Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33554034›Full record

ArticleJNCI cancer spectrum2021

Motivators of Inappropriate Ovarian Cancer Screening: A Survey of Women and Their Clinicians.

Courtney Macdonald, Danielle Mazza, Martha Hickey, Morgan Hunter, Louise A Keogh, kConFab Investigators, Sandra C Jones, Christobel Saunders, Stephanie Nesci, Roger L Milne and 5 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JNCI cancer spectrum, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
0.5field-weighted citation impact, top 27% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Peace of Mind: A Role in Unnecessary Care?Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2022
    Article
  4. Article
  5. The Influence of Emotions on Treatment Decisions About Low-Risk Thyroid Cancer: A Qualitative Study.Thyroid : official journal of the American Thyroid Association · 2021
    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

15 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

Courtney MacdonaldDepartment of Medical Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2603-4068
Danielle MazzaDepartment of General Practice, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6158-7376
Martha HickeyDepartment of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Melbourne and the Royal Women's Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-3941-082X
Morgan HunterCentre for Biostatistics and Clinical Trials, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-3344-6178
Louise A KeoghCentre for Health Equity, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
kConFab InvestigatorsSir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Sandra C JonesACU Engagement, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia.
Christobel SaundersUniversity of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia.
Stephanie NesciDepartment of Medical Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Roger L MilneCentre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5764-7268
Sue-Anne McLachlanDepartment of Medicine, St Vincent's Hospital, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
John L HopperCentre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Michael L FriedlanderPrince of Wales Clinical School University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia.
Jon EmeryDepartment of General Practice and Centre for Cancer Research, University of Melbourne, Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5274-6336
Kelly-Anne PhillipsDepartment of Medical Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0475-1771
The University of Melbourne · AUPeter MacCallum Cancer Centre · AUAustralian Catholic University · AUMonash University · AURoyal Women's Hospital · AUThe University of Western Australia · AUUNSW Sydney · AU

Funding

Genes, environment and breast cancer risk: The 15 year follow-up of the Prof-SC (Diversity Supplement)R01CA159868 · NCI · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI HOPPER, JOHN L, TERRY, MARY BETH · 2011 to 2015
$9.0M
NCI NIH HHS R01 CA159868
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: This study examined why women and doctors screen for ovarian cancer (OC) contrary to guidelines. Methods: Surveys, based on the Theoretical Domains Framework, were sent to women in the Kathleen Cuningham Foundation Consortium for Research into Familial Breast Cancer and family physicians and gynecologists who organized their screening. Results: Of 1264 Kathleen Cuningham Foundation Consortium for Research into Familial Breast Cancer women, 832 (65.8%) responded. In the past 2 years, 126 (15.1%) had screened. Most of these (n = 101, 80.2%) would continue even if their doctor told them it is ineffective. For women, key OC screening motivators operated in the domains of social role and goals (staying healthy for family, 93.9%), emotion and reinforcement (peace of mind, 93.1%), and beliefs about capabilities (tests are easy to have, 91.9%). Of 531 clinicians 252 (47.5%) responded; a minority (family physicians 45.8%, gynecologists 16.7%) thought OC screening was useful. For gynecologists, the main motivators of OC screening operated in the domains of environmental context (lack of other screening options, 27.6%), and emotion (patient peace of mind, 17.2%; difficulty discontinuing screening, 13.8%). For family physicians,, the strongest motivators were in the domains of social influence (women ask for these tests, 20.7%), goals (a chance these tests will detect cancer early, 16.4%), emotion (patient peace of mind, 13.8%), and environmental context (no other OC screening options, 11.2%). Conclusion: Reasons for OC screening are mostly patient driven. Clinician knowledge and practice are discordant. Motivators of OC screening encompass several domains, which could be targeted in interventions to reduce inappropriate OC screening.

Indexed as

GynecologyMotivationPhysicians, FamilyAdultAgedAttitude to HealthAustraliaBreast NeoplasmsFemaleGenes, BRCA1Genes, BRCA2Guideline AdherenceHumansMiddle AgedMutationOvarian Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID33554034
PMCPMC7853181
OpenAlexW3111301977

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.