Use of a decision aid including information on overdetection to support informed choice about breast cancer screening: a randomised controlled trial

被引:227
作者
Hersch, Jolyn [1 ,2 ]
Barratt, Alexandra [2 ]
Jansen, Jesse [1 ,2 ]
Irwig, Les [1 ]
McGeechan, Kevin [2 ]
Jacklyn, Gemma [3 ]
Thornton, Hazel [5 ]
Dhillon, Haryana [2 ,4 ]
Houssami, Nehmat [1 ]
McCaffery, Kirsten [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Sydney, STEP, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
[2] Univ Sydney, Ctr Med Psychol & Evidence Based Decis Making CeM, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
[3] Univ Sydney, Sch Publ Hlth, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
[4] Univ Sydney, Cent Clin Sch, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
[5] Univ Leicester, Dept Hlth Sci, Leicester, Leics, England
基金
英国医学研究理事会;
关键词
MAMMOGRAPHY; WOMEN; ENTHUSIASM; OUTCOMES; RISK;
D O I
10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60123-4
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Background Mammography screening can reduce breast cancer mortality. However, most women are unaware that inconsequential disease can also be detected by screening, leading to overdiagnosis and overtreatment. We aimed to investigate whether including information about overdetection of breast cancer in a decision aid would help women aged around 50 years to make an informed choice about breast screening. Methods We did a community-based, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial in New South Wales, Australia, using a random cohort of women aged 48-50 years. Recruitment to the study was done by telephone; women were eligible if they had not had mammography in the past 2 years and did not have a personal or strong family history of breast cancer. With a computer program, we randomly assigned 879 participants to either the intervention decision aid (comprising evidence-based explanatory and quantitative information on overdetection, breast cancer mortality reduction, and false positives) or a control decision aid (including information on breast cancer mortality reduction and false positives). Participants and interviewers were masked to group assignment. The primary outcome was informed choice (defined as adequate knowledge and consistency between attitudes and screening intentions), which we assessed by telephone interview about 3 weeks after random allocation. The primary outcome was analysed in all women who completed the relevant follow-up interview questions fully. This trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, number ACTRN12613001035718. Findings Between January, 2014, and July, 2014, 440 women were allocated to the intervention group and 439 were assigned to the control group. 21 women in the intervention group and 20 controls were lost to follow-up; a further ten women assigned to the intervention and 11 controls did not answer all questions on attitudes. Therefore, 409 women in the intervention group and 408 controls were analysed for the primary outcome. 99 (24%) of 409 women in the intervention group made an informed choice compared with 63 (15%) of 408 in the control group (difference 9%, 95% CI 3-14; p= 0.0017). Compared with controls, more women in the intervention group met the threshold for adequate overall knowledge (122/419 [29%] vs 71/419 [17%]; difference 12%, 95% CI 6-18; p<0.0001), fewer women expressed positive attitudes towards screening (282/409 [69%] vs 340/408 [83%]; 14%, 9-20; p<0.0001), and fewer women intended to be screened (308/419 [74%] vs 363/419 [87%]; 13%, 8-19; p<0.0001). When conceptual knowledge alone was considered, 203 (50%) of 409 women in the intervention group made an informed choice compared with 79 (19%) of 408 in the control group (p<0.0001). Interpretation Information on overdetection of breast cancer provided within a decision aid increased the number of women making an informed choice about breast screening. Becoming better informed might mean women are less likely to choose screening.
引用
收藏
页码:1642 / 1652
页数:11
相关论文
共 41 条
[1]  
[Anonymous], 2007, Psychological science in the public interest, DOI DOI 10.1111/J.1539-6053.2008.00033.X
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2014, COCHRANE DB SYST REV, DOI DOI 10.1002/14651858.CD001431.PUB4
[3]   Model of outcomes of screening mammography: information to support informed choices [J].
Barratt, A ;
Howard, K ;
Irwig, L ;
Salkeld, G ;
Houssami, N .
BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2005, 330 (7497) :936-938
[4]   Shared Decision Making - The Pinnacle of Patient-Centered Care [J].
Barry, Michael J. ;
Edgman-Levitan, Susan .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2012, 366 (09) :780-781
[5]   Abolishing Mammography Screening Programs? A View from the Swiss Medical Board [J].
Biller-Andorno, Nikola ;
Jueni, Peter ;
Kalager, Mette .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2014, 370 (21) :1965-1967
[6]  
BreastScreen NSW, 2012, EARL DET IS VIT
[7]  
Canadian Partnership Against Cancer, 2013, QUAL DET BREAST CANC
[8]   Risk of Ischemic Heart Disease in Women after Radiotherapy for Breast Cancer [J].
Darby, Sarah C. ;
Ewertz, Marianne ;
McGale, Paul ;
Bennet, Anna M. ;
Blom-Goldman, Ulla ;
Bronnum, Dorthe ;
Correa, Candace ;
Cutter, David ;
Gagliardi, Giovanna ;
Gigante, Bruna ;
Jensen, Maj-Britt ;
Nisbet, Andrew ;
Peto, Richard ;
Rahimi, Kazem ;
Taylor, Carolyn ;
Hall, Per .
NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 2013, 368 (11) :987-998
[9]   EMAS position statement: Individualized breast cancer screening versus population-based mammography screening programmes [J].
Depypere, Herman ;
Desreux, Joelle ;
Perez-Lopez, Faustino R. ;
Ceausu, Iuliana ;
Erel, C. Tamer ;
Lambrinoudaki, Irene ;
Schenck-Gustafsson, Karin ;
van der Schouw, Yvonne T. ;
Simoncini, Tommaso ;
Tremollieres, Florence ;
Rees, Margaret .
MATURITAS, 2014, 79 (04) :481-486
[10]   Informed choice in antenatal Down syndrome screening: A cluster-randomised trial of combined versus separate visit testing [J].
Dormandy, E ;
Michie, S ;
Hooper, R ;
Marteau, TM .
PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING, 2006, 61 (01) :56-64