Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30858992›Full record

ReviewPublic health reviews2019

Health professionals' perspectives on breast cancer risk stratification: understanding evaluation of risk versus screening for disease.

Svetlana Puzhko, Justin Gagnon, Jacques Simard, Bartha Maria Knoppers, Sophia Siedlikowski, Gillian Bartlett

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Public health reviews, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
2.1field-weighted citation impact, top 11% 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.

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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 36 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. 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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Svetlana Puzhko1Department of Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, 5858 Chemin de la Côte-des-Neiges, Suite 300, Montréal, Québec H3S 1Z1 Canada.ORCID 0000-0001-8514-5003
Justin Gagnon1Department of Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, 5858 Chemin de la Côte-des-Neiges, Suite 300, Montréal, Québec H3S 1Z1 Canada.
Jacques Simard2Genomics Center, CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Center, Room R4-4787, 2705 Laurier Blvd, Québec, Québec G1V 4G2 Canada.
Bartha Maria Knoppers3Genome Quebec Innovation Centre of Genomics and Policy, Department of Human Genetics, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, 3640 University Street, Room W-315, 740 Dr. Penfield Ave, 5214, Montréal, Québec H3A 0C7OG1 Canada.
Sophia Siedlikowski1Department of Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, 5858 Chemin de la Côte-des-Neiges, Suite 300, Montréal, Québec H3S 1Z1 Canada.
Gillian Bartlett1Department of Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, McGill University, 5858 Chemin de la Côte-des-Neiges, Suite 300, Montréal, Québec H3S 1Z1 Canada.
McGill University · CAMcGill University and Génome Québec Innovation Centre · CAUniversité Laval · CA

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundYounger women at higher-than-population-average risk for breast cancer may benefit from starting screening earlier than presently recommended by the guidelines. The Personalized Risk Stratification for Prevention and Early Detection of Breast Cancer (PERSPECTIVE) approach aims to improve the prevention of breast cancer through differential screening recommendations based on a personal risk estimate. In our study, we used deliberative stakeholder consultations to engage health professionals in an in-depth dialog to explore the feasibility of the proposed implementation strategies for this new personalized breast cancer screening approach.

methodsDeliberative stakeholder consultation is a qualitative descriptive study design used to engage health professionals in the discussion, while the mediators play a more passive role. A purposeful sample of 11 health professionals (family physicians and genetic counselors) working in Montreal was used. The deliberations were organized in two phases, including small group deliberations according to the deliberants' health profession and a mixed group deliberation combining participants from the small groups. Inductive thematic content analysis was performed on the transcripts by two coders to create the deliberative and analytic outputs. Quality of deliberations was assessed quantitatively using the de Vries method and qualitatively using participant observation.

resultsOne of our key findings was that health professionals lacked understanding of the two steps of the screening approach: risk stratification "screening," which is an evaluation for the level of risk and screening for disease. As part of this confusion, the main topic of concern was a justification of program implementation as a population-wide screening, based on their uncertainty that it will be beneficial for women with near-population risks. Despite the noted difficulties concerning implementation, health professionals acknowledged the substantial benefits of the proposed PERSPECTIVE program.

conclusionsOur study was the first to evaluate the perspectives of health professionals on the implementation and benefits of a new program for breast cancer risk stratification with the purpose of personalizing screening for disease. This new multi-step approach to screening requires more clarity in communication with health professionals. To implement and maintain effective screening, engagement of family physicians with other health professionals or even development of a centralized public health system may be needed.

Indexed as

Breast cancer screeningDeliberative stakeholder consultationsPersonalized screeningProgram implementationRisk stratification

Identifiers

PMID30858992
PMCPMC6394012
OpenAlexW2932999285

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.