Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30030738›Full record

ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2018

Key Elements of Mammography Shared Decision-Making: a Scoping Review of the Literature.

Lori L DuBenske, Sarina B Schrager, Mary E Hitchcock, Amanda K Kane, Terry A Little, Helene E McDowell, Elizabeth S Burnside

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 1 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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Implementation of risk assessment process for breast cancer risk in primary care.Journal of cancer prevention & current research · 2024
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. An Evaluation of Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening Outcomes in an Education and Patient Navigation Program in Rural and Border Texas.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2022
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

7 authors.

Lori L DuBenskeSchool of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA. dubenske@wisc.edu.
Sarina B SchragerSchool of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA.
Mary E HitchcockEbling Library for the Health Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA.
Amanda K KaneSchool of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA.
Terry A LittleSchool of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA.
Helene E McDowellHealth Decision Support, Inc., Madison, WI, USA.
Elizabeth S BurnsideSchool of Medicine and Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI, USA.

Funding

UW COMPREHENSIVE CANCER CENTER SUPPORTP30CA014520 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI Christian Capitini · 1985 to 2026
$142.6M
University of Wisconsin Institute for Clinical and Translational ResearchUL1TR002373 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI ELIZABETH S BURNSIDE, Allan R. Brasier · 2017 to 2026
$75.9M
Institutional Clinical and Translational Science AwardUL1TR000427 · NCATS · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI DREZNER, MARC KENNETH · 2012 to 2016
$32.2M
INSTITUTIONAL CTSA (UW-MADISON): CLINICAL TRIALSUL1RR025011 · NCRR · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI DREZNER, MARC KENNETH · 2007 to 2011
$29.5M
Mentoring And Research In Patient-Oriented Breast Cancer DiagnosisK24CA194251 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI BURNSIDE, ELIZABETH S · 2015 to 2019
$963k
NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR000427NCATS NIH HHS UL1 TR002373NCI NIH HHS K24 CA194251NCI NIH HHS P30 CA014520NCRR NIH HHS UL1 RR025011
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNew guidelines recommend shared decision-making (SDM) for women and their clinician in consideration of breast cancer screening, particularly for women ages 35-50 where guidelines for routine mammography are controversial. A number of models offer general guidelines for SDM across clinical practice, yet they do not offer specific guidance about conducting SDM in mammography. We conducted a scoping review of the literature to identify the key elements of breast cancer screening SDM and synthesize these key elements for utilization by primary care clinicians.

methodsThe Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL Plus); PsycInfo, PubMed (MEDLINE), Scopus, and SocIndex databases were searched. Inclusion criteria were original studies from peer-reviewed publications (from 2009 or later) reporting breast cancer screening (mammography), medical decision-making, and patient-centered care. Study populations needed to include female patients 18+ years of age facing a real-life breast cancer screening decision. Article findings were specific to shared decision-making and/or use of a decision aid. Data extracted includes study design, population, setting, intervention, and critical findings related to breast cancer screening SDM elements. Scoping analysis includes descriptive analysis of study features and content analysis to identify the SDM key elements.

resultsTwenty-four articles were retained. Three thematic categories of key elements emerged from the extracted elements: information delivery/patient education (specific content and delivery modes), interpersonal clinician-patient communication (aspects of interpersonal relationship impacting SDM), and framework of the decision (sociocultural factors beyond direct SDM deliberation). A number of specific breast cancer screening SDM elements relevant to primary care clinical practice are delineated. DISCUSSION: The findings underscore the importance of the relationship between the patient and clinician and the necessity of spelling out each step in the SDM process. The clinician needs to be explicit in telling a woman that she has a choice about whether to get a mammogram and the benefits and harms of screening mammography. Finally, clinicians need to be aware of sociocultural factors that can influence their relationships and their patients' decision-making processes and attempt to identify and address these factors.

Indexed as

Decision MakingAdultBreast NeoplasmsClinical Decision-MakingEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMammographyMiddle AgedPatient-Centered CarePatient Education as TopicPatient ParticipationPhysician-Patient RelationsPrimary Health Carebreast cancer screeninghealth communicationmammographypatient-centered careprimary careshared decision-makingwomen’s health

Identifiers

PMID30030738
PMCPMC6153221

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.