Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2014 Sep 25;4(9):e006016.
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006016.

Overdetection in breast cancer screening: development and preliminary evaluation of a decision aid

Jolyn Hersch  1 , Jesse Jansen  1 , Alexandra Barratt  2 , Les Irwig  3 , Nehmat Houssami  3 , Gemma Jacklyn  4 , Hazel Thornton  5 , Haryana Dhillon  6 , Kirsten McCaffery  1
Affiliations

Overdetection in breast cancer screening: development and preliminary evaluation of a decision aid

Jolyn Hersch et al. BMJ Open. .

Abstract

Objective: To develop, pilot and refine a decision aid (ahead of a randomised trial evaluation) for women around age 50 facing their initial decision about whether to undergo mammography screening.

Design: Two-stage mixed-method pilot study including qualitative interviews (n=15) and a randomised comparison using a quantitative survey (n=34).

Setting: New South Wales, Australia.

Participants: Women aged 43-59 years with no personal history of breast cancer.

Interventions: The decision aid provides evidence-based information about important outcomes of mammography screening over 20 years (breast cancer mortality reduction, overdetection and false positives) compared with no screening. The information is presented in a short booklet for women, combining text and visual formats. A control version produced for the purposes of comparison omits the overdetection-related content.

Outcomes: Comprehension of key decision aid content and acceptability of the materials.

Results: Most women considered the decision aid clear and helpful and would recommend it to others. Nonetheless, the piloting process raised important issues that we tried to address in iterative revisions. Some participants found it hard to understand overdetection and why it is of concern, while there was often confusion about the distinction between overdetection and false positives. In a screening context, encountering balanced information rather than persuasion appears to be contrary to people's expectations, but women appreciated the opportunity to become better informed.

Conclusions: The concept of overdetection is complex and new to the public. This study highlights some key challenges for communicating about this issue. It is important to clarify that overdetection differs from false positives in terms of its more serious consequences (overtreatment and associated harms). Screening decision aids also must clearly explain their purpose of facilitating informed choice. A staged approach to development and piloting of decision aids is recommended to further improve understanding of overdetection and support informed decision-making about screening.

Keywords: PREVENTIVE MEDICINE; PUBLIC HEALTH; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow chart of decision aid development and evaluation process.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. 111th United States Congress. Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act. Public Law 111–148, 2010
    1. Australian Commission on Safety and Quality in Health Care. Australian safety and quality framework for health care, 2010 - PubMed
    1. UK Department of Health. Equity and excellence: liberating the NHS. 2010
    1. General Medical Council. Consent: patients and doctors making decisions together. 2008
    1. Stefanek ME Uninformed compliance or informed choice? A needed shift in our approach to cancer screening. J Natl Cancer Inst 2011;103:1821–6 - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources