Literature DB >> 32310288

Effect of a Mammography Screening Decision Aid for Women 75 Years and Older: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.

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.   

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.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32310288      PMCID: PMC7171581          DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2020.0440

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  JAMA Intern Med        ISSN: 2168-6106            Impact factor:   21.873


  37 in total

1.  Easy SAS calculations for risk or prevalence ratios and differences.

Authors:  Donna Spiegelman; Ellen Hertzmark
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  2005-06-29       Impact factor: 4.897

2.  Medications to decrease the risk for breast cancer in women: recommendations from the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.

Authors:  Virginia A Moyer
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2013-11-19       Impact factor: 25.391

3.  Validation of a preparation for decision making scale.

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

Review 4.  Effectiveness of Breast Cancer Screening: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis to Update the 2009 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation.

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

Review 5.  Long-term effects of mammography screening: updated overview of the Swedish randomised trials.

Authors:  Lennarth Nyström; Ingvar Andersson; Nils Bjurstam; Jan Frisell; Bo Nordenskjöld; Lars Erik Rutqvist
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2002-03-16       Impact factor: 79.321

6.  Targeting of mammography screening according to life expectancy in women aged 75 and older.

Authors:  Mara A Schonberg; Erica S Breslau; Ellen P McCarthy
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  2013-02-15       Impact factor: 5.562

7.  Measuring numeracy without a math test: development of the Subjective Numeracy Scale.

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

Review 8.  A systematic assessment of benefits and risks to guide breast cancer screening decisions.

Authors:  Lydia E Pace; Nancy L Keating
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2014-04-02       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 9.  Screening mammography in older women: a review.

Authors:  Louise C Walter; Mara A Schonberg
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2014-04-02       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 10.  What implementation interventions increase cancer screening rates? a systematic review.

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

View more
  12 in total

1.  Geographic Variation in Overscreening for Colorectal, Cervical, and Breast Cancer Among Older Adults.

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

2.  Life expectancy estimates based on comorbidities and frailty to inform preventive care.

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

3.  A Strategy to Prepare Primary Care Clinicians for Discussing Stopping Cancer Screening With Adults Older Than 75 Years.

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

Review 4.  Cancer Screening in Older Adults: Individualized Decision-Making and Communication Strategies.

Authors:  Ashwin A Kotwal; Louise C Walter
Journal:  Med Clin North Am       Date:  2020-09-16       Impact factor: 5.456

5.  Association between Breast Cancer Screening Intention and Behavior in the Context of Screening Cessation in Older Women.

Authors:  Nancy L Schoenborn; Adlin Pinheiro; Christine E Kistler; Mara A Schonberg
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2021-01-13       Impact factor: 2.583

6.  Evaluation of a mammography decision aid for women 75 and older at risk for lower health literacy in a pretest-posttest trial.

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

Review 7.  Individualizing Surveillance Mammography for Older Patients After Treatment for Early-Stage Breast Cancer: Multidisciplinary Expert Panel and International Society of Geriatric Oncology Consensus Statement.

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

8.  Primary care provider perspectives on screening mammography in older women: A qualitative study.

Authors:  Sachiko M Oshima; Sarah D Tait; Laura Fish; Rachel A Greenup; Lars J Grimm
Journal:  Prev Med Rep       Date:  2021-04-17

9.  Patient-Reported Factors Associated With Older Adults' Cancer Screening Decision-making: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Jenna Smith; Rachael H Dodd; Karen M Gainey; Vasi Naganathan; Erin Cvejic; Jesse Jansen; Kirsten J McCaffery
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2021-11-01

10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.