Literature DB >> 35015260

Perceptions of Conflicting Breast Cancer Screening Recommendations Among Racially/Ethnically Diverse Women: a Multimethod Study.

Ashley J Housten1, Diana S Hoover2, Maggie Britton3, Therese B Bevers4, Richard L Street5, Lorna H McNeill2, Larkin L Strong2, Jolyn Hersch6, Kirsten McCaffery6, Robert J Volk7.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Conflicting breast cancer screening recommendations have the potential to diminish informed decision making about screening.
OBJECTIVE: We examined the knowledge, attitudes, and intentions related to divergent recommendations for breast cancer screening among racially/ethnically diverse women.
DESIGN: We used a multimethod study design employing focus groups and questionnaires. Focus groups included: (1) two 10-min presentations on the national screening recommendations and the potential benefits and harms of screening and (2) an interactive discussion. Data were collected: 8/3/2017 to 11/19/2019. Analysis occurred from 1/21/2019 to 7/24/2020. PARTICIPANTS: Participants were (1) women 40-75 years; (2) English or Spanish speaking; (3)self-identified as Latina, Black, or non-Latina White; and (4) no known increased risk for breast cancer. MAIN MEASURES: Main outcomes were participants' knowledge and perceptions of benefits and harms of screening mammography and their screening intentions. Focus groups were transcribed and analyzed using a qualitative descriptive approach. Quantitative data were summarized using descriptive statistics. KEY
RESULTS: One hundred thirty-four women (n=52, 40-49 years; n=82, 50-75 years) participated in 28 focus groups. Participants were Latina (n=44); Black (n=51); and non-Latina White (n=39). Approximately one-quarter (n=32) had limited health literacy and almost one-fifth (n=23) had limited numeracy. In the context of differing national screening recommendations, participants questioned the motives of the recommendation-making agencies, including the role of costs and how costs were considered when making screening recommendations. Participants expressed concern that they were not represented (e.g., race/ethnicity) in the data informing the recommendations. Immediately following the focus groups, most participants expressed intention to screen within the upcoming year (pre n=100 vs. post n=107).
CONCLUSIONS: Divergent breast cancer screening recommendations may lead to mistrust and paradoxically reinforce high overall enthusiasm for screening.
© 2022. The Author(s) under exclusive licence to Society of General Internal Medicine.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Cancer; Health disparities; Health literacy; Mammography; Oncology; Qualitative research

Mesh:

Year:  2022        PMID: 35015260      PMCID: PMC8971222          DOI: 10.1007/s11606-021-07336-w

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Gen Intern Med        ISSN: 0884-8734            Impact factor:   6.473


  37 in total

1.  Screening mammography--a long run for a short slide?

Authors:  H Gilbert Welch
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2010-09-23       Impact factor: 91.245

2.  JAMA PATIENT PAGE. Breast Cancer Screening Guidelines in the United States.

Authors:  Jill Jin
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2015-10-20       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 3.  The harms of screening: a proposed taxonomy and application to lung cancer screening.

Authors:  Russell P Harris; Stacey L Sheridan; Carmen L Lewis; Colleen Barclay; Maihan B Vu; Christine E Kistler; Carol E Golin; Jessica T DeFrank; Noel T Brewer
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2014-02-01       Impact factor: 21.873

4.  The 2009 breast cancer screening recommendations of the US Preventive Services Task Force.

Authors:  Steven H Woolf
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2010-01-13       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 5.  Conundrums in screening for cancer.

Authors:  Anthony B Miller
Journal:  Int J Cancer       Date:  2010-03-01       Impact factor: 7.396

6.  How do we achieve informed choice for women considering breast screening?

Authors:  Jolyn Hersch; Jesse Jansen; Les Irwig; Alexandra Barratt; Hazel Thornton; Kirsten Howard; Kirsten McCaffery
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2011-06-24       Impact factor: 4.018

7.  Breast Cancer Screening in 2018: Time for Shared Decision Making.

Authors:  Nancy L Keating; Lydia E Pace
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2018-05-01       Impact factor: 56.272

8.  Quantifying the benefits and harms of screening mammography.

Authors:  H Gilbert Welch; Honor J Passow
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2014-03       Impact factor: 21.873

9.  Breast Cancer Screening for Women at Average Risk: 2015 Guideline Update From the American Cancer Society.

Authors:  Kevin C Oeffinger; Elizabeth T H Fontham; Ruth Etzioni; Abbe Herzig; James S Michaelson; Ya-Chen Tina Shih; Louise C Walter; Timothy R Church; Christopher R Flowers; Samuel J LaMonte; Andrew M D Wolf; Carol DeSantis; Joannie Lortet-Tieulent; Kimberly Andrews; Deana Manassaram-Baptiste; Debbie Saslow; Robert A Smith; Otis W Brawley; Richard Wender
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2015-10-20       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 10.  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

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.