Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of General Internal Medicine 7/2017

01-07-2017 | Review Paper

Use of patient decision aids increased younger women’s reluctance to begin screening mammography: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Authors: Ilya Ivlev, MD, PhD, Erin N. Hickman, MD, Marian S. McDonagh, PharmD, Karen B. Eden, PhD

Published in: Journal of General Internal Medicine | Issue 7/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

As breast cancer screening guidelines have changed recently, additional investigation is needed to understand changes in women’s behavior after using breast cancer screening patient decision aids (BCS-PtDAs) and the potential effect on mammography utilization. This systematic review and meta-analysis sought to evaluate the effect of BCS-PtDAs on changes in women’s intentions to undergo screening mammography and whether women deciding to begin or discontinue screening mammography displayed similar changes in screening intentions after using a BCS-PtDA.

Methods

We searched Medline, Scopus, PsycINFO, CENTRAL, Health and Psychosocial Instruments, Health Technology Assessment Database, PsycARTICLES, and cited references in eligible papers for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies, published through August 24, 2016. The proportions of women who did and not intend to undergo screening and who were uncertain about undergoing screening mammography were pooled, using risk ratios (RR) and random effects. According to the protocol, RCTs or observational studies and any language were considered eligible for systematic review if they included data about women for which shared decision making is recommended.

Results

We ultimately included six studies with screening intention data for 2040 women. Compared to usual care, the use of BCS-PtDAs in three RCTs resulted in significantly more women deciding not to undergo screening mammography (RR 1.48 [95% CI 1.04–2.13]; P = 0.03), particularly for younger (38–50 years) women (1.77 [1.34-2.34]; P < 0.001). The use of BCS-PtDAs had a non-significant effect on the intentions of older women (69–89 years) to discontinue screening.

Conclusions

The use of BCS-PtDAs increased younger women’s reluctance to undergo screening for breast cancer. The implementation of such BCS-PtDAs in clinical practice would be expected to result in a 77% increase in the number of younger women (aged 38–50) who do not intend to be screened, and as a consequence, may reduce utilization of screening mammography.

Registration

The protocol of this review is registered in the PROSPERO database, #CRD42016036695.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Stewart BW, Wild CP. Breast cancer. In: World Cancer Report 2014. Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2014:362–373. Stewart BW, Wild CP. Breast cancer. In: World Cancer Report 2014. Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2014:362–373.
3.
go back to reference World Health Organization. WHO Position Paper on Mammography Screening. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2014:27–32. World Health Organization. WHO Position Paper on Mammography Screening. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2014:27–32.
4.
go back to reference Nelson HD, O’Meara ES, Kerlikowske K, Balch S, Miglioretti D. Factors associated with rates of false-positive and false-negative results from digital mammography screening: an analysis of registry data. Ann Intern Med. 2016;164(4):226. doi:10.7326/M15-0971.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Nelson HD, O’Meara ES, Kerlikowske K, Balch S, Miglioretti D. Factors associated with rates of false-positive and false-negative results from digital mammography screening: an analysis of registry data. Ann Intern Med. 2016;164(4):226. doi:10.​7326/​M15-0971.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
go back to reference Nelson HD, Pappas M, Cantor A, Griffin J, Daeges M, Humphrey L. Harms of breast cancer screening: systematic review to update the 2009 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation. Ann Intern Med. 2016;164(4):256–267. doi:10.7326/M15-0970.CrossRefPubMed Nelson HD, Pappas M, Cantor A, Griffin J, Daeges M, Humphrey L. Harms of breast cancer screening: systematic review to update the 2009 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation. Ann Intern Med. 2016;164(4):256–267. doi:10.​7326/​M15-0970.CrossRefPubMed
7.
go back to reference Nelson HD, Fu R, Cantor A, Pappas M, Daeges M, Humphrey L. Effectiveness of breast cancer screening: systematic review and meta-analysis to update the 2009 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation. Ann Intern Med. 2016;164(4):244. doi:10.7326/M15-0969.CrossRefPubMed Nelson HD, Fu R, Cantor A, Pappas M, Daeges M, Humphrey L. Effectiveness of breast cancer screening: systematic review and meta-analysis to update the 2009 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation. Ann Intern Med. 2016;164(4):244. doi:10.​7326/​M15-0969.CrossRefPubMed
8.
9.
go back to reference Jørgensen K, Gøtzsche PC, Kalager M, Zahl P. Breast cancer screening in Denmark: a cohort study of tumor size and overdiagnosis. Ann Intern Med. 2017. doi:10.7326/M16-0270.PubMed Jørgensen K, Gøtzsche PC, Kalager M, Zahl P. Breast cancer screening in Denmark: a cohort study of tumor size and overdiagnosis. Ann Intern Med. 2017. doi:10.​7326/​M16-0270.PubMed
15.
go back to reference Hersch J, Barratt A, Jansen J, et al. Use of a decision aid including information on overdetection to support informed choice about breast cancer screening: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2015;385(9978):1642–1652. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60123-4.CrossRefPubMed Hersch J, Barratt A, Jansen J, et al. Use of a decision aid including information on overdetection to support informed choice about breast cancer screening: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2015;385(9978):1642–1652. doi:10.​1016/​S0140-6736(15)60123-4.CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Eden KB, Scariati P, Klein K, et al. Mammography decision aid reduces decisional conflict for women in their forties considering screening. J Women’s Health. 2015;24(12):1013–1020. doi:10.1089/jwh.2015.5256.CrossRef Eden KB, Scariati P, Klein K, et al. Mammography decision aid reduces decisional conflict for women in their forties considering screening. J Women’s Health. 2015;24(12):1013–1020. doi:10.​1089/​jwh.​2015.​5256.CrossRef
21.
go back to reference Stacey D, Légaré F, Col NF, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. In: Stacey D, ed. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Vol 1. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2014:CD001431. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub4. Stacey D, Légaré F, Col NF, et al. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. In: Stacey D, ed. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Vol 1. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2014:CD001431. doi:10.​1002/​14651858.​CD001431.​pub4.
26.
go back to reference The Cochrane Collaboration. Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins J, Altman D, Sterne J, eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [Updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. Available at: www.cochranehandbook.org. Accessed 16 Feb 2017. The Cochrane Collaboration. Chapter 8: Assessing risk of bias in included studies. In: Higgins J, Altman D, Sterne J, eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [Updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. Available at: www.cochranehandbook.org. Accessed 16 Feb 2017.
27.
go back to reference Harris RJ, Bradburn MJ, Deeks JJ, Altman DG, Harbord RM, Sterne JAC. Metan: fixed- and random-effects meta-analysis. Stata J. 2008;8(1):3–28. Harris RJ, Bradburn MJ, Deeks JJ, Altman DG, Harbord RM, Sterne JAC. Metan: fixed- and random-effects meta-analysis. Stata J. 2008;8(1):3–28.
29.
go back to reference Sterne JAC, Sutton AJ, Ioannidis JPA, et al. Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d4002. doi:10.1136/bmj.d4002.CrossRefPubMed Sterne JAC, Sutton AJ, Ioannidis JPA, et al. Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d4002. doi:10.​1136/​bmj.​d4002.CrossRefPubMed
30.
go back to reference Review Manager (RevMan) [Computer program]. Version 5.3.5. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014. Review Manager (RevMan) [Computer program]. Version 5.3.5. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014.
31.
go back to reference The Cochrane Collaboration. Computing absolute risk reduction or NNT from a risk ratio (RR). In: Higgins J, Green S, eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [Updated March 2011]; 2011. Available at: www.cochranehandbook.org. Accessed 1 June 2016. The Cochrane Collaboration. Computing absolute risk reduction or NNT from a risk ratio (RR). In: Higgins J, Green S, eds. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [Updated March 2011]; 2011. Available at: www.​cochranehandbook​.​org. Accessed 1 June 2016.
35.
go back to reference Nojomi M, Namiranian N, Myers RE, Razavi-Ratki S-KK, Alborzi F. Factors associated with breast cancer screening decision stage among Women in Tehran, Iran. Int J Prev Med. 2014;5(2):196–202.PubMedPubMedCentral Nojomi M, Namiranian N, Myers RE, Razavi-Ratki S-KK, Alborzi F. Factors associated with breast cancer screening decision stage among Women in Tehran, Iran. Int J Prev Med. 2014;5(2):196–202.PubMedPubMedCentral
37.
39.
go back to reference Povyakalo AA, Alberdi E, Strigini L, Ayton P. How to discriminate between computer-aided and computer-hindered decisions: a case study in mammography. Med Decis Mak. 2013;33(1):98–107. doi:10.1177/0272989X12465490.CrossRef Povyakalo AA, Alberdi E, Strigini L, Ayton P. How to discriminate between computer-aided and computer-hindered decisions: a case study in mammography. Med Decis Mak. 2013;33(1):98–107. doi:10.​1177/​0272989X12465490​.CrossRef
40.
go back to reference Tisnado DM, Moore AA, Levin JR, Rosen S. Developing and testing a decision aid for use by providers in making recommendations: about mammography screening in older women. J Appl Gerontol. 2015;34(3):343–358. doi:10.1177/0733464812467397.CrossRefPubMed Tisnado DM, Moore AA, Levin JR, Rosen S. Developing and testing a decision aid for use by providers in making recommendations: about mammography screening in older women. J Appl Gerontol. 2015;34(3):343–358. doi:10.​1177/​0733464812467397​.CrossRefPubMed
45.
go back to reference Harada K, Lee S, Shimada H, et al. Psychological predictors of participation in screening for cognitive impairment among community-dwelling older adults. Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2016. doi:10.1111/ggi.12841. Harada K, Lee S, Shimada H, et al. Psychological predictors of participation in screening for cognitive impairment among community-dwelling older adults. Geriatr Gerontol Int. 2016. doi:10.​1111/​ggi.​12841.
Metadata
Title
Use of patient decision aids increased younger women’s reluctance to begin screening mammography: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Authors
Ilya Ivlev, MD, PhD
Erin N. Hickman, MD
Marian S. McDonagh, PharmD
Karen B. Eden, PhD
Publication date
01-07-2017
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine / Issue 7/2017
Print ISSN: 0884-8734
Electronic ISSN: 1525-1497
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-017-4027-9

Other articles of this Issue 7/2017

Journal of General Internal Medicine 7/2017 Go to the issue
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.