Cargando…

Should women aged 70–74 be invited to participate in screening mammography? A report on two Australian community juries

OBJECTIVE: To elicit informed views from Australian women aged 70–74 regarding the acceptability of ceasing to invite women their age to participate in government-funded mammography screening (BreastScreen). DESIGN: Two community juries held in 2017. SETTING: Greater Sydney, a metropolis of 4.5 mill...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Degeling, Chris, Barratt, Alexandra, Aranda, Sanchia, Bell, Robin, Doust, Jenny, Houssami, Nehmat, Hersch, Jolyn, Sakowsky, Ruben, Entwistle, Vikki, Carter, Stacy M
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2018
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6009633/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29903796
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-021174
_version_ 1783333430689267712
author Degeling, Chris
Barratt, Alexandra
Aranda, Sanchia
Bell, Robin
Doust, Jenny
Houssami, Nehmat
Hersch, Jolyn
Sakowsky, Ruben
Entwistle, Vikki
Carter, Stacy M
author_facet Degeling, Chris
Barratt, Alexandra
Aranda, Sanchia
Bell, Robin
Doust, Jenny
Houssami, Nehmat
Hersch, Jolyn
Sakowsky, Ruben
Entwistle, Vikki
Carter, Stacy M
author_sort Degeling, Chris
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVE: To elicit informed views from Australian women aged 70–74 regarding the acceptability of ceasing to invite women their age to participate in government-funded mammography screening (BreastScreen). DESIGN: Two community juries held in 2017. SETTING: Greater Sydney, a metropolis of 4.5 million people in New South Wales, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: 34 women aged 70–74 with no personal history of breast cancer, recruited by random digit dialling and previously randomly recruited list-based samples. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Jury verdict and rationale in response to structured questions. We transcribed audio-recorded jury proceedings and identified central reasons for the jury’s decision. RESULTS: The women’s average age was 71.5 years. Participants were of diverse sociocultural backgrounds, with the sample designed to include women of lower levels of educational attainment. Both juries concluded by majority verdict (16–2 and 10–6) that BreastScreen should continue to send invitations and promote screening to their age group. Reasons given for the majority position include: (1) sending the invitations shows that society still cares about older women, empowers them to access preventive health services and recognises increasing and varied life expectancy; (2) screening provides women with information that enables choice and (3) if experts cannot agree, the conservative approach is to maintain the status quo until the evidence is clear. Reasons for the minority position were the potential for harms through overdiagnosis and misallocation of scarce health resources. CONCLUSIONS: Preventive programmes such as mammography screening are likely to have significant symbolic value once they are socially embedded. Arguments for programme de-implementation emphasising declining benefit because of limited life expectancy and the risks of overdiagnosis seem unlikely to resonate with healthy older women. In situations where there is no consensus among experts on the value of established screening programmes, people may strongly prefer receiving information about their health and having the opportunity make their own choices.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6009633
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2018
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-60096332018-06-25 Should women aged 70–74 be invited to participate in screening mammography? A report on two Australian community juries Degeling, Chris Barratt, Alexandra Aranda, Sanchia Bell, Robin Doust, Jenny Houssami, Nehmat Hersch, Jolyn Sakowsky, Ruben Entwistle, Vikki Carter, Stacy M BMJ Open Health Policy OBJECTIVE: To elicit informed views from Australian women aged 70–74 regarding the acceptability of ceasing to invite women their age to participate in government-funded mammography screening (BreastScreen). DESIGN: Two community juries held in 2017. SETTING: Greater Sydney, a metropolis of 4.5 million people in New South Wales, Australia. PARTICIPANTS: 34 women aged 70–74 with no personal history of breast cancer, recruited by random digit dialling and previously randomly recruited list-based samples. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Jury verdict and rationale in response to structured questions. We transcribed audio-recorded jury proceedings and identified central reasons for the jury’s decision. RESULTS: The women’s average age was 71.5 years. Participants were of diverse sociocultural backgrounds, with the sample designed to include women of lower levels of educational attainment. Both juries concluded by majority verdict (16–2 and 10–6) that BreastScreen should continue to send invitations and promote screening to their age group. Reasons given for the majority position include: (1) sending the invitations shows that society still cares about older women, empowers them to access preventive health services and recognises increasing and varied life expectancy; (2) screening provides women with information that enables choice and (3) if experts cannot agree, the conservative approach is to maintain the status quo until the evidence is clear. Reasons for the minority position were the potential for harms through overdiagnosis and misallocation of scarce health resources. CONCLUSIONS: Preventive programmes such as mammography screening are likely to have significant symbolic value once they are socially embedded. Arguments for programme de-implementation emphasising declining benefit because of limited life expectancy and the risks of overdiagnosis seem unlikely to resonate with healthy older women. In situations where there is no consensus among experts on the value of established screening programmes, people may strongly prefer receiving information about their health and having the opportunity make their own choices. BMJ Publishing Group 2018-06-14 /pmc/articles/PMC6009633/ /pubmed/29903796 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-021174 Text en © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2018. 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 Health Policy
Degeling, Chris
Barratt, Alexandra
Aranda, Sanchia
Bell, Robin
Doust, Jenny
Houssami, Nehmat
Hersch, Jolyn
Sakowsky, Ruben
Entwistle, Vikki
Carter, Stacy M
Should women aged 70–74 be invited to participate in screening mammography? A report on two Australian community juries
title Should women aged 70–74 be invited to participate in screening mammography? A report on two Australian community juries
title_full Should women aged 70–74 be invited to participate in screening mammography? A report on two Australian community juries
title_fullStr Should women aged 70–74 be invited to participate in screening mammography? A report on two Australian community juries
title_full_unstemmed Should women aged 70–74 be invited to participate in screening mammography? A report on two Australian community juries
title_short Should women aged 70–74 be invited to participate in screening mammography? A report on two Australian community juries
title_sort should women aged 70–74 be invited to participate in screening mammography? a report on two australian community juries
topic Health Policy
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6009633/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29903796
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2017-021174
work_keys_str_mv AT degelingchris shouldwomenaged7074beinvitedtoparticipateinscreeningmammographyareportontwoaustraliancommunityjuries
AT barrattalexandra shouldwomenaged7074beinvitedtoparticipateinscreeningmammographyareportontwoaustraliancommunityjuries
AT arandasanchia shouldwomenaged7074beinvitedtoparticipateinscreeningmammographyareportontwoaustraliancommunityjuries
AT bellrobin shouldwomenaged7074beinvitedtoparticipateinscreeningmammographyareportontwoaustraliancommunityjuries
AT doustjenny shouldwomenaged7074beinvitedtoparticipateinscreeningmammographyareportontwoaustraliancommunityjuries
AT houssaminehmat shouldwomenaged7074beinvitedtoparticipateinscreeningmammographyareportontwoaustraliancommunityjuries
AT herschjolyn shouldwomenaged7074beinvitedtoparticipateinscreeningmammographyareportontwoaustraliancommunityjuries
AT sakowskyruben shouldwomenaged7074beinvitedtoparticipateinscreeningmammographyareportontwoaustraliancommunityjuries
AT entwistlevikki shouldwomenaged7074beinvitedtoparticipateinscreeningmammographyareportontwoaustraliancommunityjuries
AT carterstacym shouldwomenaged7074beinvitedtoparticipateinscreeningmammographyareportontwoaustraliancommunityjuries