Dataset Information

Providing more balanced information on the harms and benefits of cervical cancer screening: A randomized survey among US and Norwegian women.

ABSTRACT: We aimed to identify how additional information about benefits and harms of cervical cancer (CC) screening impacted intention to participate in screening, what type of information on harms women preferred receiving, from whom, and whether it differed between two national healthcare settings. We conducted a survey that randomized screen-eligible women in the United States (n = 1084) and Norway (n = 1060) into four groups according to the timing of introducing additional information. We found that additional information did not significantly impact stated intentions-to-participate in screening or follow-up testing in either country; however, the proportion of Norwegian women stating uncertainty about seeking precancer treatment increased from 7.9% to 14.3% (p = 0.012). Women reported strong system-specific preferences for sources of information: Norwegians (59%) preferred it come from a national public health agency while Americans (59%) preferred it come from a specialist care provider. Regression models revealed having a prior Pap-test was the most important predictor of intentions-to-participate in both countries, while having lower income reduced the probabilities of intentions-to-follow-up and seek precancer treatment among U.S. women. These results suggest that additional information on harms is unlikely to reduce participation in CC screening but could increase decision uncertainty to seek treatment. Providing unbiased information would improve on the ethical principle of respect for autonomy and self-determination. However, the clinical impact of additional information on women's understanding of the trade-offs involved with CC screening should be investigated. Future studies should also consider country-specific socioeconomic barriers to screening if communication re-design initiatives aim to improve CC screening participation.

SUBMITTER: Cyr PR

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8242055 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Context and objectiveStandards for clinical practice guidelines require explicit statements regarding how values and preferences influence recommendations. However, no cancer screening guideline has addressed the key question of what magnitude of benefit people require to undergo screening, given its harms and burdens. This article describes the development of a new method for guideline developers to address this key question in the absence of high-quality evidence from published literature.Summary of methodThe new method was developed and applied in the context of a recent BMJ Rapid Recommendation clinical practice guideline for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. First, we presented the guideline panel with harms and burdens (derived from a systematic review) associated with the CRC screening tests under consideration. Second, each panel member completed surveys documenting their views of expected benefits on CRC incidence and mortality that people would require to accept the harms and burdens of screening. Third, the panel discussed results of the surveys and agreed on thresholds for benefits at which the majority of people would choose screening. During these three steps, the panel had no access to the actual benefits of the screening tests. In step four, the panel was presented with screening test benefits derived from a systematic review of clinical trials and microsimulation modelling. The thresholds derived through steps one to three were applied to these benefits, and directly informed the panel's recommendations.ConclusionWe present the development and application of a new, four-step method enabling incorporation of explicit and transparent judgements of values and preferences in a screening guideline. Guideline panels should establish their view regarding the magnitude of required benefit, given burdens and harms, before they review screening benefits and make their recommendations accordingly. Making informed screening decisions requires transparency in values and preferences judgements that our new method greatly facilitates.

Project description:Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death. Most patients are diagnosed with advanced disease, resulting in a very low 5-year survival. Screening may reduce the risk of death from lung cancer.To conduct a systematic review of the evidence regarding the benefits and harms of lung cancer screening using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT). A multisociety collaborative initiative (involving the American Cancer Society, American College of Chest Physicians, American Society of Clinical Oncology, and National Comprehensive Cancer Network) was undertaken to create the foundation for development of an evidence-based clinical guideline.MEDLINE (Ovid: January 1996 to April 2012), EMBASE (Ovid: January 1996 to April 2012), and the Cochrane Library (April 2012).Of 591 citations identified and reviewed, 8 randomized trials and 13 cohort studies of LDCT screening met criteria for inclusion. Primary outcomes were lung cancer mortality and all-cause mortality, and secondary outcomes included nodule detection, invasive procedures, follow-up tests, and smoking cessation.Critical appraisal using predefined criteria was conducted on individual studies and the overall body of evidence. Differences in data extracted by reviewers were adjudicated by consensus.Three randomized studies provided evidence on the effect of LDCT screening on lung cancer mortality, of which the National Lung Screening Trial was the most informative, demonstrating that among 53,454 participants enrolled, screening resulted in significantly fewer lung cancer deaths (356 vs 443 deaths; lung cancer?specific mortality, 274 vs 309 events per 100,000 person-years for LDCT and control groups, respectively; relative risk, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.73-0.93; absolute risk reduction, 0.33%; P = .004). The other 2 smaller studies showed no such benefit. In terms of potential harms of LDCT screening, across all trials and cohorts, approximately 20% of individuals in each round of screening had positive results requiring some degree of follow-up, while approximately 1% had lung cancer. There was marked heterogeneity in this finding and in the frequency of follow-up investigations, biopsies, and percentage of surgical procedures performed in patients with benign lesions. Major complications in those with benign conditions were rare.Low-dose computed tomography screening may benefit individuals at an increased risk for lung cancer, but uncertainty exists about the potential harms of screening and the generalizability of results.

Dataset Information

Providing more balanced information on the harms and benefits of cervical cancer screening: A randomized survey among US and Norwegian women.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets