Literature DB >> 32267546

Quality of decision aids developed for women at average risk of breast cancer eligible for mammographic screening: Systematic review and assessment according to the International Patient Decision Aid Standards instrument.

Sandrine Hild1, Marion Johanet1, Anna Valenza1, Maïna Thabaud1, Flore Laforest2, Emilie Ferrat3,4, Cédric Rat1.   

Abstract

Mammographic screening contributes to a reduction in specific mortality, but it has disadvantages. Decision aids are tools designed to support people's decisions. Because these aids influence patient choice, their quality is crucial. The objective of the current study was to conduct a systematic review of decision aids developed for women eligible for mammographic screening who have an average breast cancer risk and to assess the quality of these aids. The systematic review included articles published between January 1, 1997, and August 1, 2019, in the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and PsycInfo databases. The studies were reviewed independently by 2 reviewers. Any study containing a decision aid for women eligible for mammographic screening with an average breast cancer risk was included. Two double-blind reviewers assessed the quality of the selected decision aids using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards instrument, version 3 (IPDASi). Twenty-three decision aids were extracted. Classification of decision aid quality using the IPDASi demonstrated large variations among the decision aids (maximum IPDASi score, 188; mean ± SD score, 132.6 ± 23.8; range, 85-172). Three decision aids had high overall scores. The 3 best-rated dimensions were disclosure (maximum score, 8; mean score, 6.8), focusing on transparency; information (maximum score, 32; mean score, 26.1), focusing on the provision of sufficient details; and probabilities (maximum score, 32; mean score 25), focusing on the presentation of probabilities. The 3 lowest-rated dimensions were decision support technology evaluation (maximum score, 8; mean score, 4.3), focusing on the effectiveness of the decision aid; development (maximum score, 24; mean score, 12.6), evaluating the development process; and plain language (maximum score, 4; mean score, 1.9), assessing appropriateness for patients with low literacy. The results of this review identified 3 high-quality decision aids for breast cancer screening.
© 2020 American Cancer Society.

Entities:  

Keywords:  breast cancer; cancer screening; decision aid; informed decision making; mammography; shared decision making

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32267546     DOI: 10.1002/cncr.32858

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer        ISSN: 0008-543X            Impact factor:   6.860


  4 in total

1.  Online information about mammography screening in Italy from 2014 to 2021.

Authors:  Francesco Attena; Lucia Abagnale; Angela Avitabile
Journal:  BMC Womens Health       Date:  2022-04-27       Impact factor: 2.742

2.  What do women and healthcare professionals expect of decision aids for breast cancer screening? A qualitative study in France.

Authors:  Aïm-Eusébi Amélie; Yannick Ruelle; Bernard Frèche; Mélanie Houllemare; Aurélie Bonillo; Laurie Bouaziz; Cédric Rat; Xavier Gocko; Catherine Cerisey; Isabelle Aubin-Auger; Emilie Ferrat
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2022-03-15       Impact factor: 2.692

3.  Primary Care Providers' Perceptions of the Acceptability, Appropriateness, and Feasibility of a Mammography Decision Aid for Women Aged 75 and Older.

Authors:  Mara A Schonberg; Mary Beth Hamel; Roger B Davis; Maria Karamourtopoulos; Adlin Pinheiro; Michelle C Hayes; Christina C Wee; Christine Kistler
Journal:  MDM Policy Pract       Date:  2022-01-21

4.  Effects by educational attainment of a mammography screening patient decision aid for women aged 75 years and older.

Authors:  Tamara Cadet; Adlin Pinheiro; Maria Karamourtopoulos; Alicia R Jacobson; Gianna M Aliberti; Christine E Kistler; Roger B Davis; Mara A Schonberg
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2021-08-10       Impact factor: 6.921

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.