Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26554555›Full record

ArticleBMC medical informatics and decision making2015

Impact of a decision aid on reducing uncertainty: pilot study of women in their 40s and screening mammography.

Paula Scariati, Lisa Nelson, Lindsey Watson, Stephen Bedrick, Karen B Eden

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical informatics and decision making, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Field testing of decision coaching with a decision aid for parents facing extreme prematurity.Journal of perinatology : official journal of the California Perinatal Association · 2017
    Article
  14. 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

5 authors.

Paula ScariatiMarin General Hospital, Greenbrae, CA, USA.
Lisa NelsonConvergeHEALTH by Deloitte, Newton, MA, USA.
Lindsey WatsonDepartment of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA.
Stephen BedrickCenter for Spoken Language and Understanding, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA.
Karen B EdenDepartment of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, USA. edenk@ohsu.edu.

Funding

TRAINING PROGRAM IN HEALTH INFORMATICST15LM007088 · NLM · OREGON HEALTH & SCIENCE UNIVERSITY · PI WILLIAM R HERSH, Vishnu Mohan · 1992 to 2026
$23.4M
NLM NIH HHS 5T15 LM007088NLM NIH HHS T15 LM007088
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn 2009 the United States Preventive Services Task Force updated its breast cancer screening guidelines to recommend that average-risk women obtain a screening mammogram every two years starting at age 50 instead of annually starting at age 40. Inconsistencies in data regarding the benefit versus risk of routine screening for women less than 50-years-of-age led to a second recommendation - that women in their forties engage in a shared decision making process with their provider to make an individualized choice about screening mammography that was right for them. In response, a web-based interactive mammography screening decision aid was developed and evaluated.

methodsThe decision aid was developed using an agile, iterative process. It was further honed based on feedback from clinical and technical subject matter experts. A convenience sample of 51 age- and risk-appropriate women was recruited to pilot the aid. Pre-post decisional conflict and screening choice was assessed.

resultsWomen reported a significant reduction in overall decisional conflict after using the decision aid (Z = -5.3, p < 0.001). These participants also reported statistically significant reductions in each of the decisional conflict subscales: feeling uncertain (Z = -4.7, p < 0.001), feeling uninformed (Z = -5.2, p < 0.001), feeling unclear about values (Z = -5.0, p < 0.001), and feeling unsupported (Z = -4.0, p < 0.001). However, a woman's intention to obtain a screening mammogram in the next 1-2 years was not significantly changed (Wilcoxon signed-rank Z = -1.508, p = 0.132).

conclusionThis mammography screening decision aid brings value to patient care not by impacting what a woman chooses but by lending clarity to why or how she chooses it.

Indexed as

Decision Support TechniquesMammographyPatient PreferenceUncertaintyAdultBreast NeoplasmsFemaleHumansMiddle AgedPilot Projects

Identifiers

PMID26554555
PMCPMC4640415

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.