Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26336075›Full record

ArticleBMC research notes2015

Preconceptions influence women's perceptions of information on breast cancer screening: a qualitative study.

Mikael Johannes Vuokko Henriksen, Ann Dorrit Guassora, John Brodersen

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC research notes, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
25citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

25 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Recommendations on screening for breast cancer in women aged 40-74 years who are not at increased risk for breast cancer.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2018
    Guideline
  4. Pooled it
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Risk-Adapted Breast Screening for Women at Low Predicted Risk of Breast Cancer: An Online Discrete Choice Experiment.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  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

3 authors.

Mikael Johannes Vuokko HenriksenResearch Unit and Section for General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Oster Farimagsgade 5, 1014, Copenhagen K, Denmark. mikael.jv.henriksen@gmail.com.
Ann Dorrit GuassoraResearch Unit and Section for General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Oster Farimagsgade 5, 1014, Copenhagen K, Denmark. anngu@sund.ku.dk.
John BrodersenResearch Unit and Section for General Practice, Department of Public Health, University of Copenhagen, Oster Farimagsgade 5, 1014, Copenhagen K, Denmark. jobr@sund.ku.dk.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundScreening for breast cancer has been subject to intense debate in recent decades regarding benefits and risks. Participation in breast cancer screening should be based on informed choice, and most countries approach this by sending information leaflets with invitations to attend screening. However, very little attention has been paid to the decision-making process and how the information leaflets are used and understood by women. The aim of this study is twofold. First, we use a theoretical framework to explore how the framing of information influences the intention to participate in breast cancer screening. Second, we discuss how information and attitudes held prior to receiving the invitation influence the perception of the balance between the benefits and risks harms of screening.

methodsWe used a qualitative design and interviewed six women who were soon to receive their first invitation to participate in the breast screening programme in Denmark. The selected women received a copy of the official information leaflet 1 week before we interviewed them. The six women were interviewed individually using an interview guide based on the theory of planned behaviour. We used meaning condensation for our initial analysis, and further analysis was guided by the theory of cognitive dissonance.

resultsFor our participants, the decision-making process was dominated by the attitudes of the women's circle of acquaintances and, to a lesser extent, by the information that accompanied the screening invitation. Information that conflicted with attitudes the women already held was actively disregarded. The risk of overdiagnosis as a potentially harmful effect of participation in mammography screening was unknown to the women in our study. An isolated framing effect was not found.

conclusionWomen have expectations about breast cancer screening that are formed before they receive information from the screening programme. These expectations compromise the perception of balance between screening benefits and potential harmful effects. They also influence the perception of the information in the breast screening leaflet. The phenomenon of overdiagnosis is unknown to the women.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsDecision MakingEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHumansInterviews as TopicMammographyMass ScreeningMiddle AgedPerceptionQualitative Research

Identifiers

PMID26336075
PMCPMC4557860

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.