Talking numbers: how women and providers use risk scores during and after risk counseling – a qualitative investigation from the NRG Oncology/NSABP DMP-1 study

OBJECTIVES: Little research exists on how risk scores are used in counselling. We examined (a) how Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool (BCRAT) scores are presented during counselling; (b) how women react and (c) discuss them afterwards. DESIGN: Consultations were video-recorded and participants were interviewed after the consultation as part of the NRG Oncology/National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project Decision-Making Project 1 (NSABP DMP-1). SETTING: Two NSABP DMP-1 breast cancer care centres in the USA: one large comprehensive cancer centre serving a high-risk population and an academic safety-net medical centre in an urban setting. PARTICIPANTS: Thirty women evaluated for breast cancer risk and their counselling providers were included. METHODS: Participants who were identified as at increased risk of breast cancer were recruited to participate in qualitative study with a video-recorded consultation and subsequent semi-structured interview that included giving feedback and input after viewing their own consultation. Consultation videos were summarised jointly and inductively as a team.tThe interview material was searched deductively for text segments that contained the inductively derived themes related to risk assessment. Subgroup analysis according to demographic variables such as age and Gail score were conducted, investigating reactions to risk scores and contrasting and comparing them with the pertinent video analysis data. From this, four descriptive categories of reactions to risk scores emerged. The descriptive categories were clearly defined after 19 interviews; all 30 interviews fit principally into one of the four descriptive categories. RESULTS: Risk scores were individualised and given meaning by providers through: (a) presenting thresholds, (b) making comparisons and (c) emphasising or minimising the calculated risk. The risk score information elicited little reaction from participants during consultations, though some added to, agreed with or qualified the provider’s information. During interviews, participants reacted to the numbers in four primary ways: (a) engaging easily with numbers; (b) expressing greater anxiety after discussing the risk score; (c) accepting the risk score and (d) not talking about the risk score. CONCLUSIONS: Our study highlights the necessity that patients’ experiences must be understood and put into relation to risk assessment information to become a meaningful treatment decision-making tool, for instance by categorising patients’ information engagement into types. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01399359.