IMPORTANCE: Breast cancer is the second leading cause of cancer deaths among US women. Mammography screening may be associated with reduced breast cancer mortality but can also cause harm. Guidelines recommend individualizing screening decisions, particularly for younger women.
OBJECTIVES: We reviewed the evidence on the mortality benefit and chief harms of mammography screening and what is known about how to individualize mammography screening decisions, including communicating risks and benefits to patients.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We searched MEDLINE from 1960-2014 to describe (1) benefits of mammography, (2) harms of mammography, and (3) individualizing screening decisions and promoting informed decision making. We also manually searched reference lists of key articles retrieved, selected reviews, meta-analyses, and practice recommendations. We rated the level of evidence using the American Heart Association guidelines.
RESULTS: Mammography screening is associated with a 19% overall reduction of breast cancer mortality (approximately 15% for women in their 40s and 32% for women in their 60s). For a 40- or 50-year-old woman undergoing 10 years of annual mammograms, the cumulative risk of a false-positive result is about 61%. About 19% of the cancers diagnosed during that 10-year period would not have become clinically apparent without screening (overdiagnosis), although there is uncertainty about this estimate. The net benefit of screening depends greatly on baseline breast cancer risk, which should be incorporated into screening decisions. Decision aids have the potential to help patients integrate information about risks and benefits with their own values and priorities, although they are not yet widely available for use in clinical practice.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: To maximize the benefit of mammography screening, decisions should be individualized based on patients' risk profiles and preferences. Risk models and decision aids are useful tools, but more research is needed to optimize these and to further quantify overdiagnosis. Research should also explore other breast cancer screening strategies.
There is now a plethora of different quality improvement strategies (QIS) for optimizing health care, some clinician/patient driven, others manager/policy-maker driven. Which of these are most effective remains unclear despite expressed concerns about potential for QIS-related patient harm and wasting of resources. The objective of this study was to review published literature assessing the relative effectiveness of different QIS. Data sources comprising PubMed Clinical Queries, Cochrane Library and its Effective Practice and Organization of Care database, and HealthStar were searched for studies of QIS between January 1985 and February 2008 using search terms based on an a priori QIS classification suggested by experts. Systematic reviews of controlled trials were selected in determining effect sizes for specific QIS, which were compared as a narrative meta-review. Clinician/patient driven QIS were associated with stronger evidence of efficacy and larger effect sizes than manager/policy-maker driven QIS. The most effective strategies (>10% absolute increase in appropriate care or equivalent measure) included clinician-directed audit and feedback cycles, clinical decision support systems, specialty outreach programmes, chronic disease management programmes, continuing professional education based on interactive small-group case discussions, and patient-mediated clinician reminders. Pay-for-performance schemes directed to clinician groups and organizational process redesign were modestly effective. Other manager/policy-maker driven QIS including continuous quality improvement programmes, risk and safety management systems, public scorecards and performance reports, external accreditation, and clinical governance arrangements have not been adequately evaluated with regard to effectiveness. QIS are heterogeneous and methodological flaws in much of the evaluative literature limit validity and generalizability of results. Based on current best available evidence, clinician/patient driven QIS appear to be more effective than manager/policy-maker driven QIS although the latter have, in many instances, attracted insufficient robust evaluations to accurately determine their comparative effectiveness.
OBJECTIVE: To conduct a systematic search for (1) the effectiveness of evidence-based communication tools to increase patient understanding of evidence, (2) effective formats for representing probabilistic information and (3) effective strategies for eliciting patient preferences about evidence. A case scenario is used to illustrate some of the difficulties of putting these results into practice. Data sources: Systematic search of The Cochrane Library, Medline, Psychinfo, Embase and Cancerlit. Review methods: Systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and high quality RCTs were included. Studies were excluded if they did not address the question, were focused on behavioural outcomes without attempting to increase understanding, were concerned with counselling as a therapeutic intervention, or were specific to communication regarding clinical trial participation. RESULTS: We found 10 systematic reviews of RCTs and 30 additional RCTs addressing our questions. Communication tools in most formats (verbal, written, video, provider-delivered, computer-based) will increase patients' understanding but are more likely to do so if structured, tailored and/or interactive. Probabilistic information is best represented as event rates (natural frequencies) in relevant groups of people, rather than words, probabilities or summarized as effect measures such as relative risk reduction. Illustrations such as cartoons, or graphs (vertical bar charts) appear to aid understanding. Values clarification exercises may be better than standard utility techniques for eliciting preferences in individual decision making. Looking for effective evidence-based communication tools for prostatic specific antigen testing highlighted the challenges for clinicians and consumers in accessing tools that are evidence-based in design as well as content. CONCLUSION: There is an increasing body of evidence supporting the design of effective evidence-based communication tools but variable access to such tools in practice. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved)
Breast cancer is the second leading cause of cancer deaths among US women. Mammography screening may be associated with reduced breast cancer mortality but can also cause harm. Guidelines recommend individualizing screening decisions, particularly for younger women.
OBJECTIVES:
We reviewed the evidence on the mortality benefit and chief harms of mammography screening and what is known about how to individualize mammography screening decisions, including communicating risks and benefits to patients.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION:
We searched MEDLINE from 1960-2014 to describe (1) benefits of mammography, (2) harms of mammography, and (3) individualizing screening decisions and promoting informed decision making. We also manually searched reference lists of key articles retrieved, selected reviews, meta-analyses, and practice recommendations. We rated the level of evidence using the American Heart Association guidelines.
RESULTS:
Mammography screening is associated with a 19% overall reduction of breast cancer mortality (approximately 15% for women in their 40s and 32% for women in their 60s). For a 40- or 50-year-old woman undergoing 10 years of annual mammograms, the cumulative risk of a false-positive result is about 61%. About 19% of the cancers diagnosed during that 10-year period would not have become clinically apparent without screening (overdiagnosis), although there is uncertainty about this estimate. The net benefit of screening depends greatly on baseline breast cancer risk, which should be incorporated into screening decisions. Decision aids have the potential to help patients integrate information about risks and benefits with their own values and priorities, although they are not yet widely available for use in clinical practice.
CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:
To maximize the benefit of mammography screening, decisions should be individualized based on patients' risk profiles and preferences. Risk models and decision aids are useful tools, but more research is needed to optimize these and to further quantify overdiagnosis. Research should also explore other breast cancer screening strategies.
