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
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2015 Jan 30;112(5):61-8.
doi: 10.3238/arztebl.2015.0061.

Willingness to participate in mammography screening: a randomized controlled questionnaire study of responses to two patient information leaflets with different factual content

Randomized Controlled Trial

Willingness to participate in mammography screening: a randomized controlled questionnaire study of responses to two patient information leaflets with different factual content

Elisabeth Gummersbach et al. Dtsch Arztebl Int. .

Abstract

Background: From 2010 onward, a new leaflet about mammography screening for breast cancer, more informative than the preceding version, has been sent to women in Germany aged 50 to 69 with the invitation to undergo screening. The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of different informational content on the decision whether or not to be screened.

Methods: In a randomized and blinded design, 792 women aged 48 to 49 were sent either the old or the new leaflet. Questionnaires were sent together with the leaflets in order to assess the following: willingness to undergo mammography screening, knowledge, decisional confidence, personal experiences of breast cancer, and demographic data.

Results: 370 (46.7%) of the questionnaires were returned, and 353 were evaluable. The two groups did not differ significantly in their willingness to be screened: 81.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 75.8%-87.2%) versus 88.6% (95% CI 83.9%-91.3%, p = 0.060). A post-hoc analysis showed that women who reported having had personal experience of breast cancer (18.7%) were more willing to be screened if they were given the new leaflet, rather than the old one (interaction p = 0.014). The two groups did not differ in their knowledge about screening (p = 0.260). Women who received the old leaflet reported a higher decisional confidence (p = 0.017). The most commonly mentioned factors affecting the decision were experience of breast cancer in relatives and close acquaintances (26.5% of mentions) and a doctor's recommendation (48.2%). Leaflets (3.6%) and all other factors played only a secondary role.

Conclusion: The greater or lesser informativeness of the leaflet affected neither the participants' knowledge of mammography screening nor their willingness to undergo it. The leaflet was not seen as an aid to decision-making. The best way to assure an informed decision about screening may be for the patient to discuss the matter personally with a qualified professional.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Response and samples *The exact same number of returned questionnaires in both groups was coincidental
Figure 2
Figure 2
Mammography screening: willingness of 48–49-year-old women to be screened as a function of personal experience after reading the old or new patient information leaflet (adjusted rates with 95% confidence intervals; calculated by inverse logit transformation, n = 300)
eFigure
eFigure
Mammography screening: decisional confidence with regard to screening as a function of personal experience in 48- and 49-year-old women who were and were not willing to be screened (adjusted mean values on a scale of 1 = not confident at all to 6 = absolutely confident, with ANCOVA-based 95% confidence intervals; n = 300)

References

    1. Leitlinienprogramm Onkologie. Interdisziplinäre S3-Leitlinie für die Diagnostik, Therapie und Nachsorge des Mammakarzinoms. www.awmf.org/uploads/tx_szleitlinien/032_045OL_k_S3_Brustkrebs_Mammakarz.... (last accessed on 19 May 2014)
    1. Shapiro S, Coleman EA, Broeders M, et al. Breast cancer screening programmes in 22 countries: current policies, administration and guidelines. International Breast Cancer Screening Network (IBSN) and the European Network of Pilot Projects for Breast Cancer Screening. Int J Epidemiol. 1998;27:735–742. - PubMed
    1. Independent UK Panel on Breast Cancer Screening. The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review. Lancet. 2012;380:1778–1786. - PubMed
    1. Bleyler A, Welch HG. Effect of three decades of screening mammography on breast-cancer incidence. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:1998–2005. - PubMed
    1. Gøtzsche PC, Jørgensen KJ. Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;6 CD001877. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms