How Do Women View Risk-Based Mammography Screening? A Qualitative Study
Decades of persuasive messages have reinforced the importance of traditional screening mammography at regular intervals. A potential new paradigm, risk-based screening, adjusts mammography frequency based on a woman’s estimated breast cancer risk in order to maximize mortality reduction while minimizing false positives and overdiagnosis. Women’s views of risk-based screening are unknown.
To explore women’s views and personal acceptability of a potential risk-based mammography screening paradigm.
Four semi-structured focus group discussions about screening mammography and surveys before provision of information about risk-based screening. We analyzed coded focus group transcripts using a mixed deductive (content analysis) and inductive (grounded theory) approach.
Convenience sample of 29 women (40–74 years old) with no personal history of breast cancer recruited by print and online media in New Hampshire and Vermont.
Twenty-seven out of 29 women reported having undergone mammography screening. All participants were white and most were highly educated. Some women accepted the idea that early cancer detection with traditional screening was beneficial—although many also reported hearing inconsistent recommendations from clinicians and mixed messages from media reports about mammography. Some women were familiar with a risk-based screening paradigm (primarily related to cervical cancer, n = 8) and thought matching screening mammography frequency to personal risk made sense (n = 8). Personal acceptability of risk-based screening was mixed. Some believed risk-based screening could reduce the harms of false positives and overdiagnosis (n = 7). Others thought screening less often might result in missing a dangerous diagnosis (n = 14). Many (n = 18) expressed concerns about the feasibility of risk-based screening and questioned whether breast cancer risk estimates could be accurate. Some suspected that risk-based mammography was motivated by a desire to save money (n = 6).
Some women thought risk-based screening made sense. Willingness to abandon traditional screening for the new paradigm was mixed. Broad acceptability of risk-based screening will require clearer communication about its rationale and feasibility and consistent messages from the health care team.
KEY WORDSrisk-based screening mammography over-diagnosis health communication
We also wish to express our gratitude to the focus group participants who shared their valuable insights and experiences.
This study was supported in part by funding from the National Cancer Institute (R25CA134286, P01CA154292, and P30CA023108).
Compliance with ethical standards
All study materials and procedures were approved by the Committee for the Protection of Human Subjects at Dartmouth College.
Conflicts of interest
Drs. Schwartz and Woloshin have served as medical experts in testosterone litigation and were the cofounders of Informulary, Inc., a company that provided data about the benefits and harms of prescription drugs, which ceased operations in December 2016. Other authors declare no conflicts of interest.
- 3.Onega T, Beaber EF, Sprague BL, Barlow WE, Haas JS, Tosteson ANA, et al. Breast cancer screening in an era of personalized regimens: A conceptual model and National Cancer Institute initiative for risk-based and preference-based approaches at a population level. Cancer. 2014;120(19):2955–2964. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.28771.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 4.National Center for Health Statistics. Health, United States, 2016 with Charterbook on Long-term Trends in Health. Hyattsville, MD. 2017. Available at: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus16.pdf#070. Accessed Feb 3, 2018.
- 5.Breast Cancer. (n.d.). Retrieved May 25, 2018, from http://www.ncqa.org/report-cards/health-plans/state-of-health-care-quality/2017-table-of-contents/breast-cancer
- 6.Trentham-Dietz A, Kerlikowske K, Stout NK, Miglioretti DL, Schechter CB, Ergun MA , et al. Tailoring Breast Cancer Screening Intervals by Breast Density and Risk for Women Aged 50 Years or Older: Collaborative Modeling of Screening Outcomes. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2016. doi: https://doi.org/10.7326/M16-0476.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 14.Final Recommendation Statement: Breast Cancer: Screening - US Preventive Services Task Force. https://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Document/RecommendationStatementFinal/breast-cancer-screening1. Accessed May 23, 2018.
- 15.Dedoose Version 7.0.23, web application for managing, analyzing, and presenting qualitative and mixed method research data (2016). Los Angeles, CA: SocioCultural Research Consultants, LLC. Available at www.dedoose.com. Accessed February 6, 2018.
- 16.Corbin J, Strauss AL. Basics of Qualitative Research: Grounded Theory Procedures and Techniques. Sage Publications Inc.; 2008.Google Scholar
- 18.Coughlin SS, Leadbetter S, Richards T, Sabatino SA. Contextual analysis of breast and cervical cancer screening and factors associated with health care access among United States women, 2002. Soc Sci Med. 2008; 66(2):260–275. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.09.009 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.Hubbard RA, O’Meara ES, Henderson LM, Henderson LM, Hill D, Braithwaite D, et al. Multilevel factors associated with long-term adherence to screening mammography in older women in the U.S. Prev Med. 2016; 89:169–177. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2016.05.034 PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 20.Rosenberg L, Wise LA, Palmer JR, Horton NJ, Adams-Campbell LL. A multilevel study of socioeconomic predictors of regular mammography use among African-American women. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2005;14(11): 2628–2633. doi: https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-05-0441 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 22.Taplin SH, Price RA, Edwards HM, Edwards HM, Foster MK, Breslau ES, et al. Introduction: Understanding and influencing multilevel factors across the cancer care continuum. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2012;44:2–10. doi: doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/jncimonographs/lgs008
- 25.Allen JD, Bluethmann SM, Sheets M, Opdyke KM, Gates-Ferris K, Hurlbert M, et al. Women’s responses to changes in U.S. preventive task force’s mammography screening guidelines: results of focus groups with ethnically diverse women. BMC Public Health. 2013;13:1169. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-13-1169.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 26.Kiviniemi MT, Hay JL. Awareness of the 2009 US Preventive Services Task Force recommended changes in mammography screening guidelines, accuracy of awareness, sources of knowledge about recommendations, and attitudes about updated screening guidelines in women ages 40–49 and 50+. BMC Public Health. 2012;12:899. doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-12-899.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 28.Moynihan R, Nickel B, Hersch J, Doust J, Barratt A, Beller E, et al. What do you think overdiagnosis means? A qualitative analysis of responses from a national community survey of Australians. BMJ open. 2015;5(5):e007436. doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2014-007436 PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 29.Nagler RH, Franklin Fowler E, Gollust SE. Women’s Awareness of and Responses to Messages About Breast Cancer Overdiagnosis and Overtreatment: Results From a 2016 National Survey. Medical Care. 2017;55(10):879. doi: https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0000000000000798.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 31.Toledo-Chávarri A, Rué M, Codern-Bové N, Carles-Lavila M, Perestelo-Pérez L, Pérez-Lacasta MJ, et al. A qualitative study on a decision aid for breast cancer screening: Views from women and health professionals. Eur J Cancer Care. 2017;26(3):n/a. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/ecc.12660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 33.Festinger L. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford University Press; 1962.Google Scholar
- 41.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):803–812. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-017-4027-9 PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar