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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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.
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