Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42805646›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2026

Women in their 40s responding to the 2024 United States Preventive Services Task Force mammography guideline update: a focus group study.

Laura D Scherer, Tamar Parmet, Marilyn M Schapira, Joseph N Cappella, Jolyn Hersch, Kirsten McCaffery, Carmen L Lewis, Channing E Tate, Brad Morse

Registry-linked trialAbstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT05838417 (Promoting Informed Choice for Breast Cancer Screening), which is not on this 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.

NCT05838417 nacompletednot on this map

Promoting Informed Choice for Breast Cancer Screening: A Longitudinal Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of Colorado, DenverRan2022 to 2025Enrolled499ConditionsBreast CancerArmsREDS survey
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

9 authors.

Laura D SchererSchool of Medicine, University of Colorado, Aurora, Colorado, USA LAURA.SCHERER@CUANSCHUTZ.EDU.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8660-7115
Tamar ParmetUniversity of Colorado Anschutz, Aurora, Colorado, USA.
Marilyn M SchapiraUniversity of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Joseph N CappellaUniversity of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, USA.
Jolyn HerschSchool of Public Health, University of Sydney, The University of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5225-6639
Kirsten McCafferySydney Health Literacy Lab, School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2696-5006
Carmen L LewisUniversity of Colorado Anschutz, Aurora, Colorado, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9739-2850
Channing E TateSchool of Medicine, University of Colorado, Aurora, Colorado, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6635-9794
Brad MorseGeneral Internal Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1080-3961

Funding

Understanding affective processing of scientific evidence to promote informed choice for breast cancer screeningR37CA254926 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER · PI Laura D. Scherer · 2021 to 2026
$3.8M
NCI NIH HHS R37 CA254926
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveFocus groups involving US women aged 40-49 were conducted to identify women's attitudes towards the 2024 United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) mammography guideline, particularly the change in emphasis away from informed choice. Focus groups explored what information women feel they need to receive about screening benefits and harms prior to getting a mammogram.

designSeven focus groups of 4-6 women were conducted 3-4 months following the USPSTF guideline announcement.

settingParticipants were recruited from two healthcare systems in the USA and participated in focus groups via Zoom.

participantsWomen aged 40-49 with no history of breast cancer. Purposive sampling stratified by race, education and screening preferences.

interventionsParticipants had previously received a Decision Aid as part of a parent study informing them of the pre-2024 USPSTF guideline and mammography mortality benefit, false positives and overdiagnosis. MAIN MEASURES: Rapid qualitative analysis focused on summarising groups' answers to questions posed to the focus groups.

resultsGroups were generally positive towards lowering the screening age to 40 but felt that screening frequency should be tailored to personal cancer risk. They strongly emphasised the importance of being informed about both the benefits and harms of mammography, despite the reduced emphasis on informed choice, and stressed a desire for transparency and autonomy.

conclusionsUS women were positive about the recommendation to screen at age 40 but wanted screening frequency to be tailored to their cancer risk. They valued being fully informed of both screening benefits and harms and expected that all women should be fully informed. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT05838417.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerMammographyAdultAdvisory CommitteesClinical Trials as TopicFemaleFocus GroupsHumansMass ScreeningMiddle AgedMulticenter Studies as TopicPractice Guidelines as TopicQualitative ResearchUnited StatesAttitudeBreast imagingDecision MakingEarly Detection of CancerGuideline Adherence

Identifiers

PMID42805646
PMCPMC13629982

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

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.