Dataset Information

Patient understanding of the revised USPSTF screening mammogram guidelines: need for development of patient decision aids.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The purpose of the study was to examine patients' understanding of the revised screening mammogram guidelines released by the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) in 2009 addressing age at initiation and frequency of screening mammography.

Methods

Patients from the Departments of Family Medicine, Internal Medicine, and Obstetrics and Gynecology (n = 150) at a tertiary care medical center in the United States completed a survey regarding their understanding of the revised USPSTF guidelines following their release, within four to six months of their scheduled mammogram (March 2010 to May 2010).

Results

Of the patients surveyed, 97/147 (67%) indicated increased confusion regarding the age and frequency of screening mammography, 61/148 (41%) reported increased anxiety about mammograms, and 58/146 (40%) reported anxiety about their own health status following the release of the revised screening guidelines. Most of the patients surveyed, 111/148 (75%), did not expect to change their timing or frequency of screening mammograms in the future.

Conclusion

Results from this survey suggested increased confusion and possibly an increase in patients' anxiety related to screening mammography and their own health status following the release of the revised USPSTF screening mammogram guidelines to the public and subsequent media portrayal of the revised guidelines. Although the study did not specifically address causality for these findings, the results highlight the need for improvements in the communication of guidelines to patients and the public. Development of shared decision-making tools and outcomes should be considered to address the communication challenge.

SUBMITTER: Allen SV

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3517367 | biostudies-literature | 2012 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Patient understanding of the revised USPSTF screening mammogram guidelines: need for development of patient decision aids.

Allen Summer V SV Solberg Nes Lise L Marnach Mary L ML Polga Kristen K Jenkins Sarah M SM Files Julia A JA Croghan Ivana T IT Ghosh Karthik K Pruthi Sandhya S

BMC women's health 20121010

<h4>Background</h4>The purpose of the study was to examine patients' understanding of the revised screening mammogram guidelines released by the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) in 2009 addressing age at initiation and frequency of screening mammography.<h4>Methods</h4>Patients from the Departments of Family Medicine, Internal Medicine, and Obstetrics and Gynecology (n = 150) at a tertiary care medical center in the United States completed a survey regarding their understand ...[more]

PMID: 23051022

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceThe United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends low-dose computed tomography screening for lung cancer. However, USPSTF screening guidelines were derived from a study population including only 4% African American smokers, and racial differences in smoking patterns were not considered.ObjectiveTo evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of USPSTF lung cancer screening eligibility criteria in a predominantly African American and low-income cohort.Design, setting, and participantsThe Southern Community Cohort Study prospectively enrolled adults visiting community health centers across 12 southern US states from March 25, 2002, through September 24, 2009, and followed up for cancer incidence through December 31, 2014. Participants included African American and white current and former smokers aged 40 through 79 years. Statistical analysis was performed from May 11, 2016, to December 6, 2018.ExposuresSelf-reported race, age, and smoking history. Cumulative exposure smoking histories encompassed most recent follow-up questionnaires.Main outcomes and measuresIncident lung cancer cases assessed for eligibility for lung cancer screening using USPSTF criteria.ResultsAmong 48 364 ever smokers, 32 463 (67%) were African American and 15 901 (33%) were white, with 1269 incident lung cancers identified. Among all 48 364 Southern Community Cohort Study participants, 5654 of 32 463 African American smokers (17%) were eligible for USPSTF screening compared with 4992 of 15 901 white smokers (31%) (P < .001). Among persons diagnosed with lung cancer, a significantly lower percentage of African American smokers (255 of 791; 32%) was eligible for screening compared with white smokers (270 of 478; 56%) (P < .001). The lower percentage of eligible lung cancer cases in African American smokers was primarily associated with fewer smoking pack-years among African American vs white smokers (median pack-years: 25.8 [interquartile range, 16.9-42.0] vs 48.0 [interquartile range, 30.2-70.5]; P < .001). Racial disparity was observed in the sensitivity and specificity of USPSTF guidelines between African American and white smokers for all ages. Lowering the smoking pack-year eligibility criteria to a minimum 20-pack-year history was associated with an increased percentage of screening eligibility of African American smokers and with equitable performance of sensitivity and specificity compared with white smokers across all ages (for a 55-year-old current African American smoker, sensitivity increased from 32.2% to 49.0% vs 56.5% for a 55-year-old white current smoker; specificity decreased from 83.0% to 71.6% vs 69.4%; P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceCurrent USPSTF lung cancer screening guidelines may be too conservative for African American smokers. The findings suggest that race-specific adjustment of pack-year criteria in lung cancer screening guidelines would result in more equitable screening for African American smokers at high risk for lung cancer.

Project description:Introduction. Patient decision aid (PDA) certification standards recommend including the positive and negative features of each option of the decision. This review describes the inclusion of concepts related to overdiagnosis and overtreatment, negative features often ambiguously defined, in cancer screening PDAs. Methods. Our process followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. We reviewed 1) current systematic reviews of decision aids, 2) the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute Decision Aid Library Inventory, and 3) a web-based, gray literature search. Two independent reviewers identified and evaluated PDAs using content analysis. Reviewers coded whether overdiagnosis/overtreatment was described as 1) detecting cancer that would not lead to death, 2) detecting cancer that would not cause symptoms, and/or 3) a potential harm or consequence of screening. Coding discrepancies were resolved through consensus. Results. A total of 904 records (e.g., articles, PDAs) were reviewed and 85 PDAs were identified: prostate (n = 36), breast (n = 26), lung (n = 10), colorectal (n = 10), and other (n = 3). Sixty-seven PDAs included concepts related to overdiagnosis/overtreatment; 57 (67.1%) used a term other than overdiagnosis/overtreatment, 23 (27.1%) used the specific term "overdiagnosis," and 13 (15.3%) used "overtreatment." PDAs described overdiagnosis/overtreatment as a potential harm or consequence of screening (n = 62) and/or a detection of a cancer that would not cause symptoms (n = 49). Thirty-six described overdiagnosis as the detection of a cancer that would not result in death. Twenty PDAs described the probabilities associated with overdiagnosis/overtreatment. Conclusions. Over three quarters of cancer screening PDAs addressed concepts related to overdiagnosis/overtreatment, yet terminology was inconsistent and few included probability estimates. Consistent terminology and minimum standards to describe overdiagnosis/overtreatment would help guide the design and certification of cancer screening PDAs.

Project description:BackgroundEffective use of a patient decision aid (PtDA) can be affected by the user's health literacy and the PtDA's characteristics. Systematic reviews of the relevant literature can guide PtDA developers to attend to the health literacy needs of patients. The reviews reported here aimed to assess:MethodsWe reviewed literature for evidence relevant to these two aims. When high-quality systematic reviews existed, we summarized their evidence. When reviews were unavailable, we conducted our own systematic reviews.ResultsAim 1: In an existing systematic review of PtDA trials, lower health literacy was associated with lower patient health knowledge (14 of 16 eligible studies). Fourteen studies reported practical design strategies to improve knowledge for lower health literacy patients. In our own systematic review, no studies reported on values clarity per se, but in 2 lower health literacy was related to higher decisional uncertainty and regret. Lower health literacy was associated with less desire for involvement in 3 studies, less question-asking in 2, and less patient-centered communication in 4 studies; its effects on other measures of patient involvement were mixed. Only one study assessed the effects of a health literacy intervention on outcomes; it showed that using video to improve the salience of health states reduced decisional uncertainty. Aim 2: In our review of 97 trials, only 3 PtDAs overtly addressed the needs of lower health literacy users. In 90% of trials, user health literacy and readability of the PtDA were not reported. However, increases in knowledge and informed choice were reported in those studies in which health literacy needs were addressed.ConclusionLower health literacy affects key decision-making outcomes, but few existing PtDAs have addressed the needs of lower health literacy users. The specific effects of PtDAs designed to mitigate the influence of low health literacy are unknown. More attention to the needs of patients with lower health literacy is indicated, to ensure that PtDAs are appropriate for lower as well as higher health literacy patients.

Project description:BackgroundThe original version of the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) recommended that patient decision aids (PtDAs) should be carefully developed, user-tested and open to scrutiny, with a well-documented and systematically applied development process. We carried out a review to check the relevance and scope of this quality dimension and, if necessary, to update it.MethodsOur review drew on three sources: a) published papers describing PtDAs evaluated in randomised controlled trials and included in the most recent Cochrane Collaboration review; b) linked papers cited in the trial reports that described how the PtDAs had been developed; and c) papers and web reports outlining the development process used by organisations experienced in developing multiple PtDAs. We then developed an extended model of the development process indicating the various steps on which documentation is required, as well as a checklist to assess the frequency with which each of the elements was publicly reported.ResultsKey features common to all patient decision aid (PtDA) development processes include: scoping and design; development of a prototype; 'alpha' testing with patients and clinicians in an iterative process; 'beta' testing in 'real life' conditions (field tests); and production of a final version for use and/or further evaluation. Only about half of the published reports on the development of PtDAs that we reviewed appear to have been field tested with patients, and even fewer had been reviewed or tested by clinicians not involved in the development process. Very few described a distribution strategy, and surprisingly few (17%) described a method for reviewing and synthesizing the clinical evidence. We describe a model development process that includes all the original elements of the original IPDAS criterion, expanded to include consideration of format and distribution plans as well as prototype development.ConclusionsThe case for including each of the elements outlined in our model development process is pragmatic rather than evidence-based. Optimal methods for ensuring that each stage of the process is carried out effectively require further development and testing.

Project description:IntroductionAlthough systematic reviews have shown how decision aids about cancer-related clinical decisions improve selection of key options and shared decision-making, whether or not particular decision aids, defined by their specific presentation formats, delivery methods and other attributes, can perform better than others in the context of cancer-screening decisions is uncertain. Therefore, we planned an overview to address this issue by using standard umbrella review methods to repurpose existing systematic reviews and their component comparative studies.Methods and analysisWe will search PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and the Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects from inception through 31 December 2021 with no language restriction and perform full-text evaluation of potentially relevant articles. We will include systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials or non-randomised studies of interventions that assessed a decision aid about cancer-screening decisions and compared it with an alternative tool or conventional management in healthy average-risk adults. Two reviewers will extract data and rate the study validity according to standard quality assessment measures. Our primary outcome will be intended and actual choice and adherence to selected options. The secondary outcomes will include attributes of the option-selection process, achieving shared decision-making and preference-linked psychosocial outcomes. We will qualitatively assess study, patient and intervention characteristics and outcomes. We will also take special care to investigate the presentation format, delivery methods and quality of the included decision aids and assess the degree to which the decision aid was delivered and used as intended. If appropriate, we will perform random-effects model meta-analyses to quantitatively synthesise the results.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not applicable as this is a secondary analysis of publicly available data. The review results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.Prospero registration numberCRD42021235957.

Dataset Information

Patient understanding of the revised USPSTF screening mammogram guidelines: need for development of patient decision aids.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Patient understanding of the revised USPSTF screening mammogram guidelines: need for development of patient decision aids.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets