Assessment of the effects of decision aids about breast cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis

被引:55
|
作者
Martinez-Alonso, Montserrat [1 ,2 ]
Carles-Lavila, Misericordia [2 ,3 ,4 ]
Jose Perez-Lacasta, Maria [2 ,3 ]
Pons-Rodriguez, Anna [5 ]
Garcia, Montse [6 ]
Rue, Montserrat [1 ,2 ,3 ,7 ]
机构
[1] Univ Lleida IRBLLEIDA, Dept Basic Med Sci, Lleida, Spain
[2] Res Grp Econ Evaluat & Hlth GRAES, Reus, Spain
[3] Univ Rovira & Virgili, Dept Econ, Reus, Spain
[4] Res Ctr Ind & Publ Econ CREIP, Reus, Spain
[5] Lleida Biomed Res Inst IRBLLEIDA, Lleida, Spain
[6] Catalan Inst Oncol IDIBELL, Canc Prevent & Control Program, Lhospitalet De Llobregat, Spain
[7] Hlth Serv Res Chron Patients Network REDISSEC, Madrid, Spain
来源
BMJ OPEN | 2017年 / 7卷 / 10期
关键词
INFORMED CHOICE; MAMMOGRAPHY; BENEFITS; UPDATE; HARMS; WOMEN;
D O I
10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016894
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Objective The aim of this systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies is to assess the effect of decision aids (DAs) in women aged 50 and below facing the decision to be screened for breast cancer. Setting Screening for breast cancer. Intervention DAs aimed to help women make a deliberative choice regarding participation in mammography screening by providing information on the options and outcomes. Eligible studies We included published original, non-pilot, studies that assess the effect of DAs for breast cancer screening. We excluded the studies that evaluated only participation intention or actual uptake. The studies' risk of bias was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration's tool for RCTs and the National Institutes of Health Quality Assessment Tool for non-RCTs. Primary and secondary outcomes The main outcome measures were informed choice, decisional conflict and/or confidence, and knowledge. Secondary outcomes were values, attitudes, uncertainty and intention to be screened. Results A total of 607 studies were identified, but only 3 RCTs and 1 before-after study were selected. The use of DAs increased the proportion of women making an informed decision by 14%, 95% CI (2% to 27%) and the proportion of women with adequate knowledge by 12%, 95% CI (7% to 16%). We observed heterogeneity among the studies in confidence in the decision. The meta-analysis of the RCTs showed a significant decrease in confidence in the decision and in intention to be screened. Conclusions Tools to aid decision making in screening for breast cancer improve knowledge and promote informed decision; however, we found divergent results on decisional conflict and confidence in the decision. Under the current paradigm change, which favours informed choice rather than maximising uptake, more research is necessary for the improvement of DAs.
引用
收藏
页数:10
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [21] Effects of technology-based contraceptive decision aids: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Goueth, Rose C.
    Maki, Kristin G.
    Babatunde, Ayo
    Eden, Karen B.
    Darney, Blair G.
    AMERICAN JOURNAL OF OBSTETRICS AND GYNECOLOGY, 2022, 227 (05) : 705 - +
  • [22] Effectiveness of Colorectal Cancer Screening Promotion Using E-Media Decision Aids: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Ramli, Nur Suhada
    Manaf, Mohd Rizal Abdul
    Hassan, Mohd Rohaizat
    Ismail, Muhamad Izwan
    Nawi, Azmawati Mohammed
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND PUBLIC HEALTH, 2021, 18 (15)
  • [23] Effectiveness of Interactive Digital Decision Aids in Prenatal Screening Decision-making: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
    Wong, Hong Yat Conrad
    Asim, Saba
    Feng, Qi
    Fu, Sherry Xiao-hong
    Sahota, Daljit Singh
    So, Po Lam
    Dong, Dong
    JOURNAL OF MEDICAL INTERNET RESEARCH, 2023, 25
  • [24] Patient Decisions About Breast Cancer Chemoprevention: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Ropka, Mary E.
    Keim, Jess
    Philbrick, John T.
    JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY, 2010, 28 (18) : 3090 - 3095
  • [25] Barriers to Breast Cancer Screening in Saudi Arabia: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Alsalamh, Reem
    Al-Harbi, Faisal A.
    Alotaibi, Rawan T.
    Al-Harbi, Omar N.
    Alshahrani, Nada
    Alfadhel, Saleh M.
    Fatani, Eyad R.
    Al-Harbi, Abdulaziz
    Lasloom, Razan A.
    Alzahrani, Rayan M.
    CUREUS JOURNAL OF MEDICAL SCIENCE, 2024, 16 (07)
  • [26] Disability and Participation in Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Andiwijaya, Fahrin Ramadan
    Davey, Calum
    Bessame, Khaoula
    Ndong, Abdourahmane
    Kuper, Hannah
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND PUBLIC HEALTH, 2022, 19 (15)
  • [27] Factors associated with attendance at screening for breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Mottram, Rebecca
    Knerr, Wendy Lynn
    Gallacher, Daniel
    Fraser, Hannah
    Al-Khudairy, Lena
    Ayorinde, Abimbola
    Williamson, Sian
    Nduka, Chidozie
    Uthman, Olalekan A.
    Johnson, Samantha
    Tsertsvadze, Alexander
    Stinton, Christopher
    Taylor-Phillips, Sian
    Clarke, Aileen
    BMJ OPEN, 2021, 11 (11):
  • [28] Feasibility and Efficacy of Decision Aids to Improve Decision Making for Postmastectomy Breast Reconstruction: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
    Berlin, Nicholas L.
    Tandon, Vickram J.
    Hawley, Sarah T.
    Hamill, Jennifer B.
    MacEachern, Mark P.
    Lee, Clara N.
    Wilkins, Edwin G.
    MEDICAL DECISION MAKING, 2019, 39 (01) : 5 - 20
  • [29] Screening for lung cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Ali, Muhammad Usman
    Miller, John
    Peirson, Leslea
    Fitzpatrick-Lewis, Donna
    Kenny, Meghan
    Sherifali, Diana
    Raina, Parminder
    PREVENTIVE MEDICINE, 2016, 89 : 301 - 314
  • [30] Gastric cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Faria, Lidia
    Silva, Joao Carlos
    Rodriguez-Carrasco, Marta
    Pimentel-Nunes, Pedro
    Dinis-Ribeiro, Mario
    Libanio, Diogo
    SCANDINAVIAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY, 2022, 57 (10) : 1178 - 1188