Communicating the results of risk-based breast cancer screening through visualizations of risk: a participatory design approach

被引:1
作者
van Strien-Knippenberg, Inge S. [1 ]
Arjangi-Babetti, Hannah [1 ]
Timmermans, Danielle R. M. [1 ]
Schrauwen, Laura [1 ]
Fransen, Mirjam P. [2 ]
Melles, Marijke [3 ]
Damman, Olga C. [1 ]
机构
[1] Vrije Univ Amsterdam, Amsterdam Publ Hlth Res Inst, Dept Publ & Occupat Hlth, Amsterdam UMC, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, Netherlands
[2] Vrije Univ Amsterdam, Amsterdam Publ Hlth Res Inst, Dept Publ & Occupat Hlth, Amsterdam UMC, De Boelelaan 1117, Amsterdam, Netherlands
[3] Delft Univ Technol, Ind Design Engn, Delft, Netherlands
关键词
Risk communication; Risk visualizations; Risk-based screening; Cancer screening; Breast cancer; Educational material; Informed decision making; Participatory design; HEALTH LITERACY MEASURES; WOMENS PERCEPTIONS; VISUAL AIDS; INFORMATION; MAMMOGRAPHY; VALIDATION; NUMERACY; BENEFITS; MODEL;
D O I
10.1186/s12911-024-02483-6
中图分类号
R-058 [];
学科分类号
摘要
BackgroundRisk-based breast cancer (BC) screening raises new questions regarding information provision and risk communication. This study aimed to: 1) investigate women's beliefs and knowledge (i.e., mental models) regarding BC risk and (risk-based) BC screening in view of implications for information development; 2) develop novel informational materials to communicate the screening result in risk-based BC screening, including risk visualizations of both quantitative and qualitative information, from a Human-Centered Design perspective.MethodsPhase 1: Interviews were conducted (n = 15, 40-50 years, 5 lower health literate) on women's beliefs about BC risk and (risk-based) BC screening. Phase 2: In three participatory design sessions, women (n = 4-6 across sessions, 40-50 years, 2-3 lower health literate) made assignments and created and evaluated visualizations of risk information central to the screening result. Prototypes were evaluated in two additional sessions (n = 2, 54-62 years, 0-1 lower health literate). Phase 3: Experts (n = 5) and women (n = 9, 40-74 years) evaluated the resulting materials. Two other experts were consulted throughout the development process to ensure that the content of the information materials was accurate. Interviews were transcribed literally and analysed using qualitative thematic analysis, focusing on implications for information development. Notes, assignments and materials from the participatory design sessions were summarized and main themes were identified.ResultsWomen in both interviews and design sessions were positive about risk-based BC screening, especially because personal risk factors would be taken into account. However, they emphasized that the rationale of risk-based screening and classification into a risk category should be clearly stated and visualized, especially for higher- and lower-risk categories (which may cause anxiety or feelings of unfairness due to a lower screening frequency). Women wanted to know their personal risk, preferably visualized in an icon array, and wanted advice on risk reduction and breast self-examination. However, most risk factors were considered modifiable by women, and the risk factor breast density was not known, implying that information should emphasize that BC risk depends on multiple factors, including breast density.ConclusionsThe information materials, including risk visualizations of both quantitative and qualitative information, developed from a Human-Centered Design perspective and a mental model approach, were positively evaluated by the target group.
引用
收藏
页数:22
相关论文
共 67 条
[1]   Design features of graphs in health risk communication: A systematic review [J].
Ancker, Jessica S. ;
Senathirajah, Yalini ;
Kukafka, Rita ;
Starren, Justin B. .
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL INFORMATICS ASSOCIATION, 2006, 13 (06) :608-618
[2]   Effect of interventions including provision of personalised cancer risk information on accuracy of risk perception and psychological responses: A systematic review and meta-analysis [J].
Bayne, Max ;
Fairey, Madi ;
Silarova, Barbora ;
Griffin, Simon J. ;
Sharp, Stephen J. ;
Klein, William M. P. ;
Sutton, Stephen ;
Usher-Smith, Juliet A. .
PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING, 2020, 103 (01) :83-95
[3]   I Don't Believe It, But I'd Better Do Something About It: Patient Experiences of Online Heart Age Risk Calculators [J].
Bonner, Carissa ;
Jansen, Jesse ;
Newell, Ben R. ;
Irwig, Les ;
Glasziou, Paul ;
Doust, Jenny ;
Dhillon, Haryana ;
McCaffery, Kirsten .
JOURNAL OF MEDICAL INTERNET RESEARCH, 2014, 16 (05) :118-129
[4]   The Pitfalls of Visual Representations: A Review and Classification of Common Errors Made While Designing and Interpreting Visualizations y [J].
Bresciani, Sabrina ;
Eppler, Martin J. .
SAGE OPEN, 2015, 5 (04)
[5]   Estimated Lifetime Gained With Cancer Screening Tests [J].
Bretthauer, Michael ;
Wieszczy, Paulina ;
Loberg, Magnus ;
Kaminski, Michal F. ;
Werner, Tarjei Fiskergard ;
Helsingen, Lise M. ;
Mori, Yuichi ;
Holme, Oyvind ;
Adami, Hans-Olov ;
Kalager, Mette .
JAMA INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2023, 183 (11) :1196-1203
[6]   Women's perceptions of breast cancer risk: Are they accurate? [J].
Buxton, JA ;
Bottorff, JL ;
Balneaves, LG ;
Richardson, C ;
McCullum, M ;
Ratner, PA ;
Hack, T .
CANADIAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH-REVUE CANADIENNE DE SANTE PUBLIQUE, 2003, 94 (06) :422-426
[7]   How lay people understand and make sense of personalized disease risk information [J].
Damman, Olga C. ;
Bogaerts, Nina M. M. ;
van den Haak, Maaike J. ;
Timmermans, Danielle R. M. .
HEALTH EXPECTATIONS, 2017, 20 (05) :973-983
[8]   Health literacy and cancer communication [J].
Davis, TC ;
Williams, MV ;
Marin, E ;
Parker, RM ;
Glass, J .
CA-A CANCER JOURNAL FOR CLINICIANS, 2002, 52 (03) :134-149
[9]  
de Jonge ETM, 2009, FACTS VIEWS VIS OBGY, V1, P122
[10]  
de Leede D., 2022, Beleidskader Bevolkingsonderzoeken naar Kanker (Policy Framework for Population Screening for Cancer)