Mara A Schonberg1, Christine E Kistler2,3, Adlin Pinheiro1, Alicia R Jacobson1, Gianna M Aliberti1, Maria Karamourtopoulos1, Michelle Hayes2,3, Bridget A Neville4, Carmen L Lewis5,6, Christina C Wee1, Angela Fagerlin7,8, Larissa Nekhlyudov9, Edward R Marcantonio1, Mary Beth Hamel1, Roger B Davis1. 1. Division of General Medicine, Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts. 2. Division of Geriatric Medicine, Department of Medicine, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. 3. Department of Family Medicine, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. 4. Ariadne Labs, Boston, Massachusetts. 5. Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora. 6. Adult and Child Consortium for Outcomes Research and Delivery Science, University of Colorado, Aurora. 7. Department of Population Health, University of Utah School of Medicine, Salt Lake City. 8. Informatics, Decision-Enhancement and Analytic Sciences Center, Health Services Research & Development, US Department of Veterans Affairs, Salt Lake City, Utah. 9. Division of General Internal Medicine and Primary Care, Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts.
Abstract
Importance: Guidelines recommend that women 75 years and older be informed of the benefits and harms of mammography before screening. Objective: To test the effects of receipt of a paper-based mammography screening decision aid (DA) for women 75 years and older on their screening decisions. Design, Setting, and Participants: A cluster randomized clinical trial with clinician as the unit of randomization. All analyses were completed on an intent-to-treat basis. The setting was 11 primary care practices in Massachusetts or North Carolina. Of 1247 eligible women reached, 546 aged 75 to 89 years without breast cancer or dementia who had a mammogram within 24 months but not within 6 months and saw 1 of 137 clinicians (herein referred to as PCPs) from November 3, 2014, to January 26, 2017, participated. A research assistant (RA) administered a previsit questionnaire on each participant's health, breast cancer risk factors, sociodemographic characteristics, and screening intentions. After the visit, the RA administered a postvisit questionnaire on screening intentions and knowledge. Interventions: Receipt of the DA (DA arm) or a home safety (HS) pamphlet (control arm) before a PCP visit. Main Outcomes and Measures: Participants were followed up for 18 months for receipt of mammography screening (primary outcome). To examine the effects of the DA, marginal logistic regression models were fit using generalized estimating equations to allow for clustering by PCP. Adjusted probabilities and risk differences were estimated to account for clustering by PCP. Results: Of 546 women in the study, 283 (51.8%) received the DA. Patients in each arm were well matched; their mean (SD) age was 79.8 (3.7) years, 428 (78.4%) were non-Hispanic white, 321 (of 543 [59.1%]) had completed college, and 192 (35.2%) had less than a 10-year life expectancy. After 18 months, 9.1% (95% CI, 1.2%-16.9%) fewer women in the DA arm than in the control arm had undergone mammography screening (51.3% vs 60.4%; adjusted risk ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.75-0.95; P = .006). Women in the DA arm were more likely than those in the control arm to rate their screening intentions lower from previsit to postvisit (69 of 283 [adjusted %, 24.5%] vs 47 of 263 [adjusted %, 15.3%]), to be more knowledgeable about the benefits and harms of screening (86 [adjusted %, 25.5%] vs 32 [adjusted %, 11.7%]), and to have a documented discussion about mammography with their PCP (146 [adjusted %, 47.4%] vs 111 [adjusted %, 38.9%]). Almost all women in the DA arm (94.9%) would recommend the DA. Conclusions and Relevance: Providing women 75 years and older with a mammography screening DA before a PCP visit helps them make more informed screening decisions and leads to fewer women choosing to be screened, suggesting that the DA may help reduce overscreening. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02198690.
Importance: Guidelines recommend that women 75 years and older be informed of the benefits and harms of mammography before screening. Objective: To test the effects of receipt of a paper-based mammography screening decision aid (DA) for women 75 years and older on their screening decisions. Design, Setting, and Participants: A cluster randomized clinical trial with clinician as the unit of randomization. All analyses were completed on an intent-to-treat basis. The setting was 11 primary care practices in Massachusetts or North Carolina. Of 1247 eligible women reached, 546 aged 75 to 89 years without breast cancer or dementia who had a mammogram within 24 months but not within 6 months and saw 1 of 137 clinicians (herein referred to as PCPs) from November 3, 2014, to January 26, 2017, participated. A research assistant (RA) administered a previsit questionnaire on each participant's health, breast cancer risk factors, sociodemographic characteristics, and screening intentions. After the visit, the RA administered a postvisit questionnaire on screening intentions and knowledge. Interventions: Receipt of the DA (DA arm) or a home safety (HS) pamphlet (control arm) before a PCP visit. Main Outcomes and Measures: Participants were followed up for 18 months for receipt of mammography screening (primary outcome). To examine the effects of the DA, marginal logistic regression models were fit using generalized estimating equations to allow for clustering by PCP. Adjusted probabilities and risk differences were estimated to account for clustering by PCP. Results: Of 546 women in the study, 283 (51.8%) received the DA. Patients in each arm were well matched; their mean (SD) age was 79.8 (3.7) years, 428 (78.4%) were non-Hispanic white, 321 (of 543 [59.1%]) had completed college, and 192 (35.2%) had less than a 10-year life expectancy. After 18 months, 9.1% (95% CI, 1.2%-16.9%) fewer women in the DA arm than in the control arm had undergone mammography screening (51.3% vs 60.4%; adjusted risk ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.75-0.95; P = .006). Women in the DA arm were more likely than those in the control arm to rate their screening intentions lower from previsit to postvisit (69 of 283 [adjusted %, 24.5%] vs 47 of 263 [adjusted %, 15.3%]), to be more knowledgeable about the benefits and harms of screening (86 [adjusted %, 25.5%] vs 32 [adjusted %, 11.7%]), and to have a documented discussion about mammography with their PCP (146 [adjusted %, 47.4%] vs 111 [adjusted %, 38.9%]). Almost all women in the DA arm (94.9%) would recommend the DA. Conclusions and Relevance: Providing women 75 years and older with a mammography screening DA before a PCP visit helps them make more informed screening decisions and leads to fewer women choosing to be screened, suggesting that the DA may help reduce overscreening. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02198690.
Authors: Carol Bennett; Ian D Graham; Elizabeth Kristjansson; Stephen A Kearing; Kate F Clay; Annette M O'Connor Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2009-06-26
Authors: Heidi D Nelson; Rochelle Fu; Amy Cantor; Miranda Pappas; Monica Daeges; Linda Humphrey Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2016-01-12 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Lennarth Nyström; Ingvar Andersson; Nils Bjurstam; Jan Frisell; Bo Nordenskjöld; Lars Erik Rutqvist Journal: Lancet Date: 2002-03-16 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Angela Fagerlin; Brian J Zikmund-Fisher; Peter A Ubel; Aleksandra Jankovic; Holly A Derry; Dylan M Smith Journal: Med Decis Making Date: 2007-07-19 Impact factor: 2.583
Authors: Melissa C Brouwers; Carol De Vito; Lavannya Bahirathan; Angela Carol; June C Carroll; Michelle Cotterchio; Maureen Dobbins; Barbara Lent; Cheryl Levitt; Nancy Lewis; S Elizabeth McGregor; Lawrence Paszat; Carol Rand; Nadine Wathen Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2011-09-29 Impact factor: 7.327
Authors: Jennifer L Moss; Siddhartha Roy; Chan Shen; Joie D Cooper; Robert P Lennon; Eugene J Lengerich; Alan Adelman; William Curry; Mack T Ruffin Journal: JAMA Netw Open Date: 2020-07-01
Authors: Nancy L Schoenborn; Amanda L Blackford; Corinne E Joshu; Cynthia M Boyd; Ravi Varadhan Journal: J Am Geriatr Soc Date: 2021-09-18 Impact factor: 5.562
Authors: Mara A Schonberg; Maria Karamourtopoulos; Alicia R Jacobson; Gianna M Aliberti; Adlin Pinheiro; Alexander K Smith; Roger B Davis; Linnaea C Schuttner; Mary Beth Hamel Journal: Innov Aging Date: 2020-07-07
Authors: Tamara Cadet; Gianna Aliberti; Maria Karamourtopoulos; Alicia Jacobson; Elizabeth A Gilliam; Sara Primeau; Roger Davis; Mara A Schonberg Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2021-02-15
Authors: Rachel A Freedman; Christina A Minami; Eric P Winer; Monica Morrow; Alexander K Smith; Louise C Walter; Mina S Sedrak; Haley Gagnon; Adriana Perilla-Glen; Hans Wildiers; Tanya M Wildes; Stuart M Lichtman; Kah Poh Loh; Etienne G C Brain; Pamela S Ganschow; Kelly K Hunt; Deborah K Mayer; Kathryn J Ruddy; Reshma Jagsi; Nancy U Lin; Beverly Canin; Barbara K LeStage; Anna C Revette; Mara A Schonberg; Nancy L Keating Journal: JAMA Oncol Date: 2021-04-01 Impact factor: 33.006
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