SynthesisPsycho-oncology2019
Systematic review on women's values and preferences concerning breast cancer screening and diagnostic services.
Synthesis in Psycho-oncology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 37 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
37 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Patients values regarding primary health care: a systematic review of qualitative and quantitative evidence.BMC health services research · 2023Pooled it
- Barriers and Facilitators to Participation in Health Screening: an Umbrella Review Across Conditions.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2022Pooled it
- Factors associated with attendance at screening for breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ open · 2021Pooled it
- Systematic review on women's values and preferences concerning breast cancer screening and diagnostic services.Psycho-oncology · 2019Pooled it
- Acceptability of de-intensified screening for women at low risk of breast cancer: a randomised online experimental survey.BMC cancer · 2024Trial
- Randomized Trial of Information for Older Women About Cessation of Breast Cancer Screening Invitations.Journal of general internal medicine · 2024Trial
- Informing Women About Overdetection in Breast Cancer Screening: Two-Year Outcomes From a Randomized Trial.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2021Trial
- Acceptance, experience, and feedback for supplemental screening in dense breasts among women participating in the BRAID trial.Insights into imaging · 2026Article
- Factors Associated with Delays in Breast Cancer Diagnosis in Low- and Middle-income Countries: A Scoping Review.International journal of community based nursing and midwifery · 2026Review
- Noninvasive Breast Cancer Screening Strategies Supported by AI-Based Technologies in Resource-Limited Settings: Is It the Best Opportunity to Strengthen Women's Preferences, Values and Acceptability?Health care science · 2025Article
- Spousal perceptions and their role in promoting breast cancer screening: a focus group study.BMJ open · 2025Article
- Using Self-Scheduling to Improve Screening Mammography Completion Rates.Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR · 2025Article
- Understanding motivations of older women to continue or discontinue breast cancer screening.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
- Understanding motivations of older women to continue or discontinue breast cancer screening.PloS one · 2025Article
- Article
- Acceptability of artificial intelligence in breast screening: focus groups with the screening-eligible population in England.BMJ public health · 2024Article
- Article
- 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 · 2024Article
- Overdiagnosis Due to Screening Mammography for Breast Cancer among Women Aged 40 Years and Over: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of personalized medicine · 2023Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThere is still lack of consensus on the benefit-harm balance of breast cancer screening. In this scenario, women's values and preferences are crucial for developing health-related recommendations. In the context of the European Commission Initiative on Breast Cancer, we conducted a systematic review to inform the European Breast Guidelines.
methodsWe searched Medline and included primary studies assessing women's values and preferences regarding breast cancer screening and diagnosis decision making. We used a thematic approach to synthesise relevant data. The quality of evidence was determined with GRADE, including GRADE CERQual for qualitative research.
resultsWe included 22 individual studies. Women were willing to accept the psychological and physical burden of breast cancer screening and a significant risk of overdiagnosis and false-positive mammography findings, in return for the benefit of earlier diagnosis. The anxiety engendered by the delay in getting results of diagnostic tests was highlighted as a significant burden, emphasising the need for rapid and efficient screening services, and clear and efficient communication. The confidence in the findings was low to moderate for screening and moderate for diagnosis, predominantly because of methodological limitations, lack of adequate understanding of the outcomes by participants, and indirectness.
conclusionsWomen value more the possibility of an earlier diagnosis over the risks of a false-positive result or overdiagnosis. Concerns remain that women may not understand the concept of overdiagnosis. Women highly value time efficient screening processes and rapid result delivery and will accept some discomfort for the peace of mind screening may provide.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.