Shared Decision Making and the Use of Screening Mammography in Women Younger Than 50 Years of Age

Evaluation of the shared decision-making process scale in cancer screening and medication decisions

OBJECTIVES

Examine reliability and validity of the Shared Decision-Making (SDM) Process scale for cancer screening and medication decisions.

METHODS

Secondary data analysis from 6174 participants who made decisions about cancer screening (breast, colon or prostate) or medication (menopause, depression, hypertension or high cholesterol). Key measures included the SDM Process scale, decisional conflict, decision regret, and decision quality. Construct validity was examined by testing whether higher SDM Process scores were associated with lower regret, lower decisional conflict and higher decision quality. Meta-analyses summarized data across studies. Some studies assessed the scale's reliability.

RESULTS

Average SDM Process scores ranged from 1.2 to 2.5. There was a moderate-to-large, positive association between scores and lack of decisional conflict (cancer screening: d=0.61, CI(0.38, 0.84), p < .001; medications: d=0.36, CI(0.29, 0.44), p < .001). High scores were associated with lower decision regret (cancer screening: d=-0.24, CI(-0.37, -0.11), p < .001; medications: d=-0.30, CI(-0.40,-0.20), p < .001). There was no relationship with decision quality. Retest reliability was acceptable (ICC>0.7) for seven of eight clinical samples.

CONCLUSIONS

The SDM Process scale demonstrated construct validity and retest reliability in cancer screening and medication decisions.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

The validated SDM Process scale is a short, patient reported metric to evaluate the current state of SDM.

Getting patients back for routine colorectal cancer screening: Randomized controlled trial of a shared decision-making intervention

Thousands of colonoscopies were canceled during the initial surge of the COVID-19 pandemic. As facilities resumed services, some patients were hesitant to reschedule. The purpose of this study was to determine whether a decision aid plus telephone coaching would increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and improve patient reports of shared decision making (SDM). A randomized controlled trial assigned adults aged 45-75 without prior history of CRC who had a colonoscopy canceled from March to May 2020 to intervention (n = 400) or usual care control (n = 400) arms. The intervention arm received three-page decision aid and call from decision coach from September 2020 through November 2020. Screening rates were collected at 6 months. A subset (n = 250) in each arm was surveyed 8 weeks after randomization to assess SDM (scores range 0-4, higher scores indicating more SDM), decisional conflict, and screening preference. The sample was on average, 60 years old, 53% female, 74% White, non-Hispanic, and 11% Spanish speaking. More intervention arm patients were screened within 6 months (35% intervention vs 23% control, p < 0.001). The intervention respondents reported higher SDM scores (mean difference 0.7 [0.4, 0.9], p < 0.001) and less decisional conflict than controls (-21% [-35%, -7%], p = 0.003). The majority in both arms preferred screening versus delaying (68% intervention vs. 65% control, p = 0.75). An SDM approach that offered alternatives and incorporated patients' preferences resulted in higher screening rates. Patients who are overdue for CRC screening may benefit from proactive outreach with SDM support.

The Influence of Patient-Provider Communication on Cancer Screening

Few studies have examined how different qualities and modes (face-to-face vs electronic) of patient–provider communication (PPC) influence cancer screening uptake. Our objective was to determine whether receiving a breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening is influenced by (1) qualities of face-to-face and (2) the use of e-mail PPC. We analyzed Health Information National Trends Survey 4, cycles 1 to 4 data. To assess qualities of face-to-face PPC, adults reported how often physicians spent enough time with them, explained so they understood, gave them a chance to ask questions, addressed feelings and emotions, involved them in decisions, confirmed understanding, and helped them with uncertainty. Adults reported whether they used e-mail PPC. We used multivariable logistic regression to evaluate the odds of receiving cancer screenings based on face-to-face and e-mail PPC. Adults whose health-care providers involved them in decision-making had highest odds of receiving breast (odds ratio [OR] = 1.38; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.11-1.71), cervical (OR = 1.30; 95% CI = 1.06-1.60), and colorectal (OR = 1.25; 95% CI = 1.03-1.51) cancer screenings. No significant associations were observed between e-mail PPC and cancer screenings. More research is needed to explore this association.

Key Elements of Mammography Shared Decision-Making: a Scoping Review of the Literature

BACKGROUND

New guidelines recommend shared decision-making (SDM) for women and their clinician in consideration of breast cancer screening, particularly for women ages 35-50 where guidelines for routine mammography are controversial. A number of models offer general guidelines for SDM across clinical practice, yet they do not offer specific guidance about conducting SDM in mammography. We conducted a scoping review of the literature to identify the key elements of breast cancer screening SDM and synthesize these key elements for utilization by primary care clinicians.

METHODS

The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL Plus); PsycInfo, PubMed (MEDLINE), Scopus, and SocIndex databases were searched. Inclusion criteria were original studies from peer-reviewed publications (from 2009 or later) reporting breast cancer screening (mammography), medical decision-making, and patient-centered care. Study populations needed to include female patients 18+ years of age facing a real-life breast cancer screening decision. Article findings were specific to shared decision-making and/or use of a decision aid. Data extracted includes study design, population, setting, intervention, and critical findings related to breast cancer screening SDM elements. Scoping analysis includes descriptive analysis of study features and content analysis to identify the SDM key elements.

RESULTS

Twenty-four articles were retained. Three thematic categories of key elements emerged from the extracted elements: information delivery/patient education (specific content and delivery modes), interpersonal clinician-patient communication (aspects of interpersonal relationship impacting SDM), and framework of the decision (sociocultural factors beyond direct SDM deliberation). A number of specific breast cancer screening SDM elements relevant to primary care clinical practice are delineated.

DISCUSSION

The findings underscore the importance of the relationship between the patient and clinician and the necessity of spelling out each step in the SDM process. The clinician needs to be explicit in telling a woman that she has a choice about whether to get a mammogram and the benefits and harms of screening mammography. Finally, clinicians need to be aware of sociocultural factors that can influence their relationships and their patients' decision-making processes and attempt to identify and address these factors.

Decision making for breast cancer prevention among women at elevated risk

Several medical management approaches have been shown to be effective in preventing breast cancer and detecting it early among women at elevated risk: 1) prophylactic mastectomy; 2) prophylactic oophorectomy; 3) chemoprevention; and 4) enhanced screening routines. To varying extents, however, these approaches are substantially underused relative to clinical practice recommendations. This article reviews the existing research on the uptake of these prevention approaches, the characteristics of women who are likely to use various methods, and the decision-making processes that underlie the differing choices of women. It also highlights important areas for future research, detailing the types of studies that are particularly needed in four key areas: documenting women's perspectives on their own perceptions of risk and prevention decisions; explicit comparisons of available prevention pathways and their likely health effects; the psychological, interpersonal, and social processes of prevention decision making; and the dynamics of subgroup variation. Ultimately, this research could support the development of interventions that more fully empower women to make informed and values-consistent decisions, and to move towards favorable health outcomes.

Mammography decision making: Trends and predictors of provider communication in the Health Information National Trends Survey, 2011 to 2014

BACKGROUND

In 2009, the US Preventive Services Task Force recommended that the decision to initiate screening mammography before age 50 years should be individualized. Herein, the authors examined whether health care providers are communicating regarding mammography decision making with women and whether communication is associated with screening behavior.

METHODS

Data were drawn from the 2011 to 2014 Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS). A total of 5915 female respondents aged ≥ 40 years who responded to the following question were included: "Has a doctor or other health professional ever told you that you could choose whether or not to have a mammogram?" We used logistic regression to generate odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) for predictors of provider communication and assessed whether provider communication was associated with mammography in the previous 2 years overall and stratified by age.

RESULTS

Fewer than 50% of the women reported provider communication regarding mammogram choice. Women who reported provider communication were not found to be more likely to report no mammogram within the past 2 years (OR, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.87-1.31) compared with those who did not. When stratified by 10-year age group, provider communication was associated with a higher likelihood of no mammogram only among women age ≥70 years (OR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.15-2.34), and was associated with a lower likelihood of no mammogram only among women aged 40 to 49 years (OR, 0.63; 95% CI, 0.43-0.92).

CONCLUSIONS

Between 2011 and 2014, less than one-half of women received communication regarding mammogram choice despite recommendations from the US Preventive Services Task Force. Provider communication regarding mammogram choice can influence screening behavior, particularly for younger and older women. Cancer 2017;123:401-409. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Receipt of mammography recommendations among White and non-White women before and after the 2009 United States Preventive Services Task Force recommendation change

PURPOSE

Receipt of a mammography recommendation from a physician is a strong predictor of obtaining a mammogram. In 2009, the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommended routine biennial mammography for women aged 50-74 but not for women aged 40-49. We examined changes in reports of clinician recommendations for mammography among White and non-White women after these age-specific recommendations were issued.

METHODS

Data from women aged 40-49 and 50-74 were drawn from the 2008 and 2013 National Health Interview Surveys. We used linear probability models to determine whether the proportions of women reporting a mammography recommendation changed after the USPSTF recommendation was issued and whether any changes observed differed across White and non-White women. All analyses were stratified by age groups and mammography history.

RESULTS

Among women without a recent mammogram, reported clinician recommendations did not change for White women, but they decreased by 13-percentage points (95 % CI -0.22, -0.03) among non-White women aged 40-49 (p = 0.01) and increased by 9-percentage points (95 % CI 0.01, 0.17) among non-White women aged 50-74 (p = 0.04). Among women with a mammogram in the past 2 years, reported mammography recommendation from a clinician did not change for White or non-White women.

CONCLUSIONS

Recommendations to reduce screening may be differentially implemented across racial/ethnic groups. Changes in reports of mammography recommendation from a clinician after the USPSTF breast cancer screening recommendation change were observed only among non-White women without a recent history of mammography. It is unclear whether these differences are due to the clinician, the women, or both.