Cargando…

Assessment of the effects of decision aids about breast cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies is to assess the effect of decision aids (DAs) in women aged 50 and below facing the decision to be screened for breast cancer. SETTING: Screening for breast cancer. INTERV...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Martínez-Alonso, Montserrat, Carles-Lavila, Misericòrdia, Pérez-Lacasta, Maria José, Pons-Rodríguez, Anna, Garcia, Montse, Rué, Montserrat
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5640065/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28988175
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016894
_version_ 1783270981947621376
author Martínez-Alonso, Montserrat
Carles-Lavila, Misericòrdia
Pérez-Lacasta, Maria José
Pons-Rodríguez, Anna
Garcia, Montse
Rué, Montserrat
author_facet Martínez-Alonso, Montserrat
Carles-Lavila, Misericòrdia
Pérez-Lacasta, Maria José
Pons-Rodríguez, Anna
Garcia, Montse
Rué, Montserrat
author_sort Martínez-Alonso, Montserrat
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies is to assess the effect of decision aids (DAs) in women aged 50 and below facing the decision to be screened for breast cancer. SETTING: Screening for breast cancer. INTERVENTION: DAs aimed to help women make a deliberative choice regarding participation in mammography screening by providing information on the options and outcomes. ELIGIBLE STUDIES: We included published original, non-pilot, studies that assess the effect of DAs for breast cancer screening. We excluded the studies that evaluated only participation intention or actual uptake. The studies’ risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for RCTs and the National Institutes of Health Quality Assessment Tool for non-RCTs. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES: The main outcome measures were informed choice, decisional conflict and/or confidence, and knowledge. Secondary outcomes were values, attitudes, uncertainty and intention to be screened. RESULTS: A total of 607 studies were identified, but only 3 RCTs and 1 before-after study were selected. The use of DAs increased the proportion of women making an informed decision by 14%, 95% CI (2% to 27%) and the proportion of women with adequate knowledge by 12%, 95% CI (7% to 16%). We observed heterogeneity among the studies in confidence in the decision. The meta-analysis of the RCTs showed a significant decrease in confidence in the decision and in intention to be screened. CONCLUSIONS: Tools to aid decision making in screening for breast cancer improve knowledge and promote informed decision; however, we found divergent results on decisional conflict and confidence in the decision. Under the current paradigm change, which favours informed choice rather than maximising uptake, more research is necessary for the improvement of DAs.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5640065
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-56400652017-10-19 Assessment of the effects of decision aids about breast cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis Martínez-Alonso, Montserrat Carles-Lavila, Misericòrdia Pérez-Lacasta, Maria José Pons-Rodríguez, Anna Garcia, Montse Rué, Montserrat BMJ Open Communication OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies is to assess the effect of decision aids (DAs) in women aged 50 and below facing the decision to be screened for breast cancer. SETTING: Screening for breast cancer. INTERVENTION: DAs aimed to help women make a deliberative choice regarding participation in mammography screening by providing information on the options and outcomes. ELIGIBLE STUDIES: We included published original, non-pilot, studies that assess the effect of DAs for breast cancer screening. We excluded the studies that evaluated only participation intention or actual uptake. The studies’ risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for RCTs and the National Institutes of Health Quality Assessment Tool for non-RCTs. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOMES: The main outcome measures were informed choice, decisional conflict and/or confidence, and knowledge. Secondary outcomes were values, attitudes, uncertainty and intention to be screened. RESULTS: A total of 607 studies were identified, but only 3 RCTs and 1 before-after study were selected. The use of DAs increased the proportion of women making an informed decision by 14%, 95% CI (2% to 27%) and the proportion of women with adequate knowledge by 12%, 95% CI (7% to 16%). We observed heterogeneity among the studies in confidence in the decision. The meta-analysis of the RCTs showed a significant decrease in confidence in the decision and in intention to be screened. CONCLUSIONS: Tools to aid decision making in screening for breast cancer improve knowledge and promote informed decision; however, we found divergent results on decisional conflict and confidence in the decision. Under the current paradigm change, which favours informed choice rather than maximising uptake, more research is necessary for the improvement of DAs. BMJ Publishing Group 2017-10-06 /pmc/articles/PMC5640065/ /pubmed/28988175 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016894 Text en © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted. This is an Open Access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/
spellingShingle Communication
Martínez-Alonso, Montserrat
Carles-Lavila, Misericòrdia
Pérez-Lacasta, Maria José
Pons-Rodríguez, Anna
Garcia, Montse
Rué, Montserrat
Assessment of the effects of decision aids about breast cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title Assessment of the effects of decision aids about breast cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full Assessment of the effects of decision aids about breast cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_fullStr Assessment of the effects of decision aids about breast cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_full_unstemmed Assessment of the effects of decision aids about breast cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_short Assessment of the effects of decision aids about breast cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis
title_sort assessment of the effects of decision aids about breast cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis
topic Communication
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5640065/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28988175
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016894
work_keys_str_mv AT martinezalonsomontserrat assessmentoftheeffectsofdecisionaidsaboutbreastcancerscreeningasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT carleslavilamisericordia assessmentoftheeffectsofdecisionaidsaboutbreastcancerscreeningasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT perezlacastamariajose assessmentoftheeffectsofdecisionaidsaboutbreastcancerscreeningasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT ponsrodriguezanna assessmentoftheeffectsofdecisionaidsaboutbreastcancerscreeningasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT garciamontse assessmentoftheeffectsofdecisionaidsaboutbreastcancerscreeningasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis
AT ruemontserrat assessmentoftheeffectsofdecisionaidsaboutbreastcancerscreeningasystematicreviewandmetaanalysis