Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24833692›Full record

Trial reportBMJ open2014

The effect of information about overdetection of breast cancer on women's decision-making about mammography screening: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.

Jolyn Hersch, Alexandra Barratt, Jesse Jansen, Nehmat Houssami, Les Irwig, Gemma Jacklyn, Haryana Dhillon, Hazel Thornton, Kevin McGeechan, Kirsten Howard and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ open, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
24citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
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

24 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 38 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017
    Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Why Most Australians Consider It Valuable to Find Harmless Abnormalities with Diagnostic Tests: A Mixed-Methods Study.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2026
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
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

11 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Jolyn HerschScreening & Test Evaluation Program (STEP) and Centre for Medical Psychology & Evidence-based Decision-making (CeMPED), School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Alexandra BarrattCentre for Medical Psychology & Evidence-based Decision-making (CeMPED), School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Jesse JansenScreening & Test Evaluation Program (STEP) and Centre for Medical Psychology & Evidence-based Decision-making (CeMPED), School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Nehmat HoussamiScreening & Test Evaluation Program (STEP), School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Les IrwigScreening & Test Evaluation Program (STEP), School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Gemma JacklynSchool of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Haryana DhillonCentre for Medical Psychology & Evidence-based Decision-making (CeMPED), Central Clinical School, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Hazel ThorntonDepartment of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.
Kevin McGeechanCentre for Medical Psychology & Evidence-based Decision-making (CeMPED), School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Kirsten HowardScreening & Test Evaluation Program (STEP), School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
Kirsten McCafferyScreening & Test Evaluation Program (STEP) and Centre for Medical Psychology & Evidence-based Decision-making (CeMPED), School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
University of Sydney · AUUniversity of Leicester · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionWomen are largely unaware that mammography screening can cause overdetection of inconsequential disease, leading to overdiagnosis and overtreatment of breast cancer. Evidence is lacking about how information on overdetection affects women's breast screening decisions and experiences. This study investigates the consequences of providing information about overdetection of breast cancer to women approaching the age of invitation to mammography screening. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This is a randomised controlled trial with an embedded longitudinal qualitative substudy. Participants are a community sample of women aged 48-50 in New South Wales, Australia, recruited in 2014. Women are randomly allocated to either quantitative only follow-up (n=904) or additional qualitative follow-up (n=66). Women in each stream are then randomised to receive either the intervention (evidence-based information booklet including overdetection, breast cancer mortality reduction and false positives) or a control information booklet (including mortality reduction and false positives only). The primary outcome is informed choice about breast screening (adequate knowledge, and consistency between attitudes and intentions) assessed via telephone interview at 2 weeks postintervention. Secondary outcomes measured at this time include decision process (decisional conflict and confidence) and psychosocial outcomes (anticipated regret, anxiety, breast cancer worry and perceived risk). Women are further followed up at 6 months, 1 and 2 years to assess self-reported screening behaviour and long-term psychosocial outcomes (decision regret, quality of life). Participants in the qualitative stream undergo additional in-depth interviews at each time point to explore the views and experiences of women who do and do not choose to have screening. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has ethical approval, and results will be published in peer-reviewed journals. This research will help ensure that information about overdetection may be communicated clearly and effectively, using an evidence-based approach, to women considering breast cancer screening. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12613001035718.

Indexed as

Decision MakingEarly Detection of CancerMammographyPatient Acceptance of Health CareBreast NeoplasmsFalse Positive ReactionsFemaleHumansMiddle AgedResearch Designbreast neoplasms ,mammography screeningdecision makinginformed choice

Identifiers

PMID24833692
PMCPMC4025472
OpenAlexW2124230489

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.