Cargando…

Women’s Acceptance of Overdetection in Breast Cancer Screening: Can We Assess Harm-Benefit Tradeoffs?

Background. Breast cancer screening has been presented to women as mostly positive for decades, despite voices raising issues related to harms since its introduction. Public communications about breast cancer screening tended to use persuasive techniques aimed at maximizing uptake. Concern about the...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Stiggelbout, Anne, Copp, Tessa, Jacklyn, Gemma, Jansen, Jesse, Liefers, Gerrit-Jan, McCaffery, Kirsten, Hersch, Jolyn
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6985988/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31722605
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0272989X19886886
_version_ 1783491889964515328
author Stiggelbout, Anne
Copp, Tessa
Jacklyn, Gemma
Jansen, Jesse
Liefers, Gerrit-Jan
McCaffery, Kirsten
Hersch, Jolyn
author_facet Stiggelbout, Anne
Copp, Tessa
Jacklyn, Gemma
Jansen, Jesse
Liefers, Gerrit-Jan
McCaffery, Kirsten
Hersch, Jolyn
author_sort Stiggelbout, Anne
collection PubMed
description Background. Breast cancer screening has been presented to women as mostly positive for decades, despite voices raising issues related to harms since its introduction. Public communications about breast cancer screening tended to use persuasive techniques aimed at maximizing uptake. Concern about the harm of overdetection is more recent, and awareness of overdetection among the public is limited. We aimed to assess the impact of extensive information on treatment following overdetection in breast screening on women’s acceptance of screening, and to assess correlates of acceptance. Methods. We performed an online survey among women aged 45-75 from the general public in the Netherlands and Australia, asking women their maximum acceptable ratio of overdetection, per breast cancer death avoided, for four treatment scenarios (randomized order): mastectomy; lumpectomy; lumpectomy plus radiotherapy; lumpectomy plus radiotherapy and hormone therapy. The effect of treatment was assessed using General Linear Models, controlling for socio-demographics, experience, and psychological characteristics. Results. Four-hundred Australian and 403 Dutch women responded. Around half of the women would always screen, even at a 6:1 overdetection-to-death-avoided ratio. Acceptance was highest for the lumpectomy scenario, decreasing with more invasive treatment. In multivariate analyses the effect of treatment remained (p<0.001). Higher acceptance was seen for women with children (p=0.04), screening experience (p<0.001), and less understanding of overdetection (p<0.001). A learning effect was seen: acceptance was highest for the first scenario shown. Conclusions. Acceptance of overdetection was high, but decreased after the first scenario and with invasiveness of treatment. This provides a first indication that with more knowledge and understanding, women may move from uncritical acceptance of screening towards a more informed decision that involves a trade-off of the benefits and harms.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6985988
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-69859882020-02-07 Women’s Acceptance of Overdetection in Breast Cancer Screening: Can We Assess Harm-Benefit Tradeoffs? Stiggelbout, Anne Copp, Tessa Jacklyn, Gemma Jansen, Jesse Liefers, Gerrit-Jan McCaffery, Kirsten Hersch, Jolyn Med Decis Making Original Articles Background. Breast cancer screening has been presented to women as mostly positive for decades, despite voices raising issues related to harms since its introduction. Public communications about breast cancer screening tended to use persuasive techniques aimed at maximizing uptake. Concern about the harm of overdetection is more recent, and awareness of overdetection among the public is limited. We aimed to assess the impact of extensive information on treatment following overdetection in breast screening on women’s acceptance of screening, and to assess correlates of acceptance. Methods. We performed an online survey among women aged 45-75 from the general public in the Netherlands and Australia, asking women their maximum acceptable ratio of overdetection, per breast cancer death avoided, for four treatment scenarios (randomized order): mastectomy; lumpectomy; lumpectomy plus radiotherapy; lumpectomy plus radiotherapy and hormone therapy. The effect of treatment was assessed using General Linear Models, controlling for socio-demographics, experience, and psychological characteristics. Results. Four-hundred Australian and 403 Dutch women responded. Around half of the women would always screen, even at a 6:1 overdetection-to-death-avoided ratio. Acceptance was highest for the lumpectomy scenario, decreasing with more invasive treatment. In multivariate analyses the effect of treatment remained (p<0.001). Higher acceptance was seen for women with children (p=0.04), screening experience (p<0.001), and less understanding of overdetection (p<0.001). A learning effect was seen: acceptance was highest for the first scenario shown. Conclusions. Acceptance of overdetection was high, but decreased after the first scenario and with invasiveness of treatment. This provides a first indication that with more knowledge and understanding, women may move from uncritical acceptance of screening towards a more informed decision that involves a trade-off of the benefits and harms. SAGE Publications 2019-11-13 2020-01 /pmc/articles/PMC6985988/ /pubmed/31722605 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0272989X19886886 Text en © The Author(s) 2019 http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle Original Articles
Stiggelbout, Anne
Copp, Tessa
Jacklyn, Gemma
Jansen, Jesse
Liefers, Gerrit-Jan
McCaffery, Kirsten
Hersch, Jolyn
Women’s Acceptance of Overdetection in Breast Cancer Screening: Can We Assess Harm-Benefit Tradeoffs?
title Women’s Acceptance of Overdetection in Breast Cancer Screening: Can We Assess Harm-Benefit Tradeoffs?
title_full Women’s Acceptance of Overdetection in Breast Cancer Screening: Can We Assess Harm-Benefit Tradeoffs?
title_fullStr Women’s Acceptance of Overdetection in Breast Cancer Screening: Can We Assess Harm-Benefit Tradeoffs?
title_full_unstemmed Women’s Acceptance of Overdetection in Breast Cancer Screening: Can We Assess Harm-Benefit Tradeoffs?
title_short Women’s Acceptance of Overdetection in Breast Cancer Screening: Can We Assess Harm-Benefit Tradeoffs?
title_sort women’s acceptance of overdetection in breast cancer screening: can we assess harm-benefit tradeoffs?
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6985988/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31722605
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0272989X19886886
work_keys_str_mv AT stiggelboutanne womensacceptanceofoverdetectioninbreastcancerscreeningcanweassessharmbenefittradeoffs
AT copptessa womensacceptanceofoverdetectioninbreastcancerscreeningcanweassessharmbenefittradeoffs
AT jacklyngemma womensacceptanceofoverdetectioninbreastcancerscreeningcanweassessharmbenefittradeoffs
AT jansenjesse womensacceptanceofoverdetectioninbreastcancerscreeningcanweassessharmbenefittradeoffs
AT liefersgerritjan womensacceptanceofoverdetectioninbreastcancerscreeningcanweassessharmbenefittradeoffs
AT mccafferykirsten womensacceptanceofoverdetectioninbreastcancerscreeningcanweassessharmbenefittradeoffs
AT herschjolyn womensacceptanceofoverdetectioninbreastcancerscreeningcanweassessharmbenefittradeoffs