Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of General Internal Medicine 4/2021

01-04-2021 | Breast Cancer | Original Research

Engaging Women with Limited Health Literacy in Mammography Decision-Making: Perspectives of Patients and Primary Care Providers

Authors: Christine M. Gunn, PhD, Ariel Maschke, MA, Michael K. Paasche-Orlow, MD, MPH, Nancy R. Kressin, PhD, Mara A. Schonberg, MD, MPH, Tracy A. Battaglia, MD, MPH

Published in: Journal of General Internal Medicine | Issue 4/2021

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Limited health literacy is a driver of cancer disparities and associated with less participation in medical decisions. Mammography screening decisions are an exemplar of where health literacy may impact decision-making and outcomes.

Objective

To describe informational needs and shared decision-making (SDM) experiences among women ages 40–54 who have limited health literacy and primary care providers (PCPs).

Design

Qualitative, in-depth interviews explored experiences with mammography counseling and SDM.

Participants

Women ages 40–54 with limited health literacy and no history of breast cancer or mammogram in the prior 9 months were approached before a primary care visit at a Boston academic, safety-net hospital. PCPs practicing at this site were eligible for PCP interviews.

Approach

Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. A set of deductive codes for each stakeholder group was developed based on literature and the interview guide. Inductive codes were generated during codebook development. Codes were compared within and across patient and PCP interviews to create themes relevant to mammography decision-making.

Key Results

The average age of 25 interviewed patients was 46.5; 18 identified as black, 3 as Hispanic, 2 as non-Hispanic white, and 2 had no recorded race or ethnicity. Of 20 PCPs, 15 were female; 12 had practiced for >5 years. Patients described a lack of technical (appropriate tests and what they do) and process (what happens during a mammogram visit) knowledge, viewing these as necessary for decision-making. PCPs were reluctant to engage patients with limited health literacy in SDM due to time constraints and feared that increased information might confuse patients or deter them from having mammograms. Both groups felt pre-visit education would facilitate mammography-related SDM during clinical visits.

Conclusion

Both patients and PCPs perceived a need for tools to relay technical and process knowledge about mammography prior to clinical encounters to address the scope of information that patients with limited health literacy desired.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Oeffinger KC, Fontham ET, Etzioni R, et al. Breast Cancer Screening for Women at Average Risk: 2015 Guideline Update From the American Cancer Society. Jama. 2015;314(15):1599-1614. Oeffinger KC, Fontham ET, Etzioni R, et al. Breast Cancer Screening for Women at Average Risk: 2015 Guideline Update From the American Cancer Society. Jama. 2015;314(15):1599-1614.
2.
go back to reference Siu AL. Screening for Breast Cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2016;164(4):279-296.CrossRef Siu AL. Screening for Breast Cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2016;164(4):279-296.CrossRef
3.
go back to reference Couët N, Desroches S, Robitaille H, et al. Assessments of the extent to which health-care providers involve patients in decision making: a systematic review of studies using the OPTION instrument. Health Expectations. 2015;18(4):542-561. Couët N, Desroches S, Robitaille H, et al. Assessments of the extent to which health-care providers involve patients in decision making: a systematic review of studies using the OPTION instrument. Health Expectations. 2015;18(4):542-561.
4.
go back to reference DuBenske LL, Schrager SB, Hitchcock ME, et al. Key Elements of Mammography Shared Decision-Making: a Scoping Review of the Literature. Journal of General Internal Medicine. 2018;33(10):1805-1814. DuBenske LL, Schrager SB, Hitchcock ME, et al. Key Elements of Mammography Shared Decision-Making: a Scoping Review of the Literature. Journal of General Internal Medicine. 2018;33(10):1805-1814.
5.
go back to reference Haas JS, Sprague BL, Klabunde CN, et al. Provider Attitudes and Screening Practices Following Changes in Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening Guidelines. Journal of General Internal Medicine. 2016;31(1):52-59. Haas JS, Sprague BL, Klabunde CN, et al. Provider Attitudes and Screening Practices Following Changes in Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening Guidelines. Journal of General Internal Medicine. 2016;31(1):52-59.
6.
go back to reference Martinez KA, Deshpande A, Ruff AL, Bolen SD, Teng K, Rothberg MB. Are Providers Prepared to Engage Younger Women in Shared Decision-Making for Mammography? Journal of Women's Health. 2018;27(1):24-31.CrossRef Martinez KA, Deshpande A, Ruff AL, Bolen SD, Teng K, Rothberg MB. Are Providers Prepared to Engage Younger Women in Shared Decision-Making for Mammography? Journal of Women's Health. 2018;27(1):24-31.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference DuBenske LL, Schrager S, McDowell H, Wilke LG, Trentham-Dietz A, Burnside ES. Mammography Screening: Gaps in Patient's and Physician's Needs for Shared Decision-Making. The Breast Journal. 2017;23(2):210-214.CrossRef DuBenske LL, Schrager S, McDowell H, Wilke LG, Trentham-Dietz A, Burnside ES. Mammography Screening: Gaps in Patient's and Physician's Needs for Shared Decision-Making. The Breast Journal. 2017;23(2):210-214.CrossRef
8.
go back to reference Siedlikowski S, Ells C, Bartlett G. Scrutinizing screening: a critical interpretive review of primary care provider perspectives on mammography decision-making with average-risk women. Public Health Rev. 2018;39:15-15.CrossRef Siedlikowski S, Ells C, Bartlett G. Scrutinizing screening: a critical interpretive review of primary care provider perspectives on mammography decision-making with average-risk women. Public Health Rev. 2018;39:15-15.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Radhakrishnan A, Nowak SA, Parker AM, Visvanathan K, Pollack CE. Physician Breast Cancer Screening Recommendations Following Guideline Changes: Results of a National Survey. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177(6):877-878.CrossRef Radhakrishnan A, Nowak SA, Parker AM, Visvanathan K, Pollack CE. Physician Breast Cancer Screening Recommendations Following Guideline Changes: Results of a National Survey. JAMA Intern Med. 2017;177(6):877-878.CrossRef
10.
go back to reference Davey C, White V, Gattellari M, Ward JE. Reconciling population benefits and women's individual autonomy in mammographic screening: in-depth interviews to explore women's views about 'informed choice'. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health. 2005;29(1):69-77.CrossRef Davey C, White V, Gattellari M, Ward JE. Reconciling population benefits and women's individual autonomy in mammographic screening: in-depth interviews to explore women's views about 'informed choice'. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health. 2005;29(1):69-77.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Davey HM, Barratt AL, Butow PN, Houssami N. The impact of different criteria for selecting information to be provided to women undergoing diagnostic breast tests. Patient Education and Counseling. 2008;71(1):86-94.CrossRef Davey HM, Barratt AL, Butow PN, Houssami N. The impact of different criteria for selecting information to be provided to women undergoing diagnostic breast tests. Patient Education and Counseling. 2008;71(1):86-94.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Davis S, Stewart S, Bloom J. Increasing the accuracy of perceived breast cancer risk: results from a randomized trial with Cancer Information Service callers. Preventive Medicine. 2004;39(1):64-73.CrossRef Davis S, Stewart S, Bloom J. Increasing the accuracy of perceived breast cancer risk: results from a randomized trial with Cancer Information Service callers. Preventive Medicine. 2004;39(1):64-73.CrossRef
13.
go back to reference Edwards A, Unigwe S, Elwyn G, Hood K. Effects of communicating individual risks in screening programmes: Cochrane systematic review. BMJ. 2003;327(7417):703-709.CrossRef Edwards A, Unigwe S, Elwyn G, Hood K. Effects of communicating individual risks in screening programmes: Cochrane systematic review. BMJ. 2003;327(7417):703-709.CrossRef
14.
go back to reference Gillespie C. The experience of risk as ‘measured vulnerability’: health screening and lay uses of numerical risk. Sociology of Health & Illness. 2012;34(2):194-207.CrossRef Gillespie C. The experience of risk as ‘measured vulnerability’: health screening and lay uses of numerical risk. Sociology of Health & Illness. 2012;34(2):194-207.CrossRef
15.
go back to reference Gunn C, Bokhour B, Parker V, Parker P, Bandos H, Holmberg C. Exploring Explanatory Models of Risk in Breast Cancer Risk Counseling Discussions. International Academy for Communication in Healthcare; 2014; Amsterdam, Netherlands. Gunn C, Bokhour B, Parker V, Parker P, Bandos H, Holmberg C. Exploring Explanatory Models of Risk in Breast Cancer Risk Counseling Discussions. International Academy for Communication in Healthcare; 2014; Amsterdam, Netherlands.
16.
go back to reference Stacey D, Hill S, McCaffery K, Boland L, Lewis KB, Horvat L. Shared Decision Making Interventions: Theoretical and Empirical Evidence with Implications for Health Literacy. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2017;240:263-283.PubMed Stacey D, Hill S, McCaffery K, Boland L, Lewis KB, Horvat L. Shared Decision Making Interventions: Theoretical and Empirical Evidence with Implications for Health Literacy. Stud Health Technol Inform. 2017;240:263-283.PubMed
17.
go back to reference Kiesler DJ, Auerbach SM. Optimal matches of patient preferences for information, decision-making and interpersonal behavior: Evidence, models and interventions. Patient Education and Counseling. 2006;61(3):319-341.CrossRef Kiesler DJ, Auerbach SM. Optimal matches of patient preferences for information, decision-making and interpersonal behavior: Evidence, models and interventions. Patient Education and Counseling. 2006;61(3):319-341.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Shi W, Nagler R, Fowler E, Gollust S. Predictors of Women's Awareness of the Benefits and Harms of Mammography Screening and Associations with Confusion, Ambivalence, and Information Seeking. Health communication. 2019. Shi W, Nagler R, Fowler E, Gollust S. Predictors of Women's Awareness of the Benefits and Harms of Mammography Screening and Associations with Confusion, Ambivalence, and Information Seeking. Health communication. 2019.
19.
go back to reference Mazor KM, Rubin DL, Roblin DW, et al. Health literacy-listening skill and patient questions following cancer prevention and screening discussions. Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy. 2016;19(4):920-934. Mazor KM, Rubin DL, Roblin DW, et al. Health literacy-listening skill and patient questions following cancer prevention and screening discussions. Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy. 2016;19(4):920-934.
20.
go back to reference Manning M, Albrecht TL, Yilmaz-Saab Z, Penner L, Norman A, Purrington K. Explaining between-race differences in African-American and European-American women's responses to breast density notification. Social Science & Medicine. 2017;195:149-158.CrossRef Manning M, Albrecht TL, Yilmaz-Saab Z, Penner L, Norman A, Purrington K. Explaining between-race differences in African-American and European-American women's responses to breast density notification. Social Science & Medicine. 2017;195:149-158.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Manning M, Purrington K, Penner L, Duric N, Albrecht TL. Between-race differences in the effects of breast density information and information about new imaging technology on breast-health decision-making. Patient Education and Counseling. 2016;99(6):1002-1010.CrossRef Manning M, Purrington K, Penner L, Duric N, Albrecht TL. Between-race differences in the effects of breast density information and information about new imaging technology on breast-health decision-making. Patient Education and Counseling. 2016;99(6):1002-1010.CrossRef
22.
go back to reference Anderson EE, Hoskins KJ. Individual Breast Cancer Risk Assessment in Underserved Populations: Integrating Empirical Bioethics and Health Disparities Research. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved. 2012;23(4):34-46.CrossRef Anderson EE, Hoskins KJ. Individual Breast Cancer Risk Assessment in Underserved Populations: Integrating Empirical Bioethics and Health Disparities Research. Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved. 2012;23(4):34-46.CrossRef
23.
go back to reference Spring LM, Marshall MR, Warner ET. Mammography decision making: Trends and predictors of provider communication in the Health Information National Trends Survey, 2011 to 2014. Cancer. 2017;123(3):401-409.CrossRef Spring LM, Marshall MR, Warner ET. Mammography decision making: Trends and predictors of provider communication in the Health Information National Trends Survey, 2011 to 2014. Cancer. 2017;123(3):401-409.CrossRef
24.
go back to reference Chang H-L, Li F-S, Lin C-F. Factors Influencing Implementation Of Shared Medical Decision Making In Patients With Cancer. Patient preference and adherence. 2019;13:1995-2005.CrossRef Chang H-L, Li F-S, Lin C-F. Factors Influencing Implementation Of Shared Medical Decision Making In Patients With Cancer. Patient preference and adherence. 2019;13:1995-2005.CrossRef
25.
go back to reference Muscat DM, Shepherd HL, Morony S, et al. Can adults with low literacy understand shared decision making questions? A qualitative investigation. Patient education and counseling. 2016;99(11):1796-1802. Muscat DM, Shepherd HL, Morony S, et al. Can adults with low literacy understand shared decision making questions? A qualitative investigation. Patient education and counseling. 2016;99(11):1796-1802.
26.
go back to reference Seo J, Goodman MS, Politi M, Blanchard M, Kaphingst KA. Effect of Health Literacy on Decision-Making Preferences among Medically Underserved Patients. Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making. 2016;36(4):550-556.CrossRef Seo J, Goodman MS, Politi M, Blanchard M, Kaphingst KA. Effect of Health Literacy on Decision-Making Preferences among Medically Underserved Patients. Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making. 2016;36(4):550-556.CrossRef
27.
go back to reference Komenaka I, Nodora J, Hsu C, et al. Association of Health Literacy with Adherence to Screening Mammography Guidelines. Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2015;125(4):852-859. Komenaka I, Nodora J, Hsu C, et al. Association of Health Literacy with Adherence to Screening Mammography Guidelines. Obstetrics and Gynecology. 2015;125(4):852-859.
28.
go back to reference Keating NL, Pace LE. Breast cancer screening in 2018: Time for shared decision making. JAMA. 2018;319(17):1814-1815.CrossRef Keating NL, Pace LE. Breast cancer screening in 2018: Time for shared decision making. JAMA. 2018;319(17):1814-1815.CrossRef
29.
go back to reference Schrager S, Burnside ES. Breast Cancer Screening in Primary Care: A Call for Development and Validation of Patient-Oriented Shared Decision-Making Tools. Journal of Women's Health. 2019;28(2):114-116.CrossRef Schrager S, Burnside ES. Breast Cancer Screening in Primary Care: A Call for Development and Validation of Patient-Oriented Shared Decision-Making Tools. Journal of Women's Health. 2019;28(2):114-116.CrossRef
30.
go back to reference Borrayo EA. Where's Maria? A video to increase awareness about breast cancer and mammography screening among low-literacy Latinas. Preventive Medicine. 2004;39(1):99-110.CrossRef Borrayo EA. Where's Maria? A video to increase awareness about breast cancer and mammography screening among low-literacy Latinas. Preventive Medicine. 2004;39(1):99-110.CrossRef
31.
go back to reference Brown SM, Culver JO, Osann KE, et al. Health literacy, numeracy, and interpretation of graphical breast cancer risk estimates. Patient Education and Counseling. 2011;83(1):92-98. Brown SM, Culver JO, Osann KE, et al. Health literacy, numeracy, and interpretation of graphical breast cancer risk estimates. Patient Education and Counseling. 2011;83(1):92-98.
32.
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.CrossRef 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.CrossRef
33.
go back to reference Marcus EN, Koru-Sengul T, Miao F, Yepes M, Sanders L. How do Breast Imaging Centers Communicate Results to Women with Limited English Proficiency and Other Barriers to Care? Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health. 2014;16(3):401-408.CrossRef Marcus EN, Koru-Sengul T, Miao F, Yepes M, Sanders L. How do Breast Imaging Centers Communicate Results to Women with Limited English Proficiency and Other Barriers to Care? Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health. 2014;16(3):401-408.CrossRef
34.
go back to reference Schapira MM, Sprague BL, Klabunde CN, et al. Inadequate Systems to Support Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening in Primary Care Practice. Journal of General Internal Medicine. 2016;31(10):1148-1155. Schapira MM, Sprague BL, Klabunde CN, et al. Inadequate Systems to Support Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening in Primary Care Practice. Journal of General Internal Medicine. 2016;31(10):1148-1155.
35.
go back to reference DeFrank JT, Rimer BK, Bowling JM, Earp JA, Breslau ES, Brewer NT. Influence of false-positive mammography results on subsequent screening: do physician recommendations buffer negative effects? Journal of Medical Screening. 2012;19(1):35-41.CrossRef DeFrank JT, Rimer BK, Bowling JM, Earp JA, Breslau ES, Brewer NT. Influence of false-positive mammography results on subsequent screening: do physician recommendations buffer negative effects? Journal of Medical Screening. 2012;19(1):35-41.CrossRef
36.
go back to reference Hoffman RM, Lewis CL, Pignone MP, et al. Decision-Making Processes for Breast, Colorectal, and Prostate Cancer Screening: The DECISIONS Survey. Medical Decision Making. 2010;30(5 suppl):53S-64S.CrossRef Hoffman RM, Lewis CL, Pignone MP, et al. Decision-Making Processes for Breast, Colorectal, and Prostate Cancer Screening: The DECISIONS Survey. Medical Decision Making. 2010;30(5 suppl):53S-64S.CrossRef
37.
go back to reference Paasche-Orlow MK, Wolf MS. The Causal Pathways Linking Health Literacy to Health Outcomes. American journal of health behavior. 2007;31(1):S19-S26.CrossRef Paasche-Orlow MK, Wolf MS. The Causal Pathways Linking Health Literacy to Health Outcomes. American journal of health behavior. 2007;31(1):S19-S26.CrossRef
38.
go back to reference Bann CM, McCormack LA, Berkman ND, Squiers LB. The Health Literacy Skills Instrument: a 10-item short form. Journal of health communication. 2012;17 Suppl 3:191-202.CrossRef Bann CM, McCormack LA, Berkman ND, Squiers LB. The Health Literacy Skills Instrument: a 10-item short form. Journal of health communication. 2012;17 Suppl 3:191-202.CrossRef
39.
go back to reference Ando H, Cousins R, Young C. Achieving saturation in thematic analysis: development and refinement of a codebook. Comprehensive Psychology. 2014;3(4):1-7. Ando H, Cousins R, Young C. Achieving saturation in thematic analysis: development and refinement of a codebook. Comprehensive Psychology. 2014;3(4):1-7.
40.
go back to reference Schreier M. Qualitative content analysis in practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2012. Schreier M. Qualitative content analysis in practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage; 2012.
41.
go back to reference Cho JY, Lee E-H. Reducing Confusion about Grounded Theory and Qualitative Content Analysis: Similarities and Differences. The Qualitative Report. 2014;19(64):1-20. Cho JY, Lee E-H. Reducing Confusion about Grounded Theory and Qualitative Content Analysis: Similarities and Differences. The Qualitative Report. 2014;19(64):1-20.
42.
go back to reference Miles MB, Huberman AM, Saldana J. Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2020. Miles MB, Huberman AM, Saldana J. Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook. 4th ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications; 2020.
43.
go back to reference Charmaz K. Constructing Grounded Theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.; 2006. Charmaz K. Constructing Grounded Theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.; 2006.
44.
go back to reference Hoffmann TC, Del Mar C. Patients’ expectations of the benefits and harms of treatments, screening, and tests: A systematic review. JAMA Internal Medicine. 2015;175(2):274-286.CrossRef Hoffmann TC, Del Mar C. Patients’ expectations of the benefits and harms of treatments, screening, and tests: A systematic review. JAMA Internal Medicine. 2015;175(2):274-286.CrossRef
46.
go back to reference Scariati P, Nelson L, Watson L, Bedrick S, Eden KB. Impact of a decision aid on reducing uncertainty: pilot study of women in their 40s and screening mammography. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making. 2015;15:89.CrossRef Scariati P, Nelson L, Watson L, Bedrick S, Eden KB. Impact of a decision aid on reducing uncertainty: pilot study of women in their 40s and screening mammography. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making. 2015;15:89.CrossRef
47.
go back to reference Durand M-A, Carpenter L, Dolan H, 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. Durand M-A, Carpenter L, Dolan H, 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.
Metadata
Title
Engaging Women with Limited Health Literacy in Mammography Decision-Making: Perspectives of Patients and Primary Care Providers
Authors
Christine M. Gunn, PhD
Ariel Maschke, MA
Michael K. Paasche-Orlow, MD, MPH
Nancy R. Kressin, PhD
Mara A. Schonberg, MD, MPH
Tracy A. Battaglia, MD, MPH
Publication date
01-04-2021
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine / Issue 4/2021
Print ISSN: 0884-8734
Electronic ISSN: 1525-1497
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-020-06213-2

Other articles of this Issue 4/2021

Journal of General Internal Medicine 4/2021 Go to the issue

Healing Arts

In the Valley

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