Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35015260›Full record

ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2022

Perceptions of Conflicting Breast Cancer Screening Recommendations Among Racially/Ethnically Diverse Women: a Multimethod Study.

Ashley J Housten, Diana S Hoover, Maggie Britton, Therese B Bevers, Richard L Street, Lorna H McNeill, Larkin L Strong, Jolyn Hersch, Kirsten McCaffery, Robert J Volk

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
–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

10 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Skeptical reactions to breast cancer screening benefits and harms: Antecedents, consequences, and implications for screening communication.Health psychology : official journal of the Division of Health Psychology, American Psychological Association · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

10 authors.

Ashley J HoustenDivision of Public Health Sciences, Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, USA. ahousten@wustl.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-7379-0678
Diana S HooverDepartment of Health Disparities Research, Division of Cancer Prevention and Population Sciences, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Maggie BrittonDepartment of Psychological, Health, and Learning Sciences, University of Houston, Houston, TX, USA.
Therese B BeversDepartment of Clinical Cancer Prevention, Division of Cancer Prevention and Population Sciences, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Richard L StreetDepartment of Communication, College of Liberal Arts, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, TX, USA.
Lorna H McNeillDepartment of Health Disparities Research, Division of Cancer Prevention and Population Sciences, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Larkin L StrongDepartment of Health Disparities Research, Division of Cancer Prevention and Population Sciences, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.
Jolyn HerschSydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Kirsten McCafferySydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
Robert J VolkDepartment of Health Services Research, Division of Cancer Prevention and Population Sciences, The University of Texas MD Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA.

Funding

Tumor Evolution and Metastasis ProgramP30CA016672 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI DIANE BODURKA · 1985 to 2026
$290.8M
Breast Cancer Screening: Priorities and Attitudes of Diverse Women Under 50R00MD011485 · NIMHD · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI HOUSTEN, ASHLEY · 2019 to 2021
$712k
Health Literacy and Smoking Cessation in Low-SES, Diverse SmokersK23DA040933 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI HOOVER, DIANA STEWART · 2016 to 2018
$500k
Breast Cancer Screening: Priorities and Attitudes of Diverse Women Under 50K99MD011485 · NIMHD · UNIVERSITY OF TX MD ANDERSON CAN CTR · PI HOUSTEN, ASHLEY · 2017 to 2018
$177k
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA016672NIDA NIH HHS K23 DA040933NIMHD NIH HHS K99 MD011485NIMHD NIH HHS R00 MD011485
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundConflicting breast cancer screening recommendations have the potential to diminish informed decision making about screening.

objectiveWe examined the knowledge, attitudes, and intentions related to divergent recommendations for breast cancer screening among racially/ethnically diverse women.

designWe used a multimethod study design employing focus groups and questionnaires. Focus groups included: (1) two 10-min presentations on the national screening recommendations and the potential benefits and harms of screening and (2) an interactive discussion. Data were collected: 8/3/2017 to 11/19/2019. Analysis occurred from 1/21/2019 to 7/24/2020.

participantsParticipants were (1) women 40-75 years; (2) English or Spanish speaking; (3)self-identified as Latina, Black, or non-Latina White; and (4) no known increased risk for breast cancer. MAIN MEASURES: Main outcomes were participants' knowledge and perceptions of benefits and harms of screening mammography and their screening intentions. Focus groups were transcribed and analyzed using a qualitative descriptive approach. Quantitative data were summarized using descriptive statistics. KEY

resultsOne hundred thirty-four women (n=52, 40-49 years; n=82, 50-75 years) participated in 28 focus groups. Participants were Latina (n=44); Black (n=51); and non-Latina White (n=39). Approximately one-quarter (n=32) had limited health literacy and almost one-fifth (n=23) had limited numeracy. In the context of differing national screening recommendations, participants questioned the motives of the recommendation-making agencies, including the role of costs and how costs were considered when making screening recommendations. Participants expressed concern that they were not represented (e.g., race/ethnicity) in the data informing the recommendations. Immediately following the focus groups, most participants expressed intention to screen within the upcoming year (pre n=100 vs. post n=107).

conclusionsDivergent breast cancer screening recommendations may lead to mistrust and paradoxically reinforce high overall enthusiasm for screening.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerAdultAgedBlack or African AmericanDissent and DisputesFemaleHealth Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeHispanic or LatinoHumansMammographyMass ScreeningMiddle AgedPerceptionWhiteCancerHealth disparitiesHealth literacyMammographyOncologyQualitative research

Identifiers

PMID35015260
PMCPMC8971222

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.