Dataset Information

Can you un-ring the bell? A qualitative study of how affect influences cancer screening decisions.

ABSTRACT: The belief that early detection is the best protection against cancer underlies cancer screening. Emerging research now suggests harms associated with early detection may sometimes outweigh the benefits. Governments, cancer agencies, and organizations that publish screening guidelines have found it is difficult to "un-ring the bell" on the message that "early detection is your best protection" because of its widespread communication and enduring resonance. This study explores affective factors-and their interplay with relevant analytical factors-in public/laypersons' decision making about cancer screening.A total of 93 people (47 men, 46 women) attended focus groups about, respectively, prostate cancer screening and breast cancer screening in two Canadian cities.Affective factors were a major influence on many focus group participants' decision making about cancer screening, including fear of cancer and a generalized enthusiasm for prevention/screening, and they were often inspired by anecdotes about the cancer experiences of family and friends. Affect also existed alongside more analytical factors including assessments of reduced risk in the management of any cancer diagnosis if caught early, and, for men, the belief that an unreliable test is "better than nothing," and that men deserve prostate cancer screening because women have breast and cervical cancer screening. Affective factors were particularly noticeable in the sub-groups most supportive of screening and the "early detection" message: older women who felt that mammogram screening should begin at age 40 rather than 50, and older men who felt that prostate cancer screening should be expanded beyond its current unorganized, opportunistic usage. In contrast, younger participants displayed less affective attachments to "early detection" messages and had greater concerns about harms of screening and were more receptive to nuanced messages informed by evidence.Policymakers attempting to communicate more nuanced versions of the "early detection" message need to understand the role of affect alongside other judgments brought into laypersons' decision making processes and anticipate how affective responses to their messages will be shaped, transformed, and potentially subverted by external forces beyond their control. Particularly overt external factors are campaigns by cancer advocacy organizations actively promoting breast and prostate cancer awareness and screening to younger women and men using affectively-charged messages.

SUBMITTER: Driedger SM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5598010 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Can you un-ring the bell? A qualitative study of how affect influences cancer screening decisions.

Driedger S Michelle SM Annable Gary G Brouwers Melissa M Turner Donna D Maier Ryan R

BMC cancer 20170913 1

<h4>Background</h4>The belief that early detection is the best protection against cancer underlies cancer screening. Emerging research now suggests harms associated with early detection may sometimes outweigh the benefits. Governments, cancer agencies, and organizations that publish screening guidelines have found it is difficult to "un-ring the bell" on the message that "early detection is your best protection" because of its widespread communication and enduring resonance. This study explores ...[more]

PMID: 28903742

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMilitary-related posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is a complex diagnosis with non-linear trajectories of coping and recovery. Current approaches to the evaluation of PTSD and treatment discontinuation often rely on biomedical models that dichotomize recovery based on symptom thresholds. This approach may not sufficiently capture the complex lived experiences of Veterans and their families. To explore conceptualizations of recovery, we sought perspectives from Veterans and their partners in a pilot study to understand: 1) how Veterans nearing completion of treatment for military-related PTSD and their partners view recovery; and 2) the experience of progressing through treatment towards recovery.MethodsWe employed a concurrent mixed methods design. Nine Veterans nearing the end of their treatment at a specialized outpatient mental health clinic completed quantitative self-report tools assessing PTSD and depressive symptom severity, and an individual, semi-structured interview assessing views on their treatment and recovery processes. Veterans' partners participated in a separate interview to capture views of their partners' treatment and recovery processes. Descriptive analyses of self-report symptom severity data were interpreted alongside emergent themes arising from inductive content analysis of qualitative interviews.ResultsWhile over half of Veterans were considered "recovered" based on quantitative assessments of symptoms, individual reflections of "recovery" were not always aligned with these quantitative assessments. A persistent narrative highlighted by participants was that recovery from military-related PTSD was not viewed as a binary outcome (i.e., recovered vs. not recovered); rather, recovery was seen as a dynamic, non-linear process. Key components of the recovery process identified by participants included a positive therapeutic relationship, social support networks, and a toolkit of adaptive strategies to address PTSD symptoms.ConclusionsFor participants in our study, recovery was seen as the ability to navigate ongoing issues of symptom management, re-engagement with meaningful roles and social networks, and a readiness for discontinuing intensive, specialized mental health treatment. The findings of this study highlight important considerations in balancing the practical utility of symptom severity assessments with a better understanding of the treatment discontinuation-related needs of Veterans with military-related PTSD and their families, which align with a contemporary biopsychosocial approach to recovery.

Project description:ObjectivesThere is variation in antibiotic prescribing for lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI) in primary care that does not benefit patients. This study aims to investigate clinicians' accounts of clinical influences on antibiotic prescribing decisions for LRTI to better understand variation and identify opportunities for improvement.DesignMulti country qualitative interview study. Semi-structured interviews using open-ended questions and a patient scenario. Data were subjected to five-stage analytic framework approach (familiarisation, developing a thematic framework from the interview questions and emerging themes, indexing, charting and mapping to search for interpretations), with interviewers commenting on preliminary reports.SettingPrimary care.Participants80 primary care clinicians randomly selected from primary care research networks based in nine European cities.ResultsClinicians reported four main individual clinical factors that guided their antibiotic prescribing decision: auscultation, fever, discoloured sputum and breathlessness. These were considered alongside a general impression of the patient derived from building a picture of the illness course, using intuition and familiarity with the patient. Comorbidity and older age were considered main risk factors for poor outcomes. Clinical factors were similar across networks, apart from C reactive protein near patient testing in Tromsø. Clinicians developed ways to handle diagnostic and management uncertainty through their own clinical routines.ConclusionsClinicians emphasised the importance of auscultation, fever, discoloured sputum and breathlessness, general impression of the illness course, familiarity with the patient, comorbidity, and age in informing their antibiotic prescribing decisions for LRTI. As some of these factors may be overemphasised given the evolving evidence base, greater standardisation of assessment and integration of findings may help reduce unhelpful variation in management. Non-clinical influences will also need to be addressed.

Project description:ObjectivesShared decision-making has continuously gained importance over the last years. However, few studies have investigated the current state of shared decision-making implementation in routine cancer care. This study aimed to investigate how treatment decisions are made in routine cancer care and to explore barriers and facilitators to shared decision-making using an observational approach (three independent observers). Furthermore, the study aimed to extend the understanding of current decision-making processes beyond the dyadic physician-patient interaction.DesignCross-sectional qualitative study using participant observation with semistructured field notes, which were analysed using qualitative content analysis as described by Hsieh and Shannon.Setting and participantsField notes from participant observations were collected at n=54?outpatient consultations and during two 1-week-long observations at two inpatient wards in different clinics of one comprehensive cancer centre in Germany.ResultsMost of the time, either one physician alone or a group of physicians made the treatment decisions. Patients were seldom actively involved. Patients who were 'active' (ie, asked questions, demanded participation, opposed treatment recommendations) facilitated shared decision-making. Time pressure, frequent alternation of responsible physicians and poor coordination of care were the main observed barriers for shared decision-making. We found high variation in decision-making behaviour between different physicians as well as the same physician with different patients.ConclusionMost of the time physicians made the treatment decisions. Shared decision-making was very rarely implemented in current routine cancer care. The entire decision-making process was not observed to follow the principles of shared decision-making. However, some aspects of shared decision-making were occasionally incorporated. Individual as well as organisational factors were found to influence the degree of shared decision-making. If future routine cancer care wishes to follow the principles of shared decision-making, strategies are needed to foster shared decision-making in routine cancer care.

Project description:ObjectiveTo elicit women's responses to information about the nature and extent of overdiagnosis in mammography screening (detecting disease that would not present clinically during the woman's lifetime) and explore how awareness of overdiagnosis might influence attitudes and intentions about screening.DesignQualitative study using focus groups that included a presentation explaining overdiagnosis, incorporating different published estimates of its rate (1-10%, 30%, 50%) and information on the mortality benefit of screening, with guided group discussionsSettingSydney, AustraliaParticipantsFifty women aged 40-79 years with no personal history of breast cancer and with varying levels of education and participation in screening.ResultsPrior awareness of breast cancer overdiagnosis was minimal. Women generally reacted with surprise, but most came to understand the issue. Responses to overdiagnosis and the different estimates of its magnitude were diverse. The highest estimate (50%) made some women perceive a need for more careful personal decision making about screening. In contrast, the lower and intermediate estimates (1-10% and 30%) had limited impact on attitudes and intentions, with many women remaining committed to screening. For some women, the information raised concerns, not about whether to screen but whether to treat a screen detected cancer or consider alternative approaches (such as watchful waiting). Information preferences varied: many women considered it important to take overdiagnosis into account and make informed choices about whether to have screening, but many wanted to be encouraged to be screened.ConclusionsWomen from a range of socioeconomic backgrounds could comprehend the issue of overdiagnosis in mammography screening, and they generally valued information about it. Effects on screening intentions may depend heavily on the rate of overdiagnosis. Overdiagnosis will be new and counterintuitive for many people and may influence screening and treatment decisions in unintended ways, underscoring the need for careful communication.

Dataset Information

Can you un-ring the bell? A qualitative study of how affect influences cancer screening decisions.

Publications

Can you un-ring the bell? A qualitative study of how affect influences cancer screening decisions.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets