Cargando…
A Review of the Presentation of Overdiagnosis in Cancer Screening Patient Decision Aids
Introduction. Patient decision aid (PDA) certification standards recommend including the positive and negative features of each option of the decision. This review describes the inclusion of concepts related to overdiagnosis and overtreatment, negative features often ambiguously defined, in cancer s...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
SAGE Publications
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8855414/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35187246 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2381468319881447 |
_version_ | 1784653647608545280 |
---|---|
author | Housten, Ashley J. Lowenstein, Lisa M. Hoffman, Aubri Jacobs, Lianne E. Zirari, Zineb Hoover, Diana S. Stacey, Dawn Pratt, Greg Bevers, Therese B. Volk, Robert J. |
author_facet | Housten, Ashley J. Lowenstein, Lisa M. Hoffman, Aubri Jacobs, Lianne E. Zirari, Zineb Hoover, Diana S. Stacey, Dawn Pratt, Greg Bevers, Therese B. Volk, Robert J. |
author_sort | Housten, Ashley J. |
collection | PubMed |
description | Introduction. Patient decision aid (PDA) certification standards recommend including the positive and negative features of each option of the decision. This review describes the inclusion of concepts related to overdiagnosis and overtreatment, negative features often ambiguously defined, in cancer screening PDAs. Methods. Our process followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We reviewed 1) current systematic reviews of decision aids, 2) the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute Decision Aid Library Inventory, and 3) a web-based, gray literature search. Two independent reviewers identified and evaluated PDAs using content analysis. Reviewers coded whether overdiagnosis/overtreatment was described as 1) detecting cancer that would not lead to death, 2) detecting cancer that would not cause symptoms, and/or 3) a potential harm or consequence of screening. Coding discrepancies were resolved through consensus. Results. A total of 904 records (e.g., articles, PDAs) were reviewed and 85 PDAs were identified: prostate (n = 36), breast (n = 26), lung (n = 10), colorectal (n = 10), and other (n = 3). Sixty-seven PDAs included concepts related to overdiagnosis/overtreatment; 57 (67.1%) used a term other than overdiagnosis/overtreatment, 23 (27.1%) used the specific term “overdiagnosis,” and 13 (15.3%) used “overtreatment.” PDAs described overdiagnosis/overtreatment as a potential harm or consequence of screening (n = 62) and/or a detection of a cancer that would not cause symptoms (n = 49). Thirty-six described overdiagnosis as the detection of a cancer that would not result in death. Twenty PDAs described the probabilities associated with overdiagnosis/overtreatment. Conclusions. Over three quarters of cancer screening PDAs addressed concepts related to overdiagnosis/overtreatment, yet terminology was inconsistent and few included probability estimates. Consistent terminology and minimum standards to describe overdiagnosis/overtreatment would help guide the design and certification of cancer screening PDAs. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8855414 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | SAGE Publications |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-88554142022-02-19 A Review of the Presentation of Overdiagnosis in Cancer Screening Patient Decision Aids Housten, Ashley J. Lowenstein, Lisa M. Hoffman, Aubri Jacobs, Lianne E. Zirari, Zineb Hoover, Diana S. Stacey, Dawn Pratt, Greg Bevers, Therese B. Volk, Robert J. MDM Policy Pract Review Introduction. Patient decision aid (PDA) certification standards recommend including the positive and negative features of each option of the decision. This review describes the inclusion of concepts related to overdiagnosis and overtreatment, negative features often ambiguously defined, in cancer screening PDAs. Methods. Our process followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We reviewed 1) current systematic reviews of decision aids, 2) the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute Decision Aid Library Inventory, and 3) a web-based, gray literature search. Two independent reviewers identified and evaluated PDAs using content analysis. Reviewers coded whether overdiagnosis/overtreatment was described as 1) detecting cancer that would not lead to death, 2) detecting cancer that would not cause symptoms, and/or 3) a potential harm or consequence of screening. Coding discrepancies were resolved through consensus. Results. A total of 904 records (e.g., articles, PDAs) were reviewed and 85 PDAs were identified: prostate (n = 36), breast (n = 26), lung (n = 10), colorectal (n = 10), and other (n = 3). Sixty-seven PDAs included concepts related to overdiagnosis/overtreatment; 57 (67.1%) used a term other than overdiagnosis/overtreatment, 23 (27.1%) used the specific term “overdiagnosis,” and 13 (15.3%) used “overtreatment.” PDAs described overdiagnosis/overtreatment as a potential harm or consequence of screening (n = 62) and/or a detection of a cancer that would not cause symptoms (n = 49). Thirty-six described overdiagnosis as the detection of a cancer that would not result in death. Twenty PDAs described the probabilities associated with overdiagnosis/overtreatment. Conclusions. Over three quarters of cancer screening PDAs addressed concepts related to overdiagnosis/overtreatment, yet terminology was inconsistent and few included probability estimates. Consistent terminology and minimum standards to describe overdiagnosis/overtreatment would help guide the design and certification of cancer screening PDAs. SAGE Publications 2019-11-06 /pmc/articles/PMC8855414/ /pubmed/35187246 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2381468319881447 Text en © The Author(s) 2019 https://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/ (https://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 | Review Housten, Ashley J. Lowenstein, Lisa M. Hoffman, Aubri Jacobs, Lianne E. Zirari, Zineb Hoover, Diana S. Stacey, Dawn Pratt, Greg Bevers, Therese B. Volk, Robert J. A Review of the Presentation of Overdiagnosis in Cancer Screening Patient Decision Aids |
title | A Review of the Presentation of Overdiagnosis in Cancer Screening Patient Decision Aids |
title_full | A Review of the Presentation of Overdiagnosis in Cancer Screening Patient Decision Aids |
title_fullStr | A Review of the Presentation of Overdiagnosis in Cancer Screening Patient Decision Aids |
title_full_unstemmed | A Review of the Presentation of Overdiagnosis in Cancer Screening Patient Decision Aids |
title_short | A Review of the Presentation of Overdiagnosis in Cancer Screening Patient Decision Aids |
title_sort | review of the presentation of overdiagnosis in cancer screening patient decision aids |
topic | Review |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8855414/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35187246 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2381468319881447 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT houstenashleyj areviewofthepresentationofoverdiagnosisincancerscreeningpatientdecisionaids AT lowensteinlisam areviewofthepresentationofoverdiagnosisincancerscreeningpatientdecisionaids AT hoffmanaubri areviewofthepresentationofoverdiagnosisincancerscreeningpatientdecisionaids AT jacobsliannee areviewofthepresentationofoverdiagnosisincancerscreeningpatientdecisionaids AT zirarizineb areviewofthepresentationofoverdiagnosisincancerscreeningpatientdecisionaids AT hooverdianas areviewofthepresentationofoverdiagnosisincancerscreeningpatientdecisionaids AT staceydawn areviewofthepresentationofoverdiagnosisincancerscreeningpatientdecisionaids AT prattgreg areviewofthepresentationofoverdiagnosisincancerscreeningpatientdecisionaids AT beversthereseb areviewofthepresentationofoverdiagnosisincancerscreeningpatientdecisionaids AT volkrobertj areviewofthepresentationofoverdiagnosisincancerscreeningpatientdecisionaids AT houstenashleyj reviewofthepresentationofoverdiagnosisincancerscreeningpatientdecisionaids AT lowensteinlisam reviewofthepresentationofoverdiagnosisincancerscreeningpatientdecisionaids AT hoffmanaubri reviewofthepresentationofoverdiagnosisincancerscreeningpatientdecisionaids AT jacobsliannee reviewofthepresentationofoverdiagnosisincancerscreeningpatientdecisionaids AT zirarizineb reviewofthepresentationofoverdiagnosisincancerscreeningpatientdecisionaids AT hooverdianas reviewofthepresentationofoverdiagnosisincancerscreeningpatientdecisionaids AT staceydawn reviewofthepresentationofoverdiagnosisincancerscreeningpatientdecisionaids AT prattgreg reviewofthepresentationofoverdiagnosisincancerscreeningpatientdecisionaids AT beversthereseb reviewofthepresentationofoverdiagnosisincancerscreeningpatientdecisionaids AT volkrobertj reviewofthepresentationofoverdiagnosisincancerscreeningpatientdecisionaids |