Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24083811›Full record

Trial reportTrials2013

Effects of different information brochures on women's decision-making regarding mammography screening: study protocol for a randomized controlled questionnaire study.

Elisabeth Gummersbach, Jürgen in der Schmitten, Heinz-Harald Abholz, Karl Wegscheider, Michael Pentzek

Abstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Trials, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Aiding shared decision making in lung cancer screening: two decision tools.Journal of public health (Oxford, England) · 2021
    Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Elisabeth GummersbachUniversity of Duesseldorf, Medical Faculty, Institute of General Practice, Moorenstrasse 5, Dusseldorf D-40225, Germany. elisabeth.gummersbach@med.uni-duesseldorf.de.
Jürgen in der Schmitten
Heinz-Harald Abholz
Karl Wegscheider
Michael Pentzek

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn order to give informed consent for mammography screening, women need to be told the relevant facts; however, screening information often remains vague because of the worry that detailed information might deter women from participating in recommended screening programs. Since September 2010, German women aged 50 to 69 invited for mammography screening have received a new, comprehensive information brochure that frankly discusses the potential benefit and harm of mammography screening. In contrast, the brochure that was in use before September 2010 contained little relevant information.The aim of this study is to compare the impact of the two different brochures on the intention of women to undergo mammography screening, and to broaden our understanding of the effect that factual information has on the women's decision-making.

methodsThis is a controlled questionnaire study comparing knowledge, views and hypothetical preferences of women aged 48-49 years after receiving the old versus the new information brochure. German GP's in the region of North Rhine-Westfalia will be asked by mail and telephone to participate in the study. Eligible women will be recruited via their general practitioners (GPs) and randomized to groups A ('new brochure') and B ('old brochure'), with an intended recruitment of 173 participants per group. The study is powered to detect a 15% higher or lower intention to undergo mammography screening in women informed by the new brochure. DISCUSSION: This study will contribute to our understanding of the decision-making of women invited to mammography screening. From both ethical and public health perspectives, it is important to know whether frank, factual information leads to a change in the intention of women to participate in a recommended breast cancer screening program.

trial registrationDRKS00004271.

Indexed as

Choice BehaviorHealth BehaviorHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticePamphletsResearch DesignFemaleGeneral PracticeGermanyHealth LiteracyHumansInformed ConsentIntentionMammographyMiddle AgedPatient Education as TopicPatient Participation

Identifiers

PMID24083811
PMCPMC3851440

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.