Facilitating informed decisions about breast cancer screening: development and evaluation of a web-based decision aid for women in their 40s

Patient preferences for breast cancer screening: a systematic review update to inform recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care

BACKGROUND

Different guideline panels, and individuals, may make different decisions based in part on their preferences. Preferences for or against an intervention are viewed as a consequence of the relative importance people place on the expected or experienced health outcomes it incurs. These findings can then be considered as patient input when balancing effect estimates on benefits and harms reported by empirical evidence on the clinical effectiveness of screening programs. This systematic review update examined the relative importance placed by patients on the potential benefits and harms of mammography-based breast cancer screening to inform an update to the 2018 Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care's guideline on screening.

METHODS

We screened all articles from our previous review (search December 2017) and updated our searches to June 19, 2023 in MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL. We also screened grey literature, submissions by stakeholders, and reference lists. The target population was cisgender women and other adults assigned female at birth (including transgender men and nonbinary persons) aged ≥ 35 years and at average or moderately increased risk for breast cancer. Studies of patients with breast cancer were eligible for health-state utility data for relevant outcomes. We sought three types of data, directly through (i) disutilities of screening and curative treatment health states (measuring the impact of the outcome on one's health-related quality of life; utilities measured on a scale of 0 [death] to 1 [perfect health]), and (ii) other preference-based data, such as outcome trade-offs, and indirectly through (iii) the relative importance of benefits versus harms inferred from attitudes, intentions, and behaviors towards screening among patients provided with estimates of the magnitudes of benefit(s) and harms(s). For screening, we used machine learning as one of the reviewers after at least 50% of studies had been reviewed in duplicate by humans; full-text selection used independent review by two humans. Data extraction and risk of bias assessments used a single reviewer with verification. Our main analysis for utilities used data from utility-based health-related quality of life tools (e.g., EQ-5D) in patients; a disutility value of about 0.04 can be considered a minimally important value for the Canadian public. When suitable, we pooled utilities and explored heterogeneity. Disutilities were calculated for screening health states and between different treatment states. Non-utility data were grouped into categories, based on outcomes compared (e.g. for trade-off data), participant age, and our judgements of the net benefit of screening portrayed by the studies. Thereafter, we compared and contrasted findings while considering sample sizes, risk of bias, subgroup findings and data on knowledge scores, and created summary statements for each data set. Certainty assessments followed GRADE guidance for patient preferences and used consensus among at least two reviewers.

FINDINGS

Eighty-two studies (38 on utilities) were included. The estimated disutilities were 0.07 for a positive screening result (moderate certainty), 0.03-0.04 for a false positive (FP; "additional testing" resolved as negative for cancer) (low certainty), and 0.08 for untreated screen-detected cancer (moderate certainty) or (low certainty) an interval cancer. At ≤12 months, disutilities of mastectomy (vs. breast-conserving therapy), chemotherapy (vs. none) (low certainty), and radiation therapy (vs. none) (moderate certainty) were 0.02-0.03, 0.02-0.04, and little-to-none, respectively, though in each case findings were somewhat limited in their applicability. Over the longer term, there was moderate certainty for little-to-no disutility from mastectomy versus breast-conserving surgery/lumpectomy with radiation and from radiation. There was moderate certainty that a majority (>50%) and possibly a large majority (>75%) of women probably accept up to six cases of overdiagnosis to prevent one breast-cancer death; there was some uncertainty because of an indication that overdiagnosis was not fully understood by participants in some cases. Low certainty evidence suggested that a large majority may accept that screening may reduce breast-cancer but not all-cause mortality, at least when presented with relatively high rates of breast-cancer mortality reductions (n = 2; 2 and 5 fewer per 1000 screened), and at least a majority accept that to prevent one breast-cancer death at least a few hundred patients will receive a FP result and 10-15 will have a FP resolved through biopsy. An upper limit for an acceptable number of FPs was not evaluated. When using data from studies assessing attitudes, intentions, and screening behaviors, across all age groups but most evident for women in their 40s, preferences reduced as the net benefit presented by study authors decreased in magnitude. In a relatively low net-benefit scenario, a majority of patients in their 40s may not weigh the benefits as greater than the harms from screening whereas for women in their 50s a large majority may prefer screening (low certainty evidence for both ages). There was moderate certainty that a large majority of women 50 years of age and 50 to 69 years of age, who have usually experienced screening, weigh the benefits as greater than the harms from screening in a high net-benefit scenario. A large majority of patients aged 70-71 years who have recently screened probably think the benefits outweigh the harms of continuing to screen. A majority of women in their mid-70s to early 80s may prefer to continue screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Evidence across a range of data sources on how informed patients value the potential outcomes from breast-cancer screening will be useful during decision-making for recommendations. The evidence suggests that all of the outcomes examined have importance to women of any age, that there is at least some and possibly substantial (among those in their 40s) variability across and within age groups about the acceptable magnitude of effects across outcomes, and that provision of easily understandable information on the likelihood of the outcomes may be necessary to enable informed decision making. Although studies came from a wide range of countries, there were limited data from Canada and about whether findings applied well across an ethnographically and socioeconomically diverse population.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

Protocol available at Open Science Framework https://osf.io/xngsu/ .

Shared decision-making for supporting women's decisions about breast cancer screening

BACKGROUND

In breast cancer screening programmes, women may have discussions with a healthcare provider to help them decide whether or not they wish to join the breast cancer screening programme. This process is called shared decision-making (SDM) and involves discussions and decisions based on the evidence and the person's values and preferences. SDM is becoming a recommended approach in clinical guidelines, extending beyond decision aids. However, the overall effect of SDM in women deciding to participate in breast cancer screening remains uncertain.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effect of SDM on women's satisfaction, confidence, and knowledge when deciding whether to participate in breast cancer screening.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Group's Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, ClinicalTrials.gov, and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform on 8 August 2023. We also screened abstracts from two relevant conferences from 2020 to 2023.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included parallel randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and cluster-RCTs assessing interventions targeting various components of SDM. The focus was on supporting women aged 40 to 75 at average or above-average risk of breast cancer in their decision to participate in breast cancer screening.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion and conducted data extraction, risk of bias assessment, and GRADE assessment of the certainty of the evidence. Review outcomes included satisfaction with the decision-making process, confidence in the decision made, knowledge of all options, adherence to the chosen option, women's involvement in SDM, woman-clinician communication, and mental health.

MAIN RESULTS

We identified 19 studies with 64,215 randomised women, mostly with an average to moderate risk of breast cancer. Two studies covered all aspects of SDM; six examined shortened forms of SDM involving communication on risks and personal values; and 11 focused on enhanced communication of risk without other SDM aspects. SDM involving all components compared to control The two eligible studies did not assess satisfaction with the SDM process or confidence in the decision. Based on a single study, SDM showed uncertain effects on participant knowledge regarding the age to start screening (risk ratio (RR) 1.18, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.61 to 2.28; 133 women; very low certainty evidence) and frequency of testing (RR 0.84, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.04; 133 women; very low certainty evidence). Other review outcomes were not measured. Abbreviated forms of SDM with clarification of values and preferences compared to control Of the six included studies, none evaluated satisfaction with the SDM process. These interventions may reduce conflict in the decision made, based on two measures, Decisional Conflict Scale scores (mean difference (MD) -1.60, 95% CI -4.21 to 0.87; conflict scale from 0 to 100; 4 studies; 1714 women; very low certainty evidence) and the proportion of women with residual conflict compared to control at one to three months' follow-up (rate of women with a conflicted decision, RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.99; 1 study; 1001 women, very low certainty evidence). Knowledge of all options was assessed through knowledge scores and informed choice. The effect of SDM may enhance knowledge (MDs ranged from 0.47 to 1.44 higher scores on a scale from 0 to 10; 5 studies; 2114 women; low certainty evidence) and may lead to higher rates of informed choice (RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.63; 4 studies; 2449 women; low certainty evidence) compared to control at one to three months' follow-up. These interventions may result in little to no difference in anxiety (MD 0.54, 95% -0.96 to 2.14; scale from 20 to 80; 2 studies; 749 women; low certainty evidence) and the number of women with worries about cancer compared to control at four to six weeks' follow-up (RR 0.88, 95% CI 0.73 to 1.06; 1 study, 639 women; low certainty evidence). Other review outcomes were not measured. Enhanced communication about risks without other SDM aspects compared to control Of 11 studies, three did not report relevant outcomes for this review, and none assessed satisfaction with the SDM process. Confidence in the decision made was measured by decisional conflict and anticipated regret of participating in screening or not. These interventions, without addressing values and preferences, may result in lower confidence in the decision compared to regular communication strategies at two weeks' follow-up (MD 2.89, 95% CI -2.35 to 8.14; Decisional Conflict Scale from 0 to 100; 2 studies; 1191 women; low certainty evidence). They may result in higher anticipated regret if participating in screening (MD 0.28, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.41) and lower anticipated regret if not participating in screening (MD -0.28, 95% CI -0.42 to -0.14). These interventions increase knowledge (MD 1.14, 95% CI 0.61 to 1.62; scale from 0 to 10; 4 studies; 2510 women; high certainty evidence), while it is unclear if there is a higher rate of informed choice compared to regular communication strategies at two to four weeks' follow-up (RR 1.27, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.92; 2 studies; 1805 women; low certainty evidence). These interventions result in little to no difference in anxiety (MD 0.33, 95% CI -1.55 to 0.99; scale from 20 to 80) and depression (MD 0.02, 95% CI -0.41 to 0.45; scale from 0 to 21; 2 studies; 1193 women; high certainty evidence) and lower cancer worry compared to control (MD -0.17, 95% CI -0.26 to -0.08; scale from 1 to 4; 1 study; 838 women; high certainty evidence). Other review outcomes were not measured.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Studies using abbreviated forms of SDM and other forms of enhanced communications indicated improvements in knowledge and reduced decisional conflict. However, uncertainty remains about the effect of SDM on supporting women's decisions. Most studies did not evaluate outcomes considered important for this review topic, and those that did measured different concepts. High-quality randomised trials are needed to evaluate SDM in diverse cultural settings with a focus on outcomes such as women's satisfaction with choices aligned to their values.

Exploration of decision aids to support advance care planning: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Advance care planning is a process through which people communicate their goals and preferences for future medical care. Due to the complexity of the decision-making process, decision aids can assist individuals in balancing potential benefits and risks of treatment options.

OBJECTIVE

While decision aids have the potential to better promote advance care planning, their characteristics, content and application effectiveness are unclear and lack systematic review. Therefore, we aimed to explore these three aspects and establish a foundation for future research.

DESIGN

Scoping review.

METHODS

This scoping review adheres to the framework proposed by Arksey and O'Malley and the PRISMA-ScR list. Six English-language databases were systematically searched from the time of construction until 1 December 2023. Two researchers conducted the article screening and data extraction, and the extracted data was presented in written tables and narrative summaries.

RESULTS

Of the 1479 titles and abstracts, 20 studies fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Types of decision aids were employed, mainly websites and videos. Decision aid's primary components center around 11 areas, such as furnishing information, exploring treatment and care preferences. The main manifestations were a significant increase in knowledge and improved recognition of patients' target value preferences. Among the aids, websites and videos for advance care planning have relatively high content acceptability and decision-making process satisfaction, but their feasibility has yet to be tested.

CONCLUSIONS

Decision aids were varied, with content focused on describing key information and exploring treatment and care preferences. Regarding application effects, the aids successfully facilitated the advance care planning process and improved the quality of participants' decisions. Overall, decision aids are efficient in improving the decision-making process for implementing advance care planning in cancer and geriatric populations. In the future, personalised decision aids should be developed based on continuous optimization of tools' quality and promoted for clinical application.

REPORTING METHOD

The paper has adhered to the EQUATOR guidelines and referenced the PRISMAg-ScR checklist.

NO PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

This is a review without patient and public contribution.

REGISTRATION

https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/YPHKF, Open Science DOI: 10.17605/OSF.IO/YPHKF.

Development and evaluation of a decision aid for women eligible for organized breast cancer screening according to international standards: A multi-method study

BACKGROUND

and purpose: In France, women lack information to make a shared decision to start breast cancer screening. Decision aids are useful to facilitate this discussion, yet few meet international standards. The objective of this project was to build, validate and measure the quality of a decision aid for organized breast screening in France, in line with international standards, intended for both women and healthcare professionals.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

This mixed-methods study was conducted between January 2017 and June 2022. The prototype was developed from a qualitative study, systematic review and targeted literature review and alpha tested during two Delphi rounds. Readability was evaluated with the Flesch score and content with International Patient Decision Aid Standards Instrument (IPSASi).

RESULTS

An online decision aid, accessible at www.Discutons-mammo.fr, written in French was developed. The content included eligibility, information about breast screening the advantages and disadvantages of screening, patient preferences and a patient-based discussion guide using text, infographics, and videos. The Flesch readability test score was 65.4 and the IPDASi construct quality score was 176 out of 188.

CONCLUSIONS

This decision aid complies with IPDASi standards and could help women eligible for breast screening in France make a shared decision with a specialized healthcare professional about whether or not to participate in organized breast screening.

A Scoping Review of Personalized, Interactive, Web-Based Clinical Decision Tools Available for Breast Cancer Prevention and Screening in the United States

Introduction. Personalized web-based clinical decision tools for breast cancer prevention and screening could address knowledge gaps, enhance patient autonomy in shared decision-making, and promote equitable care. The purpose of this review was to present evidence on the availability, usability, feasibility, acceptability, quality, and uptake of breast cancer prevention and screening tools to support their integration into clinical care. Methods. We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews Checklist to conduct this review. We searched 6 databases to identify literature on the development, validation, usability, feasibility, acceptability testing, and uptake of the tools into practice settings. Quality assessment for each tool was conducted using the International Patient Decision Aid Standard instrument, with quality scores ranging from 0 to 63 (lowest-highest). Results. We identified 10 tools for breast cancer prevention and 9 tools for screening. The tools included individual (e.g., age), clinical (e.g., genomic risk factors), and health behavior (e.g., alcohol use) characteristics. Fourteen tools included race/ethnicity, but no tool incorporated contextual factors (e.g., insurance, access) associated with breast cancer. All tools were internally or externally validated. Six tools had undergone usability testing in samples including White (median, 71%; range, 9%-96%), insured (99%; 97%-100%) women, with college education or higher (60%; 27%-100%). All of the tools were developed and tested in academic settings. Seven (37%) tools showed potential evidence of uptake in clinical practice. The tools had an average quality assessment score of 21 (range, 9-39). Conclusions. There is limited evidence on testing and uptake of breast cancer prevention and screening tools in diverse clinical settings. The development, testing, and integration of tools in academic and nonacademic settings could potentially improve uptake and equitable access to these tools.

Highlights

There were 19 personalized, interactive, Web-based decision tools for breast cancer prevention and screening.Breast cancer outcomes were personalized based on individual clinical characteristics (e.g., age, medical history), genomic risk factors (e.g., BRCA1/2), race and ethnicity, and health behaviors (e.g., smoking). The tools did not include contextual factors (e.g., insurance status, access to screening facilities) that could potentially contribute to breast cancer outcomes.Validation, usability, acceptability, and feasibility testing were conducted mostly among White and/or insured patients with some college education (or higher) in academic settings. There was limited evidence on testing and uptake of the tools in nonacademic clinical settings.

Breast cancer knowledge & information seeking among African American women below screening age

OBJECTIVES

African American women below screening age disproportionately face greater mortality from breast cancer relative to peers of other races and African American women of screening age. The current study examines breast cancer knowledge and health information seeking of African American women below screening age.

METHODS

We collected survey data from 99 African American women below screening age on their breast cancer knowledge and health information seeking behaviors. As secondary analysis, we harmonized data from a previous study to compare breast cancer knowledge between African American women below and of (N = 209) screening age.

RESULTS

The average woman below screening age correctly answered 2.84 (SD=1.08) of six breast cancer knowledge items, 2.67 (SD=1.01) of five mammogram items, 1.44 (SD=0.86) of three treatment items, and had lower knowledge (p < .001) in each area relative to screening age women. Women below screening age sought information primarily from medical providers and the internet.

CONCLUSIONS

A strategy for eliminating early-onset breast cancer disparities impacting African American women is addressing the limited breast cancer knowledge in this age group. Practice Implications In addition to age-appropriate information for this group, guidance for medical providers would be beneficial, as providers are this group's most common source of health information.

The Impact of IT-Based Healthcare Communication on Mammography Screening Utilization among Women in the United States: National Health Interview Survey (2011-2018)

Effective patient-provider communication improves mammography utilization. Using information technology (IT) promotes health outcomes. However, there are disparities in access to IT that could contribute to disparities in mammography utilization. This study aims to assess the association between IT-based health care communication and mammography utilization and to evaluate if this effect is modified by race/ethnicity and age. To this end, this study was conducted using the National Health Interview Survey from 2011 to 2018. A total of 94,290 women aged 40 years and older were included. Multiple logistic regression models were used, and odds ratios were reported. The study found that all IT-based healthcare communication strategies were significantly associated with mammography utilization in all years from 2011 to 2018. In 2018, women who looked up health information on the internet, scheduled a medical appointment on the internet, and communicated with providers by email had a significantly higher chance to use mammography (p ≤ 0.005 for all strategies across all years). White women and women aged 50 years and older benefited the most from IT-based healthcare communication. In conclusion, facilitating access to IT may help increase mammography utilization, which may contribute to eliminating disparities in breast cancer mortality.

The current status of risk-stratified breast screening

Apart from high-risk scenarios such as the presence of highly penetrant genetic mutations, breast screening typically comprises mammography or tomosynthesis strategies defined by age. However, age-based screening ignores the range of breast cancer risks that individual women may possess and is antithetical to the ambitions of personalised early detection. Whilst screening mammography reduces breast cancer mortality, this is at the risk of potentially significant harms including overdiagnosis with overtreatment, and psychological morbidity associated with false positives. In risk-stratified screening, individualised risk assessment may inform screening intensity/interval, starting age, imaging modality used, or even decisions not to screen. However, clear evidence for its benefits and harms needs to be established. In this scoping review, the authors summarise the established and emerging evidence regarding several critical dependencies for successful risk-stratified breast screening: risk prediction model performance, epidemiological studies, retrospective clinical evaluations, health economic evaluations and qualitative research on feasibility and acceptability. Family history, breast density or reproductive factors are not on their own suitable for precisely estimating risk and risk prediction models increasingly incorporate combinations of demographic, clinical, genetic and imaging-related parameters. Clinical evaluations of risk-stratified screening are currently limited. Epidemiological evidence is sparse, and randomised trials only began in recent years.

A scoping review of interactive and personalized web-based clinical tools to support treatment decision making in breast cancer

The increasing attention on personalized breast cancer care has resulted in an explosion of new interactive, tailored, web-based clinical decision tools for guiding treatment decisions in clinical practice. The goal of this study was to review, compare, and discuss the clinical implications of current tools, and highlight future directions for tools aiming to improve personalized breast cancer care. We searched PubMed, Embase, PsychInfo, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Web of Science, and Scopus to identify web-based decision tools addressing breast cancer treatment decisions. There was a total of 17 articles associated with 21 unique tools supporting decisions related to surgery, radiation therapy, hormonal therapy, bisphosphonates, HER2-targeted therapy, and chemotherapy. The quality of the tools was assessed using the International Patient Decision Aid Standard instrument. Overall, the tools considered clinical (e.g., age) and tumor characteristics (e.g., grade) to provide personalized outcomes (e.g., survival) associated with various treatment options. Fewer tools provided the adverse effects of the selected treatment. Only one tool was field-tested with patients, and none were tested with healthcare providers. Future studies need to assess the feasibility, usability, acceptability, as well as the effects of personalized web-based decision tools on communication and decision making from the patient and clinician perspectives.

Preliminary Evaluation of a Breast Cancer Screening Shared Decision-Making Aid Utilized Within the Primary Care Clinical Encounter

Introduction:

The US Preventative Services Task Force recommends shared decision-making (SDM) between women aged 40 and 49 years and their physician regarding timing of mammography screening. This preliminary study evaluates women’s and physician’s satisfaction using Breast Cancer Risk Estimator & Decision Aid (BCARE-DA), a shared decision aid utilized during the clinical encounter, and examines SDM quality for these encounters.

Methods:

Fifty-three women and their physician utilized BCARE-DA and completed surveys measuring satisfaction with Likert-type and open-ended items and women completed the Decision Conflict Scale. Clinic visit transcripts were evaluated for SDM quality using Observer OPTION-5 and Breast Cancer Screening Decision Core Components Checklist.

Results:

Women and physicians positively evaluated BCARE-DA. Women had low decision conflict. Physicians demonstrated moderate effort toward SDM, greatest in offering options, and lowest for team talk. Physicians demonstrated 2/3 of core SDM elements in 80% to 100% of encounters.

Conclusion:

Preliminary findings suggest specific promise for such Decision Aids to facilitate SDM through understanding of personal risks for breast cancer formulated within each screening option, while some SDM elements likely require additional facilitating.

Modifying a Mammography Decision Aid for Older Adult Women with Risk Factors for Low Health Literacy

Background:

Guidelines recommend that before being offered mammography screening, women age 75 years and older be informed of the uncertainty of benefit and potential for harm (e.g., being diagnosed with a breast cancer that would otherwise never have shown up in one's lifetime); however, few older women are informed of the risks of mammography screening and most overestimate its benefits.

Objective:

The aim of this study was to learn from women older than age 75 years who have predisposing risk factors for low health literacy (LHL) how they make decisions about mammography screening, whether an existing decision aid (DA) on mammography screening for them was acceptable and helpful, and suggestions for improving the DA.

Methods:

We conducted semi-structured interviews with 18 women who were between ages 75 and 89 years and had predisposing risk factors for LHL (i.e., answered somewhat to not at all confident to the health literacy screening question “How confident are you filling out medical forms by yourself?” and/or had an education level of some college or less).

Key Results:

Findings indicate that women in this study lacked knowledge and understanding that one can decide on mammography screening based on their personal values. Women were enthusiastic about screening based on an interest in taking care of themselves but rely on their providers for health care decisions. Overall, most women found the DA helpful and would recommend the use of the DA.

Conclusions:

Findings from this study provide formative data to test the efficacy of the modified DA in practice. Failing to consider the informational needs of adults with LHL in design of DAs could inadvertently exacerbate existing inequalities in health. It is essential that DAs consider older women's diverse backgrounds and educational levels to support their decision-making. [HLRP: Health Literacy Research and Practice. 2021;5(2):e78–e90.]

Plain Language Summary:

The goal of this research was to understand how women older than age 75 years with risk factors for low health literacy made decisions about getting mammograms, whether an educational pamphlet was helpful, and suggestions for improving it. This research helps in understanding how to involve this population in the process of designing patient-related materials for mammogram decision-making.

Web-based decision aids for cancer clinical decisions: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of web-based decision aids (WDAs) on cancer-related clinical care in terms of different decision categories and by different cancer types.

METHODS

Literature retrieval utilized highly inclusive algorithms searching randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library and manual searching of eligible studies from reference lists of relevant articles. Two researchers examined the articles selected separately and extracted the information about the studies (e.g., decision category, sample sizes, and outcome indicators) using a data-extracting form and performed risk of bias assessment of the included studies with Begg's test, Egger's test, and Cochrane Collaboration's tool. Meta-analysis of the pooled effects of WDAs on outcome indicators was performed via Review Manager 5.2.

RESULTS

A total of 24 RCTs met the inclusion criteria, involving 9846 participants. Overall meta-analysis revealed statistically significant effects on cancer decisional conflict, knowledge, and making informed choice with the overall effect sizes being -0.29 (standardized mean difference, SMD), 0.47 (SMD), and 1.92 (risk ratio, RR) respectively. Subgroup analysis revealed significant effects in indicators including decisional conflict, knowledge, satisfaction, participation in decision-making, and screening behavior, though some extent of heterogeneity and quality flaws existed among the included studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Although our research results showed evidence of WDA effects on certain outcome indicators of cancer decisions, these results should be interpreted with caution given the heterogeneity and quality flaws. It is still premature to conclude whether WDA was effective in optimizing cancer clinical decision-making, and more efforts are needed in this area.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42020218991.

Digital tools in the informed consent process: a systematic review

Background

Providing understandable information to patients is necessary to achieve the aims of the Informed Consent process: respecting and promoting patients’ autonomy and protecting patients from harm. In recent decades, new, primarily digital technologies have been used to apply and test innovative formats of Informed Consent. We conducted a systematic review to explore the impact of using digital tools for Informed Consent in both clinical research and in clinical practice. Understanding, satisfaction and participation were compared for digital tools versus the non-digital Informed Consent process.

Methods

We searched for studies on available electronic databases, including Pubmed, EMBASE, and Cochrane. Studies were identified using specific Mesh-terms/keywords. We included studies, published from January 2012 to October 2020, that focused on the use of digital Informed Consent tools for clinical research, or clinical procedures. Digital interventions were defined as interventions that used multimedia or audio–video to provide information to patients. We classified the interventions into 3 different categories: video only, non-interactive multimedia, and interactive multimedia.

Results

Our search yielded 19,579 publications. After title and abstract screening 100 studies were retained for full-text analysis, of which 73 publications were included. Studies examined interactive multimedia (29/73), non-interactive multimedia (13/73), and videos (31/73), and most (34/38) studies were conducted on adults. Innovations in consent were tested for clinical/surgical procedures (26/38) and clinical research (12/38). For research IC, 21 outcomes were explored, with a positive effect on at least one of the studied outcomes being observed in 8/12 studies. For clinical/surgical procedures 49 outcomes were explored, and 21/26 studies reported a positive effect on at least one of the studied outcomes.

Conclusions

Digital technologies for informed consent were not found to negatively affect any of the outcomes, and overall, multimedia tools seem desirable. Multimedia tools indicated a higher impact than videos only. Presence of a researcher may potentially enhance efficacy of different outcomes in research IC processes. Studies were heterogeneous in design, making evaluation of impact challenging. Robust study design including standardization is needed to conclusively assess impact.

[Validation of the Informed Choice instrument for Chilean women facing a mammography decision in primary care]

Objetivo

Adaptar y validar el instrumento Informed Choice (IC) para la decisión de mamografía al contexto chileno.

Diseño

Estudio transversal, analítico, de adaptación y validación psicométrica.

Emplazamiento

Centro de atención primaria del sector sur oriente de Santiago de Chile.

Métodos

1) traducir y contra-traducir IC; 2) realizar un grupo focal para la relevancia cultural/lingüística; 3) examinar la validez del contenido; 4) pilotar el instrumento; 5) aplicar para validación. Para la consistencia interna se usó el alfa de Cronbach, prueba de esfericidad de Bartlett y la medida de Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin para determinar correlaciones entre las variables y análisis factorial.

Resultados

Se construyeron 3 versiones del IC, modificándose según la opinión de usuarios y expertos. La validación se llevó a cabo en una muestra de 70 mujeres. La edad media fue de 54,4 años, el 47,1% de educación secundaria completa y el 92,9% al menos se había realizado alguna vez una mamografía. Se realizó análisis factorial del IC y se eliminó uno de sus ítems. El alfa de Cronbach final fue 0,79.

Conclusión

El uso de instrumentos de medición requiere de su validación previa ya que la versión original puede variar de acuerdo al contexto cultural donde será aplicado y las necesidades locales particulares. El proceso de validación del IC permite contar con un instrumento confiable para medir la decisión de las mujeres que deben realizarse la mamografía en la dimensión conocimiento, actitud e intención hacia el examen.

Discussions of Potential Mammography Benefits and Harms among Patients with Limited Health Literacy and Providers: "Oh, There are Harms?"

Starting breast cancer screening at age 40 versus 50 may increase potential harms frequency with a small mortality benefit. Younger women's screening decisions, therefore, may be complex. Shared decision-making (SDM) is recommended for women under 50 and may support women under 55 for whom guidelines vary. How women with limited health literacy (LHL) approach breast cancer screening decision-making is less understood, and most SDM tools are not designed with their input. This phenomenological study sought to characterize mammography counseling experiences among women with LHL and primary care providers (PCPs). Women ages 40-54 with LHL who had no history of breast cancer or mammogram within 9 months were approached before a primary care visit at a safety-net hospital. PCPs at this site were invited to participate. Qualitative interviews explored mammography counseling experiences. Patients also reviewed sample information materials. A constant comparison technique generated four themes salient to 25 patients and 20 PCPs: addressing family history versus comprehensive risk assessment; potential mammography harms discussions; information delivery preferences; and integrating pre-visit information tools. Findings suggest that current counseling techniques may not be responsive to patient-identified needs. Opportunities exist to improve how mammography information is shared and increase accessibility across the health literacy spectrum.

A Pre-Test-Post-Test Trial of a Breast Cancer Risk Report for Women in Their 40s

INTRODUCTION

Guidelines recommend individualized breast cancer screening and prevention interventions for women in their 40s. Yet, few primary care clinicians assess breast cancer risk.

STUDY DESIGN

Pretest-Posttest trial.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

Women aged 40-49 years were recruited from one large Boston-based academic primary care practice between July 2017 and April 2019.

INTERVENTION

Participants completed a pretest, received a personalized breast cancer risk report, saw their primary care clinician, and completed a posttest.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Using mixed effects models, changes in screening intentions (0-100 scale [0=will not screen to 100=will screen]), mammography knowledge, decisional conflict, and receipt of screening were examined. Analyses were conducted from June 2019 to February 2020.

RESULTS

Patient (n=337) mean age was 44.1 (SD=2.9) years, 61.4% were non-Hispanic white, and 76.6% were college graduates; 306 (90.5%) completed follow-up (203 with 5-year breast cancer risk <1.1%). Screening intentions declined from pre- to post-visit (79.3 to 68.0, p<0.0001), especially for women with 5-year risk <1.1% (77.2 to 63.3, p<0.0001), but still favored screening. In the 2 years prior, 37.6% had screening mammography compared with 41.8% over a mean 16 months follow-up (p=0.17). Mammography knowledge increased and decisional conflict declined. Eleven (3.3%) women met criteria for breast cancer prevention medications (ten discussed medications with their clinicians), 22 (6.5%) for MRI (19 discussed MRI with their clinician), and 67 (19.8%) for genetic counseling (47 discussed with the clinician).

CONCLUSIONS

Receipt of a personalized breast cancer report was associated with women in their 40s making more-informed and less-conflicted mammography screening decisions and with high-risk women discussing breast cancer prevention interventions with clinicians.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.govNCT03180086.

Quality of decision aids developed for women at average risk of breast cancer eligible for mammographic screening: Systematic review and assessment according to the International Patient Decision Aid Standards instrument

Mammographic screening contributes to a reduction in specific mortality, but it has disadvantages. Decision aids are tools designed to support people's decisions. Because these aids influence patient choice, their quality is crucial. The objective of the current study was to conduct a systematic review of decision aids developed for women eligible for mammographic screening who have an average breast cancer risk and to assess the quality of these aids. The systematic review included articles published between January 1, 1997, and August 1, 2019, in the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and PsycInfo databases. The studies were reviewed independently by 2 reviewers. Any study containing a decision aid for women eligible for mammographic screening with an average breast cancer risk was included. Two double-blind reviewers assessed the quality of the selected decision aids using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards instrument, version 3 (IPDASi). Twenty-three decision aids were extracted. Classification of decision aid quality using the IPDASi demonstrated large variations among the decision aids (maximum IPDASi score, 188; mean ± SD score, 132.6 ± 23.8; range, 85-172). Three decision aids had high overall scores. The 3 best-rated dimensions were disclosure (maximum score, 8; mean score, 6.8), focusing on transparency; information (maximum score, 32; mean score, 26.1), focusing on the provision of sufficient details; and probabilities (maximum score, 32; mean score 25), focusing on the presentation of probabilities. The 3 lowest-rated dimensions were decision support technology evaluation (maximum score, 8; mean score, 4.3), focusing on the effectiveness of the decision aid; development (maximum score, 24; mean score, 12.6), evaluating the development process; and plain language (maximum score, 4; mean score, 1.9), assessing appropriateness for patients with low literacy. The results of this review identified 3 high-quality decision aids for breast cancer screening.

Decreasing the Impact of Anxiety on Cancer Prevention through Online Intervention

Background: Low levels of public knowledge, incorrect beliefs, and anxiety are the most often mentioned factors that may negatively affect the implementation of preventive campaigns and timely diagnosis of cancer. Cancer is a major unresolved problem for global public health. As a result, many effective preventive measures need to be found and implemented. Methods: For a duration of 18 months, readers of the Polish scientific Internet portal were invited to participate in the Polish On-line Randomized Intervention aimed at Neoplasm Avoidance (PORINA) study. Level of cancer-related anxiety was our main measure (self-declared on a simple five-point Likert scale) in this analysis. Results: A total of 463 participants were qualified for the final analysis. Respondents with a positive family history of cancer (p < 0.001) declared the highest level of cancer-related anxiety, whereas lower levels were declared by those previously treated for cancer (p = 0.006). The conducted educational intervention reduced the declared level of cancer-related anxiety. Conclusions: The results of this study provide evidence that the use of web-based interventions aimed at increasing awareness could reduce cancer-related anxiety and may lead to more frequent consent to undergo some of the medical procedures used to diagnose or treat cancer.

Developing a Decision-Aid Website for Breast Cancer Surgery: An Action Research Approach

Background

Patients with early-stage breast cancer have numerous options when choosing the type of breast surgery method to be applied. Each of these options lead to a similar long-term survival rate, but result in significant differences in appearance, function, cost, recurrence rate, and various other relevant considerations. However, the time available for detailed communication with each patient is often limited in clinics, which puts these women under great psychological stress and can hinder their surgery-related decision making.

Objective

The objective of this study was to develop a multipurpose surgery decision-making website providing medical information, psychological support, and decision-related simulation for women during breast cancer surgery-related decision making.

Methods

Using the 4 steps of action research, which involve multigroup teamwork via regular team meetings, the following were performed: (1) Planning: searching, analyzing, and evaluating health websites to consensually decide the major infrastructure; (2) Action: work was performed simultaneously in 4 groups, which consisted of medical information collection and editing, patient interviews and data extraction, webpage content design, and programming to create or host the website; (3) Evaluation: the website was tested by clinical experts and focus groups of former breast cancer patients to assess its effectiveness and pinpoint appropriate improvements; and (4) Reflection: constant dialogue was conducted between the various participants at each step, which was used as the foundation and motivation of next plan-action-evaluation-reflection circle.

Results

Using the action research approach, we completed the development of our website, which includes the following: (1) “Woman’s Voice”—an animated comic depicting the story of a female breast cancer patient with interspersed questions for the users that will help them better empathize with the experience; (2) “Cancer Information Treasure House”—providing breast cancer surgery-related information through text, tables, pictures and a presentation video; (3) “Decision-making Simulator”—helping patients think through and check the pros and cons of the different surgical options via visual-based interactions including “Stairs Climbing” and “Fruit of Hope”; and (4) “Recommended Links”—providing reliable websites for further reference. Additionally, we have further improved the website based on the feedback received from postsurgery breast cancer patients and clinicians. We hope to continue improving to better meet both the patients’ and health providers’ needs and become a practical decision-making aid for patients undergoing breast cancer surgery.

Conclusions

We have created the first breast cancer surgery decision-making assistance tool in Taiwan using a “Web-based” and multifunctional website design. This site aims to provide health care knowledge, psychological healing, and emotional support functions, as well as decision-making capability enhancement simulations. We look forward to assisting breast cancer patients in their decision-making process and expect our website to increase patient’s autonomy and improve their communication with clinicians.

Expression and clinical significance of SATB1 and TLR4 in breast cancer

This study investigated the expression of special AT-rich sequence-binding protein 1 (SATB1) and toll-like receptor 4 (TLR4) protein in breast cancer and its clinical significance. We collected breast cancer tissues from 120 patients and adjacent non-cancerous tissue from 53 patients. SATB1 was expressed in 89 cases of breast cancer (74.17%) and in 7 cases of adjacent non-cancerous tissue (13.21%). TLR4 was expressed in 70 cases of breast cancer tissues (58.33%) and in 48 cases of adjacent non-cancerous tissue (90.57%). The differences of SATB and TLR4 in breast cancer and adjacent non-cancerous tissue were statistically significant. We found a negative correlation between the expression of SATB1 and TLR4 (r=−0.624, P<0.05). The expression of SATB1 and TLR4 were not significantly correlated with age, menopause, and PR and HER-2 protein expression, but were significantly correlated with tumor size, local lymphatic metastasis, histopathological grade, tumor stage, and ER protein expression (P<0.05). Overall, SATB1 and TLR4 proteins are involved in the development of breast cancer, a finding of great significance to identify therapeutic targets and prognosis markers for breast cancer.