Skip to main content
Top
Published in: BMC Public Health 1/2024

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

Would shared decision-making be useful in breast cancer screening programmes? A qualitative study using focus group discussions to gather evidence from French women with different socioeconomic backgrounds

Authors: Laureline Guigon, Laura X. Gil Sánchez, Anne-Sophie Petit, Alice Le Bonniec, Partha Basu, Christelle M. Rodrigue, Marie Préau, Patricia Soler-Michel, Patricia Villain

Published in: BMC Public Health | Issue 1/2024

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

To inform the development of an online tool to be potentially used in shared decision-making about breast cancer screening, French women were questioned about participation in breast cancer screening, the health professional’s role, and their perceptions of the proposed tool.

Methods

We organised focus group discussions with 55 French women. Two different strategies were used to recruit women from high and low socioeconomic backgrounds. We applied both inductive and deductive approaches to conduct a thematic analysis of the discussions. We analysed the responses by using the main determinants from different health behaviour models and compared the two groups.

Results

Independently of socioeconomic status, the most important determinant for a woman’s participation in breast cancer screening was the perceived severity of breast cancer and the perceived benefits of its early detection by screening. Cues to action reported by both groups were invitation letters; recommendations by health professionals, or group/community activities and public events were reported by women from high and low socioeconomic backgrounds, respectively. Among other positive determinants, women from high socioeconomic backgrounds reported making informed decisions and receiving peer support whereas women from low socioeconomic backgrounds reported community empowerment through group/community events. Fear of cancer was reported as a barrier in both groups. Among other barriers, language issues were reported only by women from low socioeconomic backgrounds; women from high socioeconomic backgrounds reported breast cancer screening-related risks other than overdiagnosis and/or overtreatment. Barriers to accessing the online tool to be developed were mainly reported by women from high socioeconomic backgrounds.

Conclusion

Limitations in implementing shared decision-making for women from low socioeconomic backgrounds were highlighted. An online tool that is suitable for all women, regardless of socioeconomic status, would provide “on-demand” reliable and tailored information about breast cancer screening and improve access to health professionals and social exchanges.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Ferlay J, Colombet M, Soerjomataram I, Parkin DM, Piñeros M, Znaor A et al. Cancer statistics for the year 2020: an overview. Int J Cancer. 2021. Ferlay J, Colombet M, Soerjomataram I, Parkin DM, Piñeros M, Znaor A et al. Cancer statistics for the year 2020: an overview. Int J Cancer. 2021.
2.
go back to reference Proposal. for a Council Recommendation on cancer screening. European Union Council. 2003. Proposal. for a Council Recommendation on cancer screening. European Union Council. 2003.
3.
go back to reference Zielonke N, Kregting LM, Heijnsdijk EAM, Veerus P, Heinävaara S, McKee M, et al. The potential of breast cancer screening in Europe. Int J Cancer. 2021;148(2):406–18.PubMedCrossRef Zielonke N, Kregting LM, Heijnsdijk EAM, Veerus P, Heinävaara S, McKee M, et al. The potential of breast cancer screening in Europe. Int J Cancer. 2021;148(2):406–18.PubMedCrossRef
5.
go back to reference Rogel A, Plaine J, Quintin C, de Maria F. Participation Au programme de dépistage organisé du cancer du sein entre 2005 et 2021 en France. Bull Épidémiol Hebd. 2023;14:255–65. Rogel A, Plaine J, Quintin C, de Maria F. Participation Au programme de dépistage organisé du cancer du sein entre 2005 et 2021 en France. Bull Épidémiol Hebd. 2023;14:255–65.
6.
go back to reference Autier P. [Screening for breast cancer: worries about its effectiveness]. Rev Prat. 2013;63(10):1369–77.PubMed Autier P. [Screening for breast cancer: worries about its effectiveness]. Rev Prat. 2013;63(10):1369–77.PubMed
7.
go back to reference Pivot X, Viguier J, Touboul C, Morère JF, Blay JY, Coscas Y et al. Breast cancer screening controversy: too much or not enough? Eur J Cancer Prev. 2015;24 Suppl:S73-6. Pivot X, Viguier J, Touboul C, Morère JF, Blay JY, Coscas Y et al. Breast cancer screening controversy: too much or not enough? Eur J Cancer Prev. 2015;24 Suppl:S73-6.
13.
go back to reference Institut national du. cancer (INCa)_Santé publique. Accompagnement des politiques de prévention et de dépistage des cancers. Soutien aux projets et actions pour améliorer la prévention, le dépistage et la détection précoce des cancers. DEPREV 2018 [Accessed 30 october 2023]. Institut national du. cancer (INCa)_Santé publique. Accompagnement des politiques de prévention et de dépistage des cancers. Soutien aux projets et actions pour améliorer la prévention, le dépistage et la détection précoce des cancers. DEPREV 2018 [Accessed 30 october 2023].
14.
go back to reference Burnside ES, Schrager S, DuBenske L, Keevil J, Little T, Trentham-Dietz A et al. Team Science principles Enhance Cancer Care Delivery Quality Improvement: interdisciplinary implementation of breast Cancer Screening Shared decision making. JCO Oncol Pract. 2022:Op2200355. Burnside ES, Schrager S, DuBenske L, Keevil J, Little T, Trentham-Dietz A et al. Team Science principles Enhance Cancer Care Delivery Quality Improvement: interdisciplinary implementation of breast Cancer Screening Shared decision making. JCO Oncol Pract. 2022:Op2200355.
15.
go back to reference Légaré F, Stacey D, Pouliot S, Gauvin FP, Desroches S, Kryworuchko J, et al. Interprofessionalism and shared decision-making in primary care: a stepwise approach towards a new model. J Interprof Care. 2011;25(1):18–25.PubMedCrossRef Légaré F, Stacey D, Pouliot S, Gauvin FP, Desroches S, Kryworuchko J, et al. Interprofessionalism and shared decision-making in primary care: a stepwise approach towards a new model. J Interprof Care. 2011;25(1):18–25.PubMedCrossRef
16.
go back to reference Elwyn G, O’Connor A, Stacey D, Volk R, Edwards A, Coulter A, et al. Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process. BMJ. 2006;333(7565):417.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Elwyn G, O’Connor A, Stacey D, Volk R, Edwards A, Coulter A, et al. Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process. BMJ. 2006;333(7565):417.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
17.
go back to reference Joseph-Williams N, Newcombe R, Politi M, Durand MA, Sivell S, Stacey D, et al. Toward Minimum standards for certifying patient decision aids: a modified Delphi Consensus process. Med Decis Making. 2014;34(6):699–710.PubMedCrossRef Joseph-Williams N, Newcombe R, Politi M, Durand MA, Sivell S, Stacey D, et al. Toward Minimum standards for certifying patient decision aids: a modified Delphi Consensus process. Med Decis Making. 2014;34(6):699–710.PubMedCrossRef
18.
go back to reference Stacey D, Légaré F, Lewis K, Barry MJ, Bennett CL, Eden KB, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;4(4):Cd001431.PubMed Stacey D, Légaré F, Lewis K, Barry MJ, Bennett CL, Eden KB, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;4(4):Cd001431.PubMed
19.
go back to reference McAlpine K, Lewis KB, Trevena LJ, Stacey D. What is the effectiveness of patient decision aids for Cancer-related decisions? A systematic review Subanalysis. JCO Clin Cancer Inf. 2018(2):1–13. McAlpine K, Lewis KB, Trevena LJ, Stacey D. What is the effectiveness of patient decision aids for Cancer-related decisions? A systematic review Subanalysis. JCO Clin Cancer Inf. 2018(2):1–13.
20.
go back to reference Martínez-Alonso M, Carles-Lavila M, Pérez-Lacasta MJ, Pons-Rodríguez A, Garcia M, Rué M. Assessment of the effects of decision aids about breast cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2017;7(10):e016894.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Martínez-Alonso M, Carles-Lavila M, Pérez-Lacasta MJ, Pons-Rodríguez A, Garcia M, Rué M. Assessment of the effects of decision aids about breast cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2017;7(10):e016894.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
21.
go back to reference Ivlev I, Hickman EN, McDonagh MS, Eden KB. Use of patient decision aids increased younger women’s reluctance to begin screening mammography: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Gen Intern Med. 2017;32(7):803–12.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Ivlev I, Hickman EN, McDonagh MS, Eden KB. Use of patient decision aids increased younger women’s reluctance to begin screening mammography: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Gen Intern Med. 2017;32(7):803–12.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
22.
go back to reference Hashem F, Calnan MW, Brown PR. Decision making in NICE single technological appraisals: how does NICE incorporate patient perspectives? Health Expect. 2018;21(1):128–37.PubMedCrossRef Hashem F, Calnan MW, Brown PR. Decision making in NICE single technological appraisals: how does NICE incorporate patient perspectives? Health Expect. 2018;21(1):128–37.PubMedCrossRef
23.
go back to reference Holmes-Rovner M, Srikanth A, Henry SG, Langford A, Rovner DR, Fagerlin A. Decision aid use during post-biopsy consultations for localized prostate cancer. Health Expect. 2018;21(1):279–87.PubMedCrossRef Holmes-Rovner M, Srikanth A, Henry SG, Langford A, Rovner DR, Fagerlin A. Decision aid use during post-biopsy consultations for localized prostate cancer. Health Expect. 2018;21(1):279–87.PubMedCrossRef
24.
go back to reference Leppin AL, Kunneman M, Hathaway J, Fernandez C, Montori VM, Tilburt JC. Getting on the same page: communication, patient involvement and shared understanding of decisions in oncology. Health Expect. 2018;21(1):110–7.PubMedCrossRef Leppin AL, Kunneman M, Hathaway J, Fernandez C, Montori VM, Tilburt JC. Getting on the same page: communication, patient involvement and shared understanding of decisions in oncology. Health Expect. 2018;21(1):110–7.PubMedCrossRef
25.
go back to reference Menear M, Garvelink MM, Adekpedjou R, Perez MMB, Robitaille H, Turcotte S, et al. Factors associated with shared decision making among primary care physicians: findings from a multicentre cross-sectional study. Health Expect. 2018;21(1):212–21.PubMedCrossRef Menear M, Garvelink MM, Adekpedjou R, Perez MMB, Robitaille H, Turcotte S, et al. Factors associated with shared decision making among primary care physicians: findings from a multicentre cross-sectional study. Health Expect. 2018;21(1):212–21.PubMedCrossRef
26.
go back to reference Villain P. The Canelles project: an online tool to be used as decision aid with or without shared decision making facilitating social interactions with women and communications with health professionals in breast cancer screening, grant nr. DEP18-066. Institut National du Cancer (INCa); 2018. Villain P. The Canelles project: an online tool to be used as decision aid with or without shared decision making facilitating social interactions with women and communications with health professionals in breast cancer screening, grant nr. DEP18-066. Institut National du Cancer (INCa); 2018.
27.
go back to reference Yu L, Li P, Yang S, Guo P, Zhang X, Liu N, et al. Web-based decision aids to support breast cancer screening decisions: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Comp Eff Res. 2020;9(14):985–1002.PubMedCrossRef Yu L, Li P, Yang S, Guo P, Zhang X, Liu N, et al. Web-based decision aids to support breast cancer screening decisions: systematic review and meta-analysis. J Comp Eff Res. 2020;9(14):985–1002.PubMedCrossRef
28.
go back to reference Coulter A, Stilwell D, Kryworuchko J, Mullen PD, Ng CJ, van der Weijden T. A systematic development process for patient decision aids. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13(Suppl 2):2.CrossRef Coulter A, Stilwell D, Kryworuchko J, Mullen PD, Ng CJ, van der Weijden T. A systematic development process for patient decision aids. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2013;13(Suppl 2):2.CrossRef
29.
go back to reference Witteman HO, Maki KG, Vaisson G, Finderup J, Lewis KB, Dahl Steffensen K, et al. Systematic development of patient decision aids: an update from the IPDAS collaboration. Med Decis Making. 2021;41(7):736–54.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Witteman HO, Maki KG, Vaisson G, Finderup J, Lewis KB, Dahl Steffensen K, et al. Systematic development of patient decision aids: an update from the IPDAS collaboration. Med Decis Making. 2021;41(7):736–54.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
30.
go back to reference Glasgow RE, Vogt TM, Boles SM. Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework. Am J Public Health. 1999;89(9):1322–7.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Glasgow RE, Vogt TM, Boles SM. Evaluating the public health impact of health promotion interventions: the RE-AIM framework. Am J Public Health. 1999;89(9):1322–7.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
31.
go back to reference Holtrop JS, Estabrooks PA, Gaglio B, Harden SM, Kessler RS, King DK, et al. Understanding and applying the RE-AIM framework: clarifications and resources. J Clin Translational Sci. 2021;5(1):e126.CrossRef Holtrop JS, Estabrooks PA, Gaglio B, Harden SM, Kessler RS, King DK, et al. Understanding and applying the RE-AIM framework: clarifications and resources. J Clin Translational Sci. 2021;5(1):e126.CrossRef
32.
go back to reference Glasgow RE, Harden SM, Gaglio B, Rabin B, Smith ML, Porter GC et al. RE-AIM planning and evaluation Framework: adapting to New Science and Practice with a 20-Year review. Front Public Health. 2019;7. Glasgow RE, Harden SM, Gaglio B, Rabin B, Smith ML, Porter GC et al. RE-AIM planning and evaluation Framework: adapting to New Science and Practice with a 20-Year review. Front Public Health. 2019;7.
33.
go back to reference Kalecinski J, Régnier-Denois V, Ouédraogo S, Dabakuyo-Yonli TS, Dumas A, Arveux P, et al. Dépistage organisé Ou Individuel Du cancer Du Sein? Attitudes et représentations des femmes. Santé Publique. 2015;27(2):213–20.PubMedCrossRef Kalecinski J, Régnier-Denois V, Ouédraogo S, Dabakuyo-Yonli TS, Dumas A, Arveux P, et al. Dépistage organisé Ou Individuel Du cancer Du Sein? Attitudes et représentations des femmes. Santé Publique. 2015;27(2):213–20.PubMedCrossRef
34.
go back to reference Lochmann M, Guedj M. Approche qualitative Des motifs à Accepter Ou à Refuser La réalisation D’une mammographie: l’apport de la théorie du renversement. Psycho-Oncologie. 2021;15. Lochmann M, Guedj M. Approche qualitative Des motifs à Accepter Ou à Refuser La réalisation D’une mammographie: l’apport de la théorie du renversement. Psycho-Oncologie. 2021;15.
35.
go back to reference Mascara M, Constantinou C. Global perceptions of women on breast Cancer and barriers to Screening. Curr Oncol Rep. 2021;23(7):74.PubMedCrossRef Mascara M, Constantinou C. Global perceptions of women on breast Cancer and barriers to Screening. Curr Oncol Rep. 2021;23(7):74.PubMedCrossRef
36.
go back to reference Özkan İ, Taylan S. Barriers to women’s breast cancer screening behaviors in several countries: a meta-synthesis study. Health Care Women Int. 2021;42(7–9):1013–43.PubMedCrossRef Özkan İ, Taylan S. Barriers to women’s breast cancer screening behaviors in several countries: a meta-synthesis study. Health Care Women Int. 2021;42(7–9):1013–43.PubMedCrossRef
37.
go back to reference Lemmo D, Martino ML, Vallone F, Donizzetti AR, Freda MF, Palumbo F, et al. Clinical and psychosocial constructs for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening participation: a systematic review. Int J Clin Health Psychol. 2023;23(2):100354.PubMedCrossRef Lemmo D, Martino ML, Vallone F, Donizzetti AR, Freda MF, Palumbo F, et al. Clinical and psychosocial constructs for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening participation: a systematic review. Int J Clin Health Psychol. 2023;23(2):100354.PubMedCrossRef
38.
go back to reference Mandrik O, Tolma E, Zielonke N, Meheus F, Ordóñez-Reyes C, Severens JL, et al. Systematic reviews as a lens of evidence: determinants of participation in breast cancer screening. J Med Screen. 2021;28(2):70–9.PubMedCrossRef Mandrik O, Tolma E, Zielonke N, Meheus F, Ordóñez-Reyes C, Severens JL, et al. Systematic reviews as a lens of evidence: determinants of participation in breast cancer screening. J Med Screen. 2021;28(2):70–9.PubMedCrossRef
39.
go back to reference Conway DI, McMahon AD, Brown D et al. Measuring socioeconomic status and inequalities. In: Vaccarella S, Lortet-Tieulent J, Saracci R, editors. Reducing social inequalities in cancer: evidence and priorities for research. Lyon (FR): International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2019. (IARC Scientific Publications, No. 168.) Chap. 4. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK566205/. Conway DI, McMahon AD, Brown D et al. Measuring socioeconomic status and inequalities. In: Vaccarella S, Lortet-Tieulent J, Saracci R, editors. Reducing social inequalities in cancer: evidence and priorities for research. Lyon (FR): International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2019. (IARC Scientific Publications, No. 168.) Chap. 4. Available from: https://​www.​ncbi.​nlm.​nih.​gov/​books/​NBK566205/​.
40.
go back to reference Deborde T, Chatignoux E, Quintin C, Beltzer N, Hamers FF, Rogel A. Breast cancer screening programme participation and socioeconomic deprivation in France. Prev Med. 2018;115:53–60.PubMedCrossRef Deborde T, Chatignoux E, Quintin C, Beltzer N, Hamers FF, Rogel A. Breast cancer screening programme participation and socioeconomic deprivation in France. Prev Med. 2018;115:53–60.PubMedCrossRef
41.
go back to reference Mottram R, Knerr WL, Gallacher D, Fraser H, Al-Khudairy L, Ayorinde A, et al. Factors associated with attendance at screening for breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2021;11(11):e046660.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Mottram R, Knerr WL, Gallacher D, Fraser H, Al-Khudairy L, Ayorinde A, et al. Factors associated with attendance at screening for breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2021;11(11):e046660.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
42.
go back to reference Smith D, Thomson K, Bambra C, Todd A. The breast cancer paradox: a systematic review of the association between area-level deprivation and breast cancer screening uptake in Europe. Cancer Epidemiol. 2019;60:77–85.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Smith D, Thomson K, Bambra C, Todd A. The breast cancer paradox: a systematic review of the association between area-level deprivation and breast cancer screening uptake in Europe. Cancer Epidemiol. 2019;60:77–85.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
43.
go back to reference Jusot F, Goldzahl L. Les déterminants Du Recours régulier Au dépistage Du cancer Du sein en France. Revue française d’économie. 2016;XXXI(4):109–52. Jusot F, Goldzahl L. Les déterminants Du Recours régulier Au dépistage Du cancer Du sein en France. Revue française d’économie. 2016;XXXI(4):109–52.
44.
go back to reference Rosenstock IM. The health belief model: explaining health behaviorthrough expectancies. In: Glanz K, Lewis FM, Rimer BK, editors. Health behavior and health education: theory, research, and practice. San Francisco, CA: jossey-Bass Publishers; 1990. pp. 39–62. Rosenstock IM. The health belief model: explaining health behaviorthrough expectancies. In: Glanz K, Lewis FM, Rimer BK, editors. Health behavior and health education: theory, research, and practice. San Francisco, CA: jossey-Bass Publishers; 1990. pp. 39–62.
45.
go back to reference Zimmerman MA. Psychological empowerment: issues and illustrations. Am J Community Psychol. 1995;23(5):581–99.PubMedCrossRef Zimmerman MA. Psychological empowerment: issues and illustrations. Am J Community Psychol. 1995;23(5):581–99.PubMedCrossRef
46.
go back to reference Zimmerman MA. Empowerment theory. In: Rappaport J, Seidman E, editors. Handbook of community psychology. Boston, MA: Springer US; 2000. pp. 43–63.CrossRef Zimmerman MA. Empowerment theory. In: Rappaport J, Seidman E, editors. Handbook of community psychology. Boston, MA: Springer US; 2000. pp. 43–63.CrossRef
47.
go back to reference Rappaport J. Terms of empowerment/exemplars of prevention: toward a theory for community psychology. Am J Community Psychol. 1987;15(2):121–48.PubMedCrossRef Rappaport J. Terms of empowerment/exemplars of prevention: toward a theory for community psychology. Am J Community Psychol. 1987;15(2):121–48.PubMedCrossRef
48.
go back to reference Cohen S, Gottlieb BH, Underwood LG. Social relationship and health. Social support measurement and intervention: A guide for health and social scientists. 2000:3–25. Cohen S, Gottlieb BH, Underwood LG. Social relationship and health. Social support measurement and intervention: A guide for health and social scientists. 2000:3–25.
49.
go back to reference Triandis HC, Monterey. Calif.: Brooks/Cole Pub. Co. Monterey, Calif.; 1977. Triandis HC, Monterey. Calif.: Brooks/Cole Pub. Co. Monterey, Calif.; 1977.
50.
go back to reference O’Brien BC, Harris IB, Beckman TJ, Reed DA, Cook DA. Standards for reporting qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations. Acad Med. 2014;89(9):1245–51.PubMedCrossRef O’Brien BC, Harris IB, Beckman TJ, Reed DA, Cook DA. Standards for reporting qualitative research: a synthesis of recommendations. Acad Med. 2014;89(9):1245–51.PubMedCrossRef
52.
go back to reference Lanzini P, Khan S. Shedding light on the psychological and behavioral determinants of travel mode choice: a meta-analysis. Transp Res Part F: Traffic Psychol Behav. 2017;48:13–27.CrossRef Lanzini P, Khan S. Shedding light on the psychological and behavioral determinants of travel mode choice: a meta-analysis. Transp Res Part F: Traffic Psychol Behav. 2017;48:13–27.CrossRef
53.
go back to reference Gardner B. A review and analysis of the use of ‘habit’ in understanding, predicting and influencing health-related behaviour. Health Psychol Rev. 2015;9(3):277–95.PubMedCrossRef Gardner B. A review and analysis of the use of ‘habit’ in understanding, predicting and influencing health-related behaviour. Health Psychol Rev. 2015;9(3):277–95.PubMedCrossRef
54.
go back to reference Dupays S, Leos H, Le Guen Y. Le dépistage organisé des cancers en France. 2022. Dupays S, Leos H, Le Guen Y. Le dépistage organisé des cancers en France. 2022.
55.
go back to reference Padilla CM, Painblanc F, Soler-Michel P, Vieira VM. Mapping variation in breast Cancer screening: where to intervene? Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(13). Padilla CM, Painblanc F, Soler-Michel P, Vieira VM. Mapping variation in breast Cancer screening: where to intervene? Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2019;16(13).
57.
go back to reference Alvarez K, van Leeuwen E, Montenegro-Montenegro E, van Vugt M. Empowering the poor: a field study of the social psychological consequences of receiving autonomy or dependency aid in Panama. Br J Soc Psychol. 2018;57(2):327–45.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Alvarez K, van Leeuwen E, Montenegro-Montenegro E, van Vugt M. Empowering the poor: a field study of the social psychological consequences of receiving autonomy or dependency aid in Panama. Br J Soc Psychol. 2018;57(2):327–45.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
59.
go back to reference Elwyn G, O’Connor AM, Bennett C, Newcombe RG, Politi M, Durand MA, et al. Assessing the quality of decision support technologies using the international patient decision Aid standards instrument (IPDASi). PLoS ONE. 2009;4(3):e4705.ADSPubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Elwyn G, O’Connor AM, Bennett C, Newcombe RG, Politi M, Durand MA, et al. Assessing the quality of decision support technologies using the international patient decision Aid standards instrument (IPDASi). PLoS ONE. 2009;4(3):e4705.ADSPubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
60.
go back to reference Tyldesley-Marshall N, Grove A, Ghosh I, Kudrna L, Ayorinde A, Singh M, et al. Investigating informed choice in screening programmes: a mixed methods analysis. BMC Public Health. 2022;22(1):2319.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Tyldesley-Marshall N, Grove A, Ghosh I, Kudrna L, Ayorinde A, Singh M, et al. Investigating informed choice in screening programmes: a mixed methods analysis. BMC Public Health. 2022;22(1):2319.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
61.
go back to reference Amélie AE, Ruelle Y, Frèche B, Houllemare M, Bonillo A, Bouaziz L, et al. What do women and healthcare professionals expect of decision aids for breast cancer screening? A qualitative study in France. BMJ Open. 2022;12(3):e058879.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Amélie AE, Ruelle Y, Frèche B, Houllemare M, Bonillo A, Bouaziz L, et al. What do women and healthcare professionals expect of decision aids for breast cancer screening? A qualitative study in France. BMJ Open. 2022;12(3):e058879.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
63.
go back to reference Escriva-Boulley G, Mandrik O, Préau M, Herrero R, Villain P. Cognitions and behaviours of general practitioners in France regarding HPV vaccination: a theory-based systematic review. Prev Med. 2021;143:106323.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Escriva-Boulley G, Mandrik O, Préau M, Herrero R, Villain P. Cognitions and behaviours of general practitioners in France regarding HPV vaccination: a theory-based systematic review. Prev Med. 2021;143:106323.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
64.
go back to reference Meidani A, Alessandrin A. Cancer, Territoires et discrimination: des zones rurales aux quartiers prioritaires de la ville. Santé Publique. 2019;31(5):693–702.PubMedCrossRef Meidani A, Alessandrin A. Cancer, Territoires et discrimination: des zones rurales aux quartiers prioritaires de la ville. Santé Publique. 2019;31(5):693–702.PubMedCrossRef
65.
go back to reference Lubi K, Savicka V, Koor M, Nool I, Tupits M, Mets-Oja S. Practice theoretical approach on the reasons why target group women refrain from taking breast cancer screening. Patient Educ Couns. 2021;104(12):3053–8.PubMedCrossRef Lubi K, Savicka V, Koor M, Nool I, Tupits M, Mets-Oja S. Practice theoretical approach on the reasons why target group women refrain from taking breast cancer screening. Patient Educ Couns. 2021;104(12):3053–8.PubMedCrossRef
66.
go back to reference Ponce-Chazarri L, Ponce-Blandón JA, Immordino P, Giordano A, Morales F. Barriers to breast Cancer-screening adherence in vulnerable populations. Cancers (Basel). 2023;15(3). Ponce-Chazarri L, Ponce-Blandón JA, Immordino P, Giordano A, Morales F. Barriers to breast Cancer-screening adherence in vulnerable populations. Cancers (Basel). 2023;15(3).
67.
go back to reference Durand MA, Carpenter L, Dolan H, Bravo P, Mann M, Bunn F, et al. Do interventions designed to support shared decision-making reduce health inequalities? A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(4):e94670.ADSPubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef Durand MA, Carpenter L, Dolan H, Bravo P, Mann M, Bunn F, et al. Do interventions designed to support shared decision-making reduce health inequalities? A systematic review and meta-analysis. PLoS ONE. 2014;9(4):e94670.ADSPubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
69.
go back to reference Villain P. et al. Online interactive tools used as decision aids, with or without shared decision making: a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess their effect on women’ s making decision about breast cancer screening. Villain P. et al. Online interactive tools used as decision aids, with or without shared decision making: a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess their effect on women’ s making decision about breast cancer screening.
70.
go back to reference Payet M, Molinié C, Dabakuyo-Yonli F, Mathoulin-Pelissier TS, Amadeo S. Survival after breast cancer according to participation in organised or opportunistic screening and deprivation. Cancer Epidemiol. 2023;82:102312.PubMedCrossRef Payet M, Molinié C, Dabakuyo-Yonli F, Mathoulin-Pelissier TS, Amadeo S. Survival after breast cancer according to participation in organised or opportunistic screening and deprivation. Cancer Epidemiol. 2023;82:102312.PubMedCrossRef
71.
go back to reference Quintin C, Chatignoux E, Plaine J, Hamers FF, Rogel A. Coverage rate of opportunistic and organised breast cancer screening in France: Department-level estimation. Cancer Epidemiol. 2022;81:102270.PubMedCrossRef Quintin C, Chatignoux E, Plaine J, Hamers FF, Rogel A. Coverage rate of opportunistic and organised breast cancer screening in France: Department-level estimation. Cancer Epidemiol. 2022;81:102270.PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Would shared decision-making be useful in breast cancer screening programmes? A qualitative study using focus group discussions to gather evidence from French women with different socioeconomic backgrounds
Authors
Laureline Guigon
Laura X. Gil Sánchez
Anne-Sophie Petit
Alice Le Bonniec
Partha Basu
Christelle M. Rodrigue
Marie Préau
Patricia Soler-Michel
Patricia Villain
Publication date
01-12-2024
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
BMC Public Health / Issue 1/2024
Electronic ISSN: 1471-2458
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-024-17876-5

Other articles of this Issue 1/2024

BMC Public Health 1/2024 Go to the issue