Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37124453›Full record

ArticlePEC innovation2023

Clinician and patient perspectives on screening mammography among women age 75 and older: A pilot study of a novel decision aid.

Dejana Braithwaite, Anthony Chicaiza, Katherine Lopez, Kenneth W Lin, Ranit Mishori, Shama D Karanth, Stephen Anton, Kristen Miller, Mara A Schonberg, Nancy L Schoenborn and 1 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PEC innovation, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 2 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. 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

11 authors.

Dejana BraithwaiteUniversity of Florida Health Cancer Center, Gainesville, FL, United States of America.
Anthony ChicaizaGeorgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC, United States of America.
Katherine LopezGeorgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC, United States of America.
Kenneth W LinGeorgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC, United States of America.
Ranit MishoriGeorgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC, United States of America.
Shama D KaranthUniversity of Florida Health Cancer Center, Gainesville, FL, United States of America.
Stephen AntonUniversity of Florida Health Cancer Center, Gainesville, FL, United States of America.
Kristen MillerGeorgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC, United States of America.
Mara A SchonbergDana Farber Cancer Center, Harvard University, Boston, MA, United States of America.
Nancy L SchoenbornJohns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, United States of America.
Suzanne C O'NeillGeorgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC, United States of America.

Funding

Tissue Culture Shared ResourceP30CA051008 · NCI · GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY · PI Louis M Weiner · 1990 to 2026
$71.5M
COMORBIDITY AND SCREENING OUTCOMES AMONG OLDER WOMEN UNDERGOING MAMMOGRAPHYR01CA207361 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA · PI BRAITHWAITE, DEJANA K · 2017 to 2020
$2.3M
Research and mentoring program in shared decision making in the care of older adultsK24AG071906 · NIA · BETH ISRAEL DEACONESS MEDICAL CENTER · PI SCHONBERG, MARA A · 2021 to 2025
$946k
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA051008NCI NIH HHS R01 CA207361NIA NIH HHS K24 AG071906
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Objective: Supporting patient-clinician communication is key to implementing tailored, risk-based screening for older adults. Objectives of this multiphase mixed methods study were to identify factors that primary care clinicians consider influential when making screening mammography recommendations for women ≥ 75 years, develop a patient decision aid that incorporates these factors, and gather feasibility and acceptability from the patients' perspective. Methods: Clinicians from a Mid-Atlantic practice network completed online surveys. Women in the same network completed surveys before and after receiving a tailored booklet that included information about the benefits and harms of screening for women ≥ 75 years, a breast cancer risk-estimate, and a question prompt list to support patient-clinician communication. Results: Clinicians (N = 21) were primarily women [57.1%] and practiced family medicine [81.0%]. They cited patients' age ≥ 75 years [95.4%], comorbidity [86.4%], functional status [77.3%], cancer family history [63.6%], U.S. Preventive Services Task Force guidelines [81.8%] and new research [77.3%] as factors influencing their recommendations. Fourteen women completed baseline surveys and received personalized decision aids (Mean age = 79.1 years). Eleven completed the post-intervention survey. All were satisfied with the booklet length, 81.8% found the booklet easy to understand and 72.7% helpful in decision-making Perceived lifetime breast cancer risk decreased significantly from pre- to post-intervention (p = 0.02). Conclusions: Results suggest this decision aid, which incorporates key decisional factors from the clinician's perspective, is feasible and acceptable to patients. Innovation: A tailored decision aid booklet is innovative as it provides information on personalized risk and potential benefits and harms to older women considering screening.

Indexed as

Benefits and harmBreast cancer screeningOlder adultsPerson-centered decision-making

Identifiers

PMID37124453
PMCPMC10136373

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.