ArticleBMJ open2025
Evaluation of how US women react to a decision aid informing them of the harms and benefits of mammography: a qualitative study.
Article in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05376241 (Understanding Affective Processing of Scientific Evidence to Promote Informed Choice for Breast Cancer Screening), which is not on this map. Cited by 3 papers.
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.
Understanding Affective Processing of Scientific Evidence to Promote Informed Choice for Breast Cancer Screening
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Public (un)willingness to trade-off benefits and harms in decisions about cancer screening: A discrete choice experiment.Journal of medical screening · 2026Article
- Developing a website to help women aged 55 + incorporate risk in decision-making about breast cancer screening and prevention medications.Patient education and counseling · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesTo evaluate how women react to a decision aid (DA) informing them of the harms and benefits of mammography, including overdiagnosis.
backgroundBreast cancer is the most common cancer affecting women. In efforts to reduce mortality, mammography has been widely accepted as an effective method of early detection. However, there is a balance between the known harms and benefits of breast cancer screening. Overdiagnosis is the detection of a cancer that would never cause harm over the lifetime. Comprehension and acceptance of overdiagnosis can be difficult for some people.
designQualitative study using a semistructured interview protocol. Data were analysed in Atlas.Ti and the framework method was used to identify themes.
settingTelephone interviews with participants living in the USA.
participants30 female individuals aged 39-49, selected from a nationally representative US sample of individuals who had completed a survey <2 weeks prior, during which they viewed a DA describing the main harms and benefits of breast cancer screening.
resultsSix major themes were identified: (1) overdiagnosis and false positives were often conflated, (2) previous experience and the influence of doctors and family supersedes new information, (3) beliefs about cancer dominate acceptance and comprehension of overdiagnosis, (4) emotional reactions to the novelty of overdiagnosis, (5) reactions to screening benefits-"I'll be the one", and (6) people reported the DA is credible, but they remained sceptical and performed their own research.
conclusionThis study provides insights into the challenges of communicating about the harms of breast cancer screening, particularly overdiagnosis. While it is critical to honestly communicate with patients about the harms of breast cancer screening, it is also important to consider the emotional impact of conveying such information.
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.