Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41908904›Full record

ArticlePublic health ethics2026

What Information on Mammographic Screening is Available to Women in Quebec, Ontario and Canada: Results from a Document Analysis.

Alexandra Larocque, Isabelle Trop, Nathalie Gaucher

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Public health ethics, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

3 authors.

Alexandra LarocqueClinical Ethics Bureau, Faculty of Medicine, University of Montreal, Canada.
Isabelle TropDepartment of Radiology, Radiation Oncology and Nuclear Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Montreal, Canada.
Nathalie GaucherPediatric Emergency Department, CHU Sainte-Justine; CHU Sainte-Justine Azrieli Research Center; Clinical Ethics Bureau and Department of Pediatrics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Montreal, Canada.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5997-2627

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Information provided to women invited to participate in mammography screening is crucial in supporting informed consent. Expert recommendations remain divided, and the ethical framing of autonomy, especially in shared decision-making, often fails to reflect the realities of clinical practice. This study examines how public-facing documents communicate screening information and explores whether relational autonomy offers a more ethically coherent approach. A document analysis was conducted using the READ method. Documents published between 1999 and 2023, from Quebec, Ontario or Canada, containing the keywords 'breast cancer screening' and 'screening mammography' were included and assessed using a 16-category grid. Fifty-one documents were included (Qc: 16, On: 10, Can: 25) and 11 were excluded. 10 per cent included women from the public, but the majority of contributing experts were women (57 per cent). 96 per cent of documents were considered inaccessible based on the Flesch-Kincaid Grade Level score. Benefits were mentioned more often than risks (90 per cent vs 37 per cent) and 16 per cent confused diagnosis and screening. Women under 50 were overrepresented (37 per cent) and racialized women underrepresented (58 per cent). This analysis reveals biases in how screening information is designed and communicated. Relational autonomy offers a more inclusive framework for evaluating and improving screening communication.

Identifiers

PMID41908904
PMCPMC13017105

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.