Journal of General Internal Medicine

, Volume 32, Issue 7, pp 803–812 | Cite as

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

  • Ilya Ivlev
  • Erin N. Hickman
  • Marian S. McDonagh
  • Karen B. Eden
Review Paper

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.

KEY WORDS

breast cancer screening mammography decision support techniques patient decision aid intention utilization of screening mammography 

Abbreviations

BCS-PtDA

breast cancer screening patient decision aid

CENTRAL

Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials

IPDAS

International Patient Decision Aid Standards

KQ

key question

PtDA

patient decision aid

RCT

randomized controlled trial

RR

risk ratio

Supplementary material

11606_2017_4027_MOESM1_ESM.docx (2.3 mb)
ESM 1(DOCX 2366 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Stewart BW, Wild CP. Breast cancer. In: World Cancer Report 2014. Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2014:362–373.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    American Cancer Society. Breast Cancer. How Common Is Breast Cancer? http://www.cancer.org/cancer/breastcancer/detailedguide/breast-cancer-key-statistics. Published 2016. Accessed 16 Feb 2017.
  3. 3.
    World Health Organization. WHO Position Paper on Mammography Screening. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2014:27–32.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Oeffinger KC, Fontham ETH, Etzioni R, et al. Breast cancer screening for women at average risk. JAMA. 2015;314(15):1599–1614. doi:10.1001/jama.2015.12783.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hendrick RE, Helvie MA. Mammography screening: a new estimate of number needed to screen to prevent one breast cancer death. Am J Roentgenol. 2012;198(3):723–728. doi:10.2214/AJR.11.7146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Li J, Shao Z. Mammography screening in less developed countries. Springerplus. 2015;4(1):615. doi:10.1186/s40064-015-1394-8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Biesheuvel C, Weige S, Heindel W. Mammography screening: evidence, history and current practice in Germany and other European countries. Breast Care. 2011;6(2):104–109. doi:10.1159/000327493.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Australian Government Department of Health. About breast screening. BreastScreen Australia Program. http://www.cancerscreening.gov.au/internet/screening/publishing.nsf/Content/about-breast-screening. Published March 2015. Accessed 16 Feb 2017.
  13. 13.
    Siu AL. Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2016;164(4):279. doi:10.7326/M15-2886.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Canadian Cancer Society. Screening for breast cancer. Screening mammography. http://www.cancer.ca/en/cancer-information/cancer-type/breast/screening/?region=on. Accessed 16 Feb 2017.
  15. 15.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mathieu E, Barratt AL, McGeechan K, et al. Helping women make choices about mammography screening: an online randomized trial of a decision aid for 40-year-old women. Patient Educ Couns. 2010;81(1):63–72. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2010.01.001.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mathieu E, Barratt A, Davey HM, McGeechan K, Howard K, Houssami N. Informed choice in mammography screening: a randomized trial of a decision aid for 70-year-old women. Arch Intern Med. 2007;167(19):2039–2046. doi:10.1001/archinte.167.19.2039.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Schonberg MA, Hamel MB, Davis RB, et al. Development and evaluation of a decision aid on mammography screening for women 75 years and older. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(3):417. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.13639.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    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 Med Inform Decis Mak. 2015;15(1):89. doi:10.1186/s12911-015-0210-2.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    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.
  22. 22.
    Ivlev I, Hickman EN, McDonagh MS, Eden KB. Women’s change in intention to undergo screening mammography after using a patient decision aid: a systematic review and meta-analysis. 2016. Available at: http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42016036695. Accessed 16 Feb 2017.
  23. 23.
    Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7), e1000097. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Guyatt G, Oxman AD, Akl EA, et al. GRADE guidelines: 1. Introduction - GRADE evidence profiles and summary of findings tables. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64(4):383–394. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.04.026.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    National Institutes of Health. Quality Assessment Tool for Before-After (Pre-Post) Studies With No Control Group. Study Quality Assessment Tools. https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health-pro/guidelines/in-develop/cardiovascular-risk-reduction/tools/before-after. Published April 2014. Accessed 16 Feb 2017.
  26. 26.
    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.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    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.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Egger M, Smith GD, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315(7109):629–634. doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7109.629.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Review Manager (RevMan) [Computer program]. Version 5.3.5. Copenhagen: The Nordic Cochrane Centre, The Cochrane Collaboration, 2014.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    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.
  32. 32.
    Lewis CL, Pignone MP, Sheridan SL, Downs SM, Kinsinger LS. A randomized trial of three videos that differ in the framing of information about mammography in women 40 to 49 years old. J Gen Intern Med. 2003;18(11):875–883. doi:10.1046/j.1525-1497.2003.21152.x.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Pasternack I, Saalasti-Koskinen U, Mäkelä M. Decision aid for women considering breast cancer screening. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011;27(4):357–362. doi:10.1017/S026646231100050X.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Lewis CL, Kistler CE, Amick HR, et al. Older adults’ attitudes about continuing cancer screening later in life: a pilot study interviewing residents of two continuing care communities. BMC Geriatr. 2006;6(1):10. doi:10.1186/1471-2318-6-10.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    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.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Hersch J, Barratt A, Jansen J, et al. The effect of information about overdetection of breast cancer on women’s decision-making about mammography screening: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open. 2014;4(5), e004990. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2014-004990.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Lin JW, Chu PL, Liou JM, Hwang JJ. Applying a multiple screening program aided by a guideline-driven computerized decision support system - A pilot experience in Yun-Lin, Taiwan. J Formos Med Assoc. 2007;106(1):58–68. doi:10.1016/S0929-6646(09)60217-5.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Mazurowski MA, Zurada JM, Tourassi GD. Selection of examples in case-based computer-aided decision systems. Phys Med Biol. 2008;53(21):6079–6096. doi:10.1088/0031-9155/53/21/013.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    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.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    O’Connor AM, Tugwell P, Wells GA, et al. A decision aid for women considering hormone therapy after menopause: decision support framework and evaluation. Patient Educ Couns. 1998;33(3):267–279. doi:10.1016/S0738-3991(98)00026-3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Dormandy E, Michie S, Hooper R, Marteau TM. Informed choice in antenatal Down syndrome screening: a cluster-randomised trial of combined versus separate visit testing. Patient Educ Couns. 2006;61(1):56–64. doi:10.1016/j.pec.2005.02.006.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    O’Connor AM. Validation of a decisional conflict scale. Med Decis Mak. 1995;15(1):25–30. doi:10.1177/0272989X9501500105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Santesso N, et al. GRADE guidelines: 12. Preparing summary of findings tables - binary outcomes. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(2):158–172. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.01.012.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    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.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Society of General Internal Medicine 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ilya Ivlev
    • 1
  • Erin N. Hickman
    • 1
  • Marian S. McDonagh
    • 1
    • 2
  • Karen B. Eden
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Medical Informatics & Clinical EpidemiologyOregon Health & Science UniversityPortlandUSA
  2. 2.Pacific Northwest Evidence-based Practice Center, Department of Medical Informatics & Clinical EpidemiologyOregon Health & Science UniversityPortlandUSA

Personalised recommendations