Decision-making about mammographic screening: pursuing informed choice

被引:19
|
作者
Hersch, J. [1 ,2 ]
Jansen, J. [1 ,2 ]
McCaffery, K. [1 ,2 ]
机构
[1] Univ Sydney, Sch Publ Hlth, Wiser Healthcare, Sydney, NSW, Australia
[2] Univ Sydney, Ctr Med Psychol & Evidence Based Decis Making, Sydney, NSW, Australia
基金
英国医学研究理事会; 澳大利亚国家健康与医学研究理事会;
关键词
Shared decision-making; mammographic screening; informed choice; overdiagnosis; decision support; health communication; breast cancer; information provision; BREAST-CANCER; INFORMATION; WOMEN; AIDS; EXPECTATIONS; ENTHUSIASM; BENEFITS; TESTS; HARMS;
D O I
10.1080/13697137.2017.1406912
中图分类号
R71 [妇产科学];
学科分类号
100211 ;
摘要
For decades, persuasive techniques have been used to communicate to women about breast cancer screening with the aim of maximizing screening uptake. However, more recently this has shifted to an approach which recognizes that it is important for women to be aware of harms, such as overdiagnosis, as well as benefits of breast screening. There is a lack of consensus in the literature around whether benefits clearly outweigh harms for population-based breast cancer screening. In light of this, the gold standard for communication about breast cancer screening is now to try and support informed decision-making - that is, to help women understand both the advantages and disadvantages of screening, allowing them to make individual decisions about their screening participation that reflect their informed preferences. In this review, we summarize relevant research to identify theoretical and practical aspects of improving communication and decision-making about breast cancer screening, and discuss future implications.
引用
收藏
页码:209 / 213
页数:5
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [41] On Shared Decision-making and Informed Consent
    Bernat, James L.
    McQuillen, Michael P.
    [J]. NEUROLOGY-CLINICAL PRACTICE, 2021, 11 (02) : 93 - 94
  • [42] ESTIMATING THE RETURNS TO INFORMED DECISION-MAKING
    CUDE, BJ
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CONSUMER AFFAIRS, 1987, 21 (01) : 86 - 95
  • [43] Supporting informed decision-making about vaccination: an analysis of two official websites
    Vivion, M.
    Hennequin, C.
    Verger, P.
    Dube, E.
    [J]. PUBLIC HEALTH, 2020, 178 : 112 - 119
  • [44] Informed decision-making about the fetal anomaly scan: what knowledge is relevant?
    Schoonen, H. M. H. J. D.
    Essink-Bot, M. L.
    Van Agt, H. M. E.
    Wildschut, H. I.
    Steegers, E. A. P.
    De Koning, H. J.
    [J]. ULTRASOUND IN OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY, 2011, 37 (06) : 649 - 657
  • [45] Risk communication, prenatal screening, and prenatal diagnosis: the illusion of informed decision-making
    Siegrist, Michael
    Cousin, Marie-Eve
    Keller, Carmen
    [J]. JOURNAL OF RISK RESEARCH, 2008, 11 (1-2) : 87 - 97
  • [46] Principles for screening: Too few concerns for informed consent and shared decision-making?
    Braillon, Alain
    Nicot, Philippe
    Bour, Cecile
    [J]. CANADIAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION JOURNAL, 2018, 190 (37) : E1115 - E1115
  • [47] Informed decision-making in newborn screening: Highly variable regulatory language.
    Lewis, MH
    McCabe, L
    McCabe, ERB
    [J]. AMERICAN JOURNAL OF HUMAN GENETICS, 2002, 71 (04) : 378 - 378
  • [48] Measuring Informed Decision Making about Prostate Cancer Screening in Primary Care
    Leader, Amy
    Daskalakis, Constantine
    Braddock, Clarence H., III
    Kunkel, Elisabeth J. S.
    Cocroft, James R.
    Bereknyei, Sylvia
    Riggio, Jeffrey M.
    Capkin, Mark
    Myers, Ronald E.
    [J]. MEDICAL DECISION MAKING, 2012, 32 (02) : 327 - 336
  • [49] Personalised risk communication for informed decision making about taking screening tests
    Edwards, A. G. K.
    Evans, R.
    Dundon, J.
    Haigh, S.
    Hood, K.
    Elwyn, G. J.
    [J]. COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2006, (04):
  • [50] Personalised risk communication for informed decision making about taking screening tests
    Edwards, Adrian G. K.
    Naik, Gurudutt
    Ahmed, Harry
    Elwyn, Glyn J.
    Pickles, Timothy
    Hood, Kerry
    Playle, Rebecca
    [J]. COCHRANE DATABASE OF SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2013, (02): : 1 - 96