Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of General Internal Medicine 6/2020

01-06-2020 | Breast Cancer | Original Research

Knowledge and Perception of Breast Density, Screening Mammography, and Supplemental Screening: in Search of “Informed”

Authors: Karen E. Schifferdecker, PhD, MPH, Anna N. A. Tosteson, ScD, Celia Kaplan, Dr, PH, Karla Kerlikowske, MD, Diana S.M. Buist, PhD, MPH, Louise M. Henderson, PhD, Dianne Johnson, Jill Jaworski, Gloria Jackson-Nefertiti, Kelly Ehrlich, MS, Mary W. Marsh, MPH, Lisa Vu, MPH, Tracy Onega, PhD, MS, Karen J. Wernli, PhD

Published in: Journal of General Internal Medicine | Issue 6/2020

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

As of 2019, 37 US states have breast density notification laws. No qualitative study to date has examined women’s perspectives about breast density in general or by states with and without notification laws.

Objective

Explore women’s knowledge and perceptions of breast density and experiences of breast cancer screening across three states with and without notification laws.

Design

Qualitative research design using four focus groups conducted in 2017.

Participants

Forty-seven women who had a recent normal mammogram and dense breasts in registry data obtained through the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium.

Approach

Focus groups were 90 min, audio recorded, and transcribed for analysis. Data were analyzed using mixed deductive and inductive coding.

Key Results

Women reported variable knowledge levels of personal breast density and breast density in general, even among women living in states with a notification law. A number of women were aware of the difficulty of detecting cancer with dense breasts, but only one knew that density increased breast cancer risk. Across all states, very few women reported receiving information about breast density during healthcare visits beyond being encouraged to get supplemental imaging or to pay for new mammography technology (i.e., breast tomosynthesis). Women offered more imaging or different technology held strong convictions that these were “better,” even though knowledge of differences, effectiveness, or harms across technologies seemed limited. Women from all states expressed a strong desire for more information about breast density.

Conclusions

More research needs to be done to understand how the medical community can best assist women in making informed decisions related to breast density, mammography, and supplemental screening. Options to explore include improved breast density notifications and education materials about breast density, continued development of personalized risk information tools, strategies for providers to discuss evidence and options based on risk stratification, and shared decision-making.
Literature
4.
go back to reference Boyd NF, Rommens JM, Vogt K, et al. Mammographic breast density as an intermediate phenotype for breast cancer. Lancet Oncol 2005;6(11):826.CrossRef Boyd NF, Rommens JM, Vogt K, et al. Mammographic breast density as an intermediate phenotype for breast cancer. Lancet Oncol 2005;6(11):826.CrossRef
6.
go back to reference Kerlikowske K, Hubbard RA, Miglioretti DL, et al. Comparative effectiveness of digital versus film-screen mammography in community practice in the United States: A cohort study. Ann Intern Med 2011;155(8):493–502.CrossRef Kerlikowske K, Hubbard RA, Miglioretti DL, et al. Comparative effectiveness of digital versus film-screen mammography in community practice in the United States: A cohort study. Ann Intern Med 2011;155(8):493–502.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Cappello NM. Decade of ‘normal’ mammography reports-The Happygram. J Am Coll Radiol 2013;10(12):903–908.CrossRef Cappello NM. Decade of ‘normal’ mammography reports-The Happygram. J Am Coll Radiol 2013;10(12):903–908.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Kressin N, Gunn C, Battaglia T. Content, readability, and understandability of dense breast notifications by state. Jama. 2016;315(23):2624–2624. Kressin N, Gunn C, Battaglia T. Content, readability, and understandability of dense breast notifications by state. Jama. 2016;315(23):2624–2624.
15.
go back to reference Dedoose Version 6.1.18, web application for managing, analyzing, and presenting qualitative and mixed method research data. 2016. Los Angeles, CA: SocioCultural Research Consultants, LLC. www.dedoose.com. Dedoose Version 6.1.18, web application for managing, analyzing, and presenting qualitative and mixed method research data. 2016. Los Angeles, CA: SocioCultural Research Consultants, LLC. www.​dedoose.​com.
16.
go back to reference Corbin J, Strauss A. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. 3rd ed. 2008. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc.CrossRef Corbin J, Strauss A. Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory. 3rd ed. 2008. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications Inc.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Slanetz PJ, Freer PE, Birdwell RL. Breast-Density legislation — Practical considerations. N Engl J Med 2015;372(7):593–595.CrossRef Slanetz PJ, Freer PE, Birdwell RL. Breast-Density legislation — Practical considerations. N Engl J Med 2015;372(7):593–595.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Knowledge and Perception of Breast Density, Screening Mammography, and Supplemental Screening: in Search of “Informed”
Authors
Karen E. Schifferdecker, PhD, MPH
Anna N. A. Tosteson, ScD
Celia Kaplan, Dr, PH
Karla Kerlikowske, MD
Diana S.M. Buist, PhD, MPH
Louise M. Henderson, PhD
Dianne Johnson
Jill Jaworski
Gloria Jackson-Nefertiti
Kelly Ehrlich, MS
Mary W. Marsh, MPH
Lisa Vu, MPH
Tracy Onega, PhD, MS
Karen J. Wernli, PhD
Publication date
01-06-2020
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine / Issue 6/2020
Print ISSN: 0884-8734
Electronic ISSN: 1525-1497
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-019-05560-z

Other articles of this Issue 6/2020

Journal of General Internal Medicine 6/2020 Go to the issue

Concise Research Report

FDA and EMA Biosimilar Approvals

Live Webinar | 27-06-2024 | 18:00 (CEST)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Live: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

WHO estimates that half of all patients worldwide are non-adherent to their prescribed medication. The consequences of poor adherence can be catastrophic, on both the individual and population level.

Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.

Prof. Kevin Dolgin
Prof. Florian Limbourg
Prof. Anoop Chauhan
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Obesity Clinical Trial Summary

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.

Developed by: Springer Medicine

Highlights from the ACC 2024 Congress

Year in Review: Pediatric cardiology

Watch Dr. Anne Marie Valente present the last year's highlights in pediatric and congenital heart disease in the official ACC.24 Year in Review session.

Year in Review: Pulmonary vascular disease

The last year's highlights in pulmonary vascular disease are presented by Dr. Jane Leopold in this official video from ACC.24.

Year in Review: Valvular heart disease

Watch Prof. William Zoghbi present the last year's highlights in valvular heart disease from the official ACC.24 Year in Review session.

Year in Review: Heart failure and cardiomyopathies

Watch this official video from ACC.24. Dr. Biykem Bozkurt discusses last year's major advances in heart failure and cardiomyopathies.