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
  • [31] Screening for Colorectal Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
    Fitzpatrick-Lewis, Donna
    Ali, Muhammad Usman
    Warren, Rachel
    Kenny, Meghan
    Sherifali, Diana
    Raina, Parminder
    CLINICAL COLORECTAL CANCER, 2016, 15 (04) : 298 - 313
  • [32] Screening for cervical cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis
    Peirson L.
    Fitzpatrick-Lewis D.
    Ciliska D.
    Warren R.
    Systematic Reviews, 2 (1)
  • [33] FERTILITY PRESERVATION DECISION AIDS FOR ADOLESCENTS AND YOUNG ADULTS WITH CANCER: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS
    Payne, Jackelyn B.
    Jones, Devan
    Moyer, Anne
    ANNALS OF BEHAVIORAL MEDICINE, 2022, 56 (SUPP 1) : S292 - S292
  • [34] Web-based decision aids for cancer clinical decisions: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Guixian Tong
    Qingqing Geng
    Debin Wang
    Tongzhu Liu
    Supportive Care in Cancer, 2021, 29 : 6929 - 6941
  • [35] Web-based decision aids for cancer clinical decisions: a systematic review and meta-analysis
    Tong, Guixian
    Geng, Qingqing
    Wang, Debin
    Liu, Tongzhu
    SUPPORTIVE CARE IN CANCER, 2021, 29 (11) : 6929 - 6941
  • [36] A systematic review of decision aids for patients making a decision about treatment for early breast cancer
    Zdenkowski, Nicholas
    Butow, Phyllis
    Tesson, Stephanie
    Boyle, Frances
    BREAST, 2016, 26 : 31 - 45
  • [37] Decision Aids for Patients Facing a Surgical Treatment Decision A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
    Knops, Anouk M.
    Legemate, Dink A.
    Goossens, Astrid
    Bossuyt, Patrick M. M.
    Ubbink, Dirk T.
    ANNALS OF SURGERY, 2013, 257 (05) : 860 - 866
  • [38] A systematic review and meta-analysis of effectiveness of decision aids for vaccination decision-making
    Vujovich-Dunn, Cassandra
    Kaufman, Jessica
    King, Catherine
    Skinner, S. Rachel
    Wand, Handan
    Guy, Rebecca
    Leask, Julie
    VACCINE, 2021, 39 (28) : 3655 - 3665
  • [39] Effect of rurality on screening for breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing mammography
    Leung, J.
    McKenzie, S.
    Martin, J.
    McLaughlin, D.
    RURAL AND REMOTE HEALTH, 2014, 14 (02):
  • [40] HPV AND BREAST CANCER: A SYSTEMATIC REVIEW AND META-ANALYSIS
    Karachalios, Charalampos
    Petousis, Stamatios
    Margioula-Siarkou, Chrysoula
    Dinas, Konstantinos
    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF GYNECOLOGICAL CANCER, 2023, 33 : A218 - A218