Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26175193›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2015

Why Breast Cancer Risk by the Numbers Is Not Enough: Evaluation of a Decision Aid in Multi-Ethnic, Low-Numerate Women.

Rita Kukafka, Haeseung Yi, Tong Xiao, Parijatham Thomas, Alejandra Aguirre, Cindy Smalletz, Raven David, Katherine Crew

2 registry-linked trialsOpen access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 35 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 10% 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.

NCT02954900 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2016, after this paper: background citation

Study of Web-based Decision Aids for Breast Cancer Risk Assessment and Increasing Breast Cancer Chemoprevention in the Primary Care Setting: Pilot

TypeinterventionalSponsorColumbia UniversityRan2016 to 2018Enrolled40ConditionsBreast NeoplasmsArmsRealRisks, BNAV
NCT03069742 nacompletednot on this mapstarted 2016, after this paper: background citation

Web-based Decision Aids for Breast Cancer Risk Assessment and Increasing Breast Cancer Chemoprevention in the Primary Care Setting: Randomized Controlled Trial

TypeinterventionalSponsorColumbia UniversityRan2016 to 2022Enrolled300ConditionsBreast NeoplasmArmsRealRisks, BNAV
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

35 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 49 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. User Comprehension and EHR Integration of theAMIA ... Annual Symposium proceedings. AMIA Symposium · 2024
    Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Context Matters: Emotional Sensitivity to Probabilities and the Bias for Action in Cancer Treatment Decisions.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2023
    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

8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Rita KukafkaColumbia University, College of Physicians and Surgeons, Biomedical Informatics, Mailman School of Public Health, Sociomedical Sciences, New York, NY, United States. rk326@cumc.columbia.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0960-7576
Columbia University · USHerbert Irving Comprehensive Cancer CenterThe University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center · US

Funding

Clinical and Translational Science AwardUL1TR000040 · NCATS · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI GINSBERG, HENRY N · 2012 to 2015
$26.2M
Increasing breast cancer chemoprevention in the primary care settingR01CA177995 · NCI · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI CREW, KATHERINE D, KUKAFKA, RITA · 2014 to 2018
$3.5M
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000040NCI NIH HHS R01 CA177995NCI NIH HHS R01 CA177995-01A1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundBreast cancer risk assessment including genetic testing can be used to classify people into different risk groups with screening and preventive interventions tailored to the needs of each group, yet the implementation of risk-stratified breast cancer prevention in primary care settings is complex.

objectiveTo address barriers to breast cancer risk assessment, risk communication, and prevention strategies in primary care settings, we developed a Web-based decision aid, RealRisks, that aims to improve preference-based decision-making for breast cancer prevention, particularly in low-numerate women.

methodsRealRisks incorporates experience-based dynamic interfaces to communicate risk aimed at reducing inaccurate risk perceptions, with modules on breast cancer risk, genetic testing, and chemoprevention that are tailored. To begin, participants learn about risk by interacting with two games of experience-based risk interfaces, demonstrating average 5-year and lifetime breast cancer risk. We conducted four focus groups in English-speaking women (age ≥18 years), a questionnaire completed before and after interacting with the decision aid, and a semistructured group discussion. We employed a mixed-methods approach to assess accuracy of perceived breast cancer risk and acceptability of RealRisks. The qualitative analysis of the semistructured discussions assessed understanding of risk, risk models, and risk appropriate prevention strategies.

resultsAmong 34 participants, mean age was 53.4 years, 62% (21/34) were Hispanic, and 41% (14/34) demonstrated low numeracy. According to the Gail breast cancer risk assessment tool (BCRAT), the mean 5-year and lifetime breast cancer risk were 1.11% (SD 0.77) and 7.46% (SD 2.87), respectively. After interacting with RealRisks, the difference in perceived and estimated breast cancer risk according to BCRAT improved for 5-year risk (P=.008). In the qualitative analysis, we identified potential barriers to adopting risk-appropriate breast cancer prevention strategies, including uncertainty about breast cancer risk and risk models, distrust toward the health care system, and perception that risk assessment to pre-screen women for eligibility for genetic testing may be viewed as rationing access to care.

conclusionsIn a multi-ethnic population, we demonstrated a significant improvement in accuracy of perceived breast cancer risk after exposure to RealRisks. However, we identified potential barriers that suggest that accurate risk perceptions will not suffice as the sole basis to support informed decision making and the acceptance of risk-appropriate prevention strategies. Findings will inform the iterative design of the RealRisks decision aid.

Indexed as

Decision Support TechniquesBreast NeoplasmsConsumer Health InformationEarly Detection of CancerEthnicityFemaleFocus GroupsHumansMiddle AgedRisk AssessmentRisk FactorsUnited Statesbreast cancerconsumer health informaticsdecision aiddecision makinggenetic testingrisk communicationrisk stratified screening

Identifiers

PMID26175193
PMCPMC4526996
OpenAlexW1752209925

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

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.