym Alaamri
Journal:  SAGE Open Nurs       Date:  2021-04-27

Review 7.  Psychological Impact and Influence of Animation on Viewer's Visual Attention and Cognition: A Systematic Literature Review, Open Challenges, and Future Research Directions.

Authors:  C K Praveen; Kathiravan Srinivasan
Journal:  Comput Math Methods Med       Date:  2022-08-31       Impact factor: 2.809

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.