Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 1/2024

Open Access 01-12-2024 | Breast Cancer | Research

Communicating the results of risk-based breast cancer screening through visualizations of risk: a participatory design approach

Authors: Inge S. van Strien-Knippenberg, Hannah Arjangi-Babetti, Danielle R. M. Timmermans, Laura Schrauwen, Mirjam P. Fransen, Marijke Melles, Olga C. Damman

Published in: BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making | Issue 1/2024

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Risk-based breast cancer (BC) screening raises new questions regarding information provision and risk communication. This study aimed to: 1) investigate women’s beliefs and knowledge (i.e., mental models) regarding BC risk and (risk-based) BC screening in view of implications for information development; 2) develop novel informational materials to communicate the screening result in risk-based BC screening, including risk visualizations of both quantitative and qualitative information, from a Human-Centered Design perspective.

Methods

Phase 1: Interviews were conducted (n = 15, 40–50 years, 5 lower health literate) on women’s beliefs about BC risk and (risk-based) BC screening. Phase 2: In three participatory design sessions, women (n = 4–6 across sessions, 40–50 years, 2–3 lower health literate) made assignments and created and evaluated visualizations of risk information central to the screening result. Prototypes were evaluated in two additional sessions (n = 2, 54–62 years, 0–1 lower health literate). Phase 3: Experts (n = 5) and women (n = 9, 40–74 years) evaluated the resulting materials. Two other experts were consulted throughout the development process to ensure that the content of the information materials was accurate. Interviews were transcribed literally and analysed using qualitative thematic analysis, focusing on implications for information development. Notes, assignments and materials from the participatory design sessions were summarized and main themes were identified.

Results

Women in both interviews and design sessions were positive about risk-based BC screening, especially because personal risk factors would be taken into account. However, they emphasized that the rationale of risk-based screening and classification into a risk category should be clearly stated and visualized, especially for higher- and lower-risk categories (which may cause anxiety or feelings of unfairness due to a lower screening frequency). Women wanted to know their personal risk, preferably visualized in an icon array, and wanted advice on risk reduction and breast self-examination. However, most risk factors were considered modifiable by women, and the risk factor breast density was not known, implying that information should emphasize that BC risk depends on multiple factors, including breast density.

Conclusions

The information materials, including risk visualizations of both quantitative and qualitative information, developed from a Human-Centered Design perspective and a mental model approach, were positively evaluated by the target group.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
2.
go back to reference de Leede D, van Velzen R. Beleidskader Bevolkingsonderzoeken naar Kanker (Policy Framework for Population Screening for Cancer). 2022. de Leede D, van Velzen R. Beleidskader Bevolkingsonderzoeken naar Kanker (Policy Framework for Population Screening for Cancer). 2022.
3.
go back to reference Bretthauer M, Wieszczy P, Løberg M, Kaminski MF, Werner TF, Helsingen LM, et al. Estimated lifetime gained with cancer screening tests: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. JAMA Intern Med. 2023;183(11):1196–203.PubMedCrossRef Bretthauer M, Wieszczy P, Løberg M, Kaminski MF, Werner TF, Helsingen LM, et al. Estimated lifetime gained with cancer screening tests: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. JAMA Intern Med. 2023;183(11):1196–203.PubMedCrossRef
4.
6.
go back to reference Rainey L, van der Waal D, Broeders MJM. Dutch women’s intended participation in a risk-based breast cancer screening and prevention programme: a survey study identifying preferences, facilitators and barriers. BMC Cancer. 2020;20(1):965.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Rainey L, van der Waal D, Broeders MJM. Dutch women’s intended participation in a risk-based breast cancer screening and prevention programme: a survey study identifying preferences, facilitators and barriers. BMC Cancer. 2020;20(1):965.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
8.
go back to reference Vilaprinyo E, Forné C, Carles M, Sala M, Pla R, Castells X, et al. Cost-effectiveness and harm-benefit analyses of risk-based screening strategies for breast cancer. PLoS One. 2014;9(2):e86858.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Vilaprinyo E, Forné C, Carles M, Sala M, Pla R, Castells X, et al. Cost-effectiveness and harm-benefit analyses of risk-based screening strategies for breast cancer. PLoS One. 2014;9(2):e86858.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
9.
go back to reference Veenhuizen SGA, Lange SVD, Bakker MF, Pijnappel RM, Mann RM, Monninkhof EM, et al. Supplemental breast MRI for women with extremely dense breasts: results of the second screening round of the DENSE Trial. Radiology. 2021;299(2):278–86.PubMedCrossRef Veenhuizen SGA, Lange SVD, Bakker MF, Pijnappel RM, Mann RM, Monninkhof EM, et al. Supplemental breast MRI for women with extremely dense breasts: results of the second screening round of the DENSE Trial. Radiology. 2021;299(2):278–86.PubMedCrossRef
10.
go back to reference Evans DG, Donnelly LS, Harkness EF, Astley SM, Stavrinos P, Dawe S, et al. Breast cancer risk feedback to women in the UK NHS breast screening population. Br J Cancer. 2016;114(9):1045–52.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Evans DG, Donnelly LS, Harkness EF, Astley SM, Stavrinos P, Dawe S, et al. Breast cancer risk feedback to women in the UK NHS breast screening population. Br J Cancer. 2016;114(9):1045–52.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
11.
go back to reference Rainey L, van der Waal D, Wengström Y, Jervaeus A, Broeders MJM. Women’s perceptions of the adoption of personalised risk-based breast cancer screening and primary prevention: a systematic review. Acta Oncol. 2018;57(10):1275–83.PubMedCrossRef Rainey L, van der Waal D, Wengström Y, Jervaeus A, Broeders MJM. Women’s perceptions of the adoption of personalised risk-based breast cancer screening and primary prevention: a systematic review. Acta Oncol. 2018;57(10):1275–83.PubMedCrossRef
12.
go back to reference MbuyaBienge C, Pashayan N, Brooks JD, Dorval M, Chiquette J, Eloy L, et al. Women’s views on multifactorial breast cancer risk assessment and risk-stratified screening: a population-based survey from four provinces in Canada. J Pers Med. 2021;11(2):95.CrossRef MbuyaBienge C, Pashayan N, Brooks JD, Dorval M, Chiquette J, Eloy L, et al. Women’s views on multifactorial breast cancer risk assessment and risk-stratified screening: a population-based survey from four provinces in Canada. J Pers Med. 2021;11(2):95.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Petrova D, Garcia-Retamero R, Cokely ET. Understanding the harms and benefits of cancer screening: a model of factors that shape informed decision making. Med Decis Making. 2015;35(7):847–58.PubMedCrossRef Petrova D, Garcia-Retamero R, Cokely ET. Understanding the harms and benefits of cancer screening: a model of factors that shape informed decision making. Med Decis Making. 2015;35(7):847–58.PubMedCrossRef
14.
go back to reference Rosenbaum L. Invisible risks, emotional choices — mammography and medical decision making. N Engl J Med. 2014;371(16):1549–52.PubMedCrossRef Rosenbaum L. Invisible risks, emotional choices — mammography and medical decision making. N Engl J Med. 2014;371(16):1549–52.PubMedCrossRef
15.
go back to reference Hersch J, Jansen J, McCaffery K. Decision-making about mammographic screening: pursuing informed choice. Climacteric. 2018;21(3):209–13.PubMedCrossRef Hersch J, Jansen J, McCaffery K. Decision-making about mammographic screening: pursuing informed choice. Climacteric. 2018;21(3):209–13.PubMedCrossRef
17.
go back to reference Gigerenzer G, Mata J, Frank R. Public knowledge of benefits of breast and prostate cancer screening in Europe. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101(17):1216–20.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Gigerenzer G, Mata J, Frank R. Public knowledge of benefits of breast and prostate cancer screening in Europe. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2009;101(17):1216–20.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
18.
go back to reference Hersch J, Jansen J, Barratt A, Irwig L, Houssami N, Howard K, et al. Women’s views on overdiagnosis in breast cancer screening: a qualitative study. BMJ. 2013;346:f158.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Hersch J, Jansen J, Barratt A, Irwig L, Houssami N, Howard K, et al. Women’s views on overdiagnosis in breast cancer screening: a qualitative study. BMJ. 2013;346:f158.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
19.
go back to reference Waller J, Douglas E, Whitaker KL, Wardle J. Women’s responses to information about overdiagnosis in the UK breast cancer screening programme: a qualitative study. BMJ Open. 2013;3(4):e002703.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Waller J, Douglas E, Whitaker KL, Wardle J. Women’s responses to information about overdiagnosis in the UK breast cancer screening programme: a qualitative study. BMJ Open. 2013;3(4):e002703.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
20.
go back to reference de Jonge ET, Vlasselaer J, Van de Putte G, Schobbens JC. The construct of breast cancer risk perception: need for a better risk communication? Facts Views Vis Obgyn. 2009;1(2):122–9.PubMedPubMedCentral de Jonge ET, Vlasselaer J, Van de Putte G, Schobbens JC. The construct of breast cancer risk perception: need for a better risk communication? Facts Views Vis Obgyn. 2009;1(2):122–9.PubMedPubMedCentral
21.
go back to reference Peters E. Beyond Comprehension: The Role of Numeracy in Judgments and Decisions. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2012;21(1):31–5.CrossRef Peters E. Beyond Comprehension: The Role of Numeracy in Judgments and Decisions. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2012;21(1):31–5.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Black WC, Welch HG. The Role of Numeracy in Understanding the Benefit of Screening Mammography. Ann Intern Med. 1997;127(11):966–72.PubMedCrossRef Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Black WC, Welch HG. The Role of Numeracy in Understanding the Benefit of Screening Mammography. Ann Intern Med. 1997;127(11):966–72.PubMedCrossRef
23.
go back to reference Davis TC, Williams MV, Marin E, Parker RM, Glass J. Health literacy and cancer communication. CA Cancer J Clin. 2002;52(3):134–49.PubMedCrossRef Davis TC, Williams MV, Marin E, Parker RM, Glass J. Health literacy and cancer communication. CA Cancer J Clin. 2002;52(3):134–49.PubMedCrossRef
24.
go back to reference Fransen MP, Dekker E, Timmermans DRM, Uiters E, Essink-Bot M-L. Accessibility of standardized information of a national colorectal cancer screening program for low health literate screening invitees: A mixed method study. Patient Educ Couns. 2017;100(2):327–36.PubMedCrossRef Fransen MP, Dekker E, Timmermans DRM, Uiters E, Essink-Bot M-L. Accessibility of standardized information of a national colorectal cancer screening program for low health literate screening invitees: A mixed method study. Patient Educ Couns. 2017;100(2):327–36.PubMedCrossRef
25.
go back to reference Vromans RD, van Eenbergen MC, Geleijnse G, Pauws S, van de Poll-Franse LV, Krahmer EJ. Exploring cancer survivor needs and preferences for communicating personalized cancer statistics from registry data: qualitative multimethod study. JMIR Cancer. 2021;7(4):e25659.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Vromans RD, van Eenbergen MC, Geleijnse G, Pauws S, van de Poll-Franse LV, Krahmer EJ. Exploring cancer survivor needs and preferences for communicating personalized cancer statistics from registry data: qualitative multimethod study. JMIR Cancer. 2021;7(4):e25659.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
26.
go back to reference Spiegelhalter D, Pearson M, Short I. Visualizing uncertainty about the future. Science. 2011;333(6048):1393–400.PubMedCrossRef Spiegelhalter D, Pearson M, Short I. Visualizing uncertainty about the future. Science. 2011;333(6048):1393–400.PubMedCrossRef
27.
go back to reference Garcia-Retamero R, Cokely ET. Communicating health risks with visual aids. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2013;22(5):392–9.CrossRef Garcia-Retamero R, Cokely ET. Communicating health risks with visual aids. Curr Dir Psychol Sci. 2013;22(5):392–9.CrossRef
28.
go back to reference Garcia-Retamero R, Galesic M. Who proficts from visual aids: Overcoming challenges in people’s understanding of risks. Soc Sci Med. 2010;70(7):1019–25.PubMedCrossRef Garcia-Retamero R, Galesic M. Who proficts from visual aids: Overcoming challenges in people’s understanding of risks. Soc Sci Med. 2010;70(7):1019–25.PubMedCrossRef
29.
go back to reference Trevena LJ, Bonner C, Okan Y, Peters E, Gaissmaier W, Han PKJ, et al. Current challenges when using numbers in patient decision aids: advanced concepts. Med Decis Making. 2021;2021(4):0272989X21996342. Trevena LJ, Bonner C, Okan Y, Peters E, Gaissmaier W, Han PKJ, et al. Current challenges when using numbers in patient decision aids: advanced concepts. Med Decis Making. 2021;2021(4):0272989X21996342.
30.
go back to reference Garcia-Retamero R, Cokely ET. Designing visual aids that promote risk literacy: a systematic review of health research and evidence-based design heuristics. Hum Factors. 2017;59(4):582–627.PubMedCrossRef Garcia-Retamero R, Cokely ET. Designing visual aids that promote risk literacy: a systematic review of health research and evidence-based design heuristics. Hum Factors. 2017;59(4):582–627.PubMedCrossRef
31.
go back to reference Peters E. Provide Numbers but Reduce Cognitive Effort. Innumeracy in the Wild: Misunderstanding and Misusing Numbers. New York: Oxford University Press; 2020.CrossRef Peters E. Provide Numbers but Reduce Cognitive Effort. Innumeracy in the Wild: Misunderstanding and Misusing Numbers. New York: Oxford University Press; 2020.CrossRef
32.
go back to reference Henneman L, Oosterwijk JC, van Asperen CJ, Menko FH, Ockhuysen-Vermey CF, Kostense PJ, et al. The effectiveness of a graphical presentation in addition to a frequency format in the context of familial breast cancer risk communication: a multicenter controlled trial. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13(1):55.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Henneman L, Oosterwijk JC, van Asperen CJ, Menko FH, Ockhuysen-Vermey CF, Kostense PJ, et al. The effectiveness of a graphical presentation in addition to a frequency format in the context of familial breast cancer risk communication: a multicenter controlled trial. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13(1):55.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
33.
go back to reference Timmermans DRM, Oudhoff J. Weergave van risico’s in de KWF Kanker Risico Test. Weergave populatierisico verhoogt het inzicht. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde. 2012;156(2):A4961.PubMed Timmermans DRM, Oudhoff J. Weergave van risico’s in de KWF Kanker Risico Test. Weergave populatierisico verhoogt het inzicht. Nederlands Tijdschrift voor Geneeskunde. 2012;156(2):A4961.PubMed
34.
go back to reference Bresciani S, Eppler MJ. The pitfalls of visual representations: a review and classification of common errors made while designing and interpreting visualizations. SAGE Open. 2015;5(4):2158244015611451.CrossRef Bresciani S, Eppler MJ. The pitfalls of visual representations: a review and classification of common errors made while designing and interpreting visualizations. SAGE Open. 2015;5(4):2158244015611451.CrossRef
35.
go back to reference Ancker JS, Senathirajah Y, Kukafka R, Starren JB. Design features of graphs in health risk communication: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2006;13(6):608–18.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Ancker JS, Senathirajah Y, Kukafka R, Starren JB. Design features of graphs in health risk communication: a systematic review. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2006;13(6):608–18.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
36.
go back to reference Otten JJ, Cheng K, Drewnowski A. Infographics and public policy: using data visualization to convey complex information. Health Aff. 2015;34(11):1901–7.CrossRef Otten JJ, Cheng K, Drewnowski A. Infographics and public policy: using data visualization to convey complex information. Health Aff. 2015;34(11):1901–7.CrossRef
38.
go back to reference Padilla LM, Creem-Regehr SH, Hegarty M, Stefanucci JK. Decision making with visualizations: a cognitive framework across disciplines. Cogn Res Princ Implic. 2018;3(1):29.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Padilla LM, Creem-Regehr SH, Hegarty M, Stefanucci JK. Decision making with visualizations: a cognitive framework across disciplines. Cogn Res Princ Implic. 2018;3(1):29.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
39.
go back to reference Bayne M, Fairey M, Silarova B, Griffin SJ, Sharp SJ, Klein WMP, et al. Effect of interventions including provision of personalised cancer risk information on accuracy of risk perception and psychological responses: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Patient Educ Couns. 2020;103(1):83–95.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Bayne M, Fairey M, Silarova B, Griffin SJ, Sharp SJ, Klein WMP, et al. Effect of interventions including provision of personalised cancer risk information on accuracy of risk perception and psychological responses: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Patient Educ Couns. 2020;103(1):83–95.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
40.
go back to reference Damman OC, Bogaerts NMM, van den Haak MJ, Timmermans DRM. How lay people understand and make sense of personalized disease risk information. Health Expect. 2017;20(5):973–83.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Damman OC, Bogaerts NMM, van den Haak MJ, Timmermans DRM. How lay people understand and make sense of personalized disease risk information. Health Expect. 2017;20(5):973–83.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
41.
go back to reference Downs JS, de Bruine Bruin W, Fischhoff B, Hesse B, Maibach E. How people think about cancer: a mental models approach. In: O’Hair D, editor. Handbook of risk and crisis communication. Mahwah: Erlbaum; 2009. p. 507–24. Downs JS, de Bruine Bruin W, Fischhoff B, Hesse B, Maibach E. How people think about cancer: a mental models approach. In: O’Hair D, editor. Handbook of risk and crisis communication. Mahwah: Erlbaum; 2009. p. 507–24.
42.
go back to reference Morgan MG, Fischhoff B, Bostrom A, Atman CJ. Risk communication: A mental models approach. Cambridge University Press. 2002. Morgan MG, Fischhoff B, Bostrom A, Atman CJ. Risk communication: A mental models approach. Cambridge University Press. 2002.
43.
go back to reference Holtrop JS, Scherer LD, Matlock DD, Glasgow RE, Green LA. The importance of mental models in implementation science. Front Public Health. 2021;9:680316.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Holtrop JS, Scherer LD, Matlock DD, Glasgow RE, Green LA. The importance of mental models in implementation science. Front Public Health. 2021;9:680316.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
44.
go back to reference Henriksen MJV, Guassora AD, Brodersen J. Preconceptions influence women’s perceptions of information on breast cancer screening: a qualitative study. BMC Res Notes. 2015;8(1):404.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Henriksen MJV, Guassora AD, Brodersen J. Preconceptions influence women’s perceptions of information on breast cancer screening: a qualitative study. BMC Res Notes. 2015;8(1):404.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
45.
go back to reference Melles M, Albayrak A, Goossens R. Innovating health care: key characteristics of human-centered design. Int J Qual Health Care. 2020;33(Supplement_1):37–44.PubMedCentralCrossRef Melles M, Albayrak A, Goossens R. Innovating health care: key characteristics of human-centered design. Int J Qual Health Care. 2020;33(Supplement_1):37–44.PubMedCentralCrossRef
46.
go back to reference Sanders EBN, Stappers PJ. Convivial toolbox: Generative research for the front end of design. Bis. 2012. Sanders EBN, Stappers PJ. Convivial toolbox: Generative research for the front end of design. Bis. 2012.
47.
go back to reference Silverman E, Woloshin S, Schwartz LM, Byram SJ, Welch HG, Fischhoff B. Women’s views on breast cancer risk and screening mammography: a qualitative interview study. Med Decis Making. 2001;21(3):231–40.PubMedCrossRef Silverman E, Woloshin S, Schwartz LM, Byram SJ, Welch HG, Fischhoff B. Women’s views on breast cancer risk and screening mammography: a qualitative interview study. Med Decis Making. 2001;21(3):231–40.PubMedCrossRef
48.
go back to reference Jones SC, Magee CA, Barrie LR, Iverson DC, Gregory P, Hanks EL, et al. Australian women’s perceptions of breast cancer risk factors and the risk of developing breast cancer. Womens Health Issues. 2011;21(5):353–60.PubMedCrossRef Jones SC, Magee CA, Barrie LR, Iverson DC, Gregory P, Hanks EL, et al. Australian women’s perceptions of breast cancer risk factors and the risk of developing breast cancer. Womens Health Issues. 2011;21(5):353–60.PubMedCrossRef
49.
go back to reference Rainey L, Jervaeus A, Donnelly LS, Evans DG, Hammarström M, Hall P, et al. Women’s perceptions of personalized risk-based breast cancer screening and prevention: an international focus group study. Psychooncology. 2019;28(5):1056–62.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Rainey L, Jervaeus A, Donnelly LS, Evans DG, Hammarström M, Hall P, et al. Women’s perceptions of personalized risk-based breast cancer screening and prevention: an international focus group study. Psychooncology. 2019;28(5):1056–62.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
50.
go back to reference Henneman L, Timmermans DR, Bouwman CM, Cornel MC, Meijers-Heijboer H. ‘A Low risk is still a risk’: exploring women’s attitudes towards genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility in order to target disease prevention. Public Health Genomics. 2010;14(4–5):238–47.PubMed Henneman L, Timmermans DR, Bouwman CM, Cornel MC, Meijers-Heijboer H. ‘A Low risk is still a risk’: exploring women’s attitudes towards genetic testing for breast cancer susceptibility in order to target disease prevention. Public Health Genomics. 2010;14(4–5):238–47.PubMed
51.
go back to reference Fransen MP, Leenaars KE, Rowlands G, Weiss BD, Maat HP, Essink-Bot ML. International application of health literacy measures: adaptation and validation of the newest vital sign in The Netherlands. Patient Educ Couns. 2014;97(3):403–9.PubMedCrossRef Fransen MP, Leenaars KE, Rowlands G, Weiss BD, Maat HP, Essink-Bot ML. International application of health literacy measures: adaptation and validation of the newest vital sign in The Netherlands. Patient Educ Couns. 2014;97(3):403–9.PubMedCrossRef
52.
go back to reference van der Vaart R, Drossaert CHC, Taal E, ten Klooster PM, Hilderink-Koertshuis RTE, Klaase JM, van de Laar MAFJ. Validation of the Dutch functional, communicative and critical health literacy scales. Patient Educ Couns. 2012;89(1):82–8.PubMedCrossRef van der Vaart R, Drossaert CHC, Taal E, ten Klooster PM, Hilderink-Koertshuis RTE, Klaase JM, van de Laar MAFJ. Validation of the Dutch functional, communicative and critical health literacy scales. Patient Educ Couns. 2012;89(1):82–8.PubMedCrossRef
53.
go back to reference Fransen MP, Van Schaik TM, Twickler TB, Essink-Bot ML. Applicability of Internationally Available Health Literacy Measures in the Netherlands. J Health Commun. 2011;16(sup3):134–49.PubMedCrossRef Fransen MP, Van Schaik TM, Twickler TB, Essink-Bot ML. Applicability of Internationally Available Health Literacy Measures in the Netherlands. J Health Commun. 2011;16(sup3):134–49.PubMedCrossRef
54.
go back to reference van Boeijen ADJ, Zijlstra J, van der Schoor R. Delft Design Guide: Design strategies and methods. Amsterdam: BIS Publishers; 2013. van Boeijen ADJ, Zijlstra J, van der Schoor R. Delft Design Guide: Design strategies and methods. Amsterdam: BIS Publishers; 2013.
55.
go back to reference Visser FS, Stappers PJ, van der Lugt R, Sanders EBN. Contextmapping: experiences from practice. CoDesign. 2005;1(2):119–49.CrossRef Visser FS, Stappers PJ, van der Lugt R, Sanders EBN. Contextmapping: experiences from practice. CoDesign. 2005;1(2):119–49.CrossRef
56.
go back to reference Taylor LC, Hutchinson A, Law K, Shah V, Usher-Smith JA, Dennison RA. Acceptability of risk stratification within population-based cancer screening from the perspective of the general public: A mixed-methods systematic review. Health Expect. 2023;26(3):989–1008.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Taylor LC, Hutchinson A, Law K, Shah V, Usher-Smith JA, Dennison RA. Acceptability of risk stratification within population-based cancer screening from the perspective of the general public: A mixed-methods systematic review. Health Expect. 2023;26(3):989–1008.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
57.
go back to reference Stiggelbout A, Copp T, Jacklyn G, Jansen J, Liefers GJ, McCaffery K, Hersch J. Women’s acceptance of Overdetection in breast cancer screening: can we assess harm-benefit tradeoffs? Med Decis Making. 2020;40(1):42–51.PubMedCrossRef Stiggelbout A, Copp T, Jacklyn G, Jansen J, Liefers GJ, McCaffery K, Hersch J. Women’s acceptance of Overdetection in breast cancer screening: can we assess harm-benefit tradeoffs? Med Decis Making. 2020;40(1):42–51.PubMedCrossRef
58.
go back to reference Dennison RA, Taylor LC, Morris S, Boscott RA, Harrison H, Moorthie SA, Rossi SH, Stewart GD, Usher-Smith JA. Public Preferences for Determining Eligibility for Screening in Risk-Stratified Cancer Screening Programs: A Discrete Choice Experiment. Med Decis Making. 2023;43(3):374–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X231155790. Dennison RA, Taylor LC, Morris S, Boscott RA, Harrison H, Moorthie SA, Rossi SH, Stewart GD, Usher-Smith JA. Public Preferences for Determining Eligibility for Screening in Risk-Stratified Cancer Screening Programs: A Discrete Choice Experiment. Med Decis Making. 2023;43(3):374–86. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​0272989X23115579​0.
59.
go back to reference Leventhal H, Phillips LA, Burns E. The Common-Sense Model of Self-Regulation (CSM): a dynamic framework for understanding illness self-management. J Behav Med. 2016;39(6):935–46.PubMedCrossRef Leventhal H, Phillips LA, Burns E. The Common-Sense Model of Self-Regulation (CSM): a dynamic framework for understanding illness self-management. J Behav Med. 2016;39(6):935–46.PubMedCrossRef
60.
go back to reference Scherer LD, Ubel PA, McClure J, Greene SM, Alford SH, Holtzman L, et al. Belief in numbers: When and why women disbelieve tailored breast cancer risk statistics. Patient Educ Couns. 2013;92(2):253–9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Scherer LD, Ubel PA, McClure J, Greene SM, Alford SH, Holtzman L, et al. Belief in numbers: When and why women disbelieve tailored breast cancer risk statistics. Patient Educ Couns. 2013;92(2):253–9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
61.
go back to reference Bonner C, Jansen J, Newell BR, Irwig L, Glasziou P, Doust J, et al. I don’t believe it, but i’d better do something about it: patient experiences of online heart age risk calculators. J Med Internet Res. 2014;16(5):e120.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Bonner C, Jansen J, Newell BR, Irwig L, Glasziou P, Doust J, et al. I don’t believe it, but i’d better do something about it: patient experiences of online heart age risk calculators. J Med Internet Res. 2014;16(5):e120.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
62.
go back to reference Røssell EL, Bo A, Grønborg TK, Kristiansen IS, Borgquist S, Scherer LD, Støvring H. Danish Women Want to Participate in a Hypothetical Breast Cancer Screening with Harms and No Reduction in Mortality: A Cross-Sectional Survey. Med Decis Making. 2023;43(4):403–16. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272989X231152830. Røssell EL, Bo A, Grønborg TK, Kristiansen IS, Borgquist S, Scherer LD, Støvring H. Danish Women Want to Participate in a Hypothetical Breast Cancer Screening with Harms and No Reduction in Mortality: A Cross-Sectional Survey. Med Decis Making. 2023;43(4):403–16. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​0272989X23115283​0.
63.
go back to reference Buxton JA, Bottorff JL, Balneaves LG, Richardson C, McCullum M, Ratner PA, Hack T. Women’s perceptions of breast cancer risk: are they accurate? Can J Public Health. 2003;94(6):422–6.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Buxton JA, Bottorff JL, Balneaves LG, Richardson C, McCullum M, Ratner PA, Hack T. Women’s perceptions of breast cancer risk: are they accurate? Can J Public Health. 2003;94(6):422–6.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
64.
go back to reference He X, Schifferdecker KE, Ozanne EM, Tosteson ANA, Woloshin S, Schwartz LM. How do women view risk-based mammography screening? A qualitative study. J Gen Intern Med. 2018;33(11):1905–12.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef He X, Schifferdecker KE, Ozanne EM, Tosteson ANA, Woloshin S, Schwartz LM. How do women view risk-based mammography screening? A qualitative study. J Gen Intern Med. 2018;33(11):1905–12.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
65.
go back to reference Waters EA, Taber JM, McQueen A, Housten AJ, Studts JL, Scherer LD. Translating cancer risk prediction models into personalized cancer risk assessment tools: stumbling blocks and strategies for success. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2020;29(12):2389–94.CrossRef Waters EA, Taber JM, McQueen A, Housten AJ, Studts JL, Scherer LD. Translating cancer risk prediction models into personalized cancer risk assessment tools: stumbling blocks and strategies for success. Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev. 2020;29(12):2389–94.CrossRef
66.
go back to reference Gorman LS, Ruane H, Woof VG, Southworth J, Ulph F, Evans DG, French DP. The co-development of personalised 10-year breast cancer risk communications: a ‘think-aloud’ study. BMC Cancer. 2022;22(1):1264.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Gorman LS, Ruane H, Woof VG, Southworth J, Ulph F, Evans DG, French DP. The co-development of personalised 10-year breast cancer risk communications: a ‘think-aloud’ study. BMC Cancer. 2022;22(1):1264.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
67.
go back to reference McWilliams L, Ruane H, Ulph F, Woof VG, Harrison F, Evans DG, French DP. What do women think about having received their breast cancer risk as part of a risk-stratified NHS Breast Screening Programme? A qualitative study. Br J Cancer. 2023;129(2):356–65.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef McWilliams L, Ruane H, Ulph F, Woof VG, Harrison F, Evans DG, French DP. What do women think about having received their breast cancer risk as part of a risk-stratified NHS Breast Screening Programme? A qualitative study. Br J Cancer. 2023;129(2):356–65.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Communicating the results of risk-based breast cancer screening through visualizations of risk: a participatory design approach
Authors
Inge S. van Strien-Knippenberg
Hannah Arjangi-Babetti
Danielle R. M. Timmermans
Laura Schrauwen
Mirjam P. Fransen
Marijke Melles
Olga C. Damman
Publication date
01-12-2024
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making / Issue 1/2024
Electronic ISSN: 1472-6947
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12911-024-02483-6

Other articles of this Issue 1/2024

BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making 1/2024 Go to the issue