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
Multicenter Study
. 2018 Dec 28;8(12):e023789.
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023789.

What do European women know about their female cancer risks and cancer screening? A cross-sectional online intervention survey in five European countries

Affiliations
Multicenter Study

What do European women know about their female cancer risks and cancer screening? A cross-sectional online intervention survey in five European countries

Odette Wegwarth et al. BMJ Open. .

Abstract

Objectives: Informed decisions about cancer screening require accurate knowledge regarding cancer risks and screening. This study investigates: (1) European women's knowledge of their risk of developing breast, ovarian, cervical or endometrial cancer, (2) their knowledge about mammography screening and (3) whether an evidence-based leaflet improves their knowledge.

Design: Cross-sectional online intervention survey.

Setting: National samples from five European countries (Czech Republic, Germany, UK, Italy and Sweden)-drawn from the Harris Interactive and the Toluna panel, respectively, in January 2017-were queried on their knowledge of age-specific risks of developing breast, cervical, ovarian or endometrial cancer within the next 10 years and of mammography screening before and after intervention.

Participants: Of 3629 women (inclusion criteria: age 40-75 years) invited, 2092 responded and 1675 completed the survey (response rate: 61.4%).

Intervention: Evidence-based leaflet summarising information on age-adjusted female cancer risks, mammography and aspects of cancer prevention.

Primary outcome measures: Proportion of women (1) accurately estimating their risk of four female cancers, (2) holding correct assumptions of mammography screening and (3) changing their estimations and assumptions after exposure to leaflet.

Findings: Across countries, 59.2% (95% CI 56.8% to 61.6%) to 91.8% (95% CI 90.3% to 93.0%) overestimated their female cancer risks 7-33 fold (mediansacross tumours: 50.0 to 200.0). 26.5% (95% CI 24.4% to 28.7%) were aware that mammography screening has both benefits and harms. Women who accurately estimated their breast cancer risk were less likely to believe that mammography prevents cancer (p<0.001). After leaflet intervention, knowledge of cancer risks improved by 27.0 (95% CI 24.9 to 29.2) to 37.1 (95% CI 34.8 to 39.4) percentage points and of mammography by 23.0 (95% CI 21.0 to 25.1) percentage points.

Conclusion: A considerable number of women in five European countries may not possess the prerequisites for an informed choice on cancer screening. Evidence-based information in patient leaflets can improve this situation.

Keywords: breast cancer; gynecological cancers; patient education; risk literacy.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
European women’s estimates of their age-specific risks of breast, ovarian, cervical and endometrial cancer before and after reading the evidence-based leaflet with standard error (marked in dark grey). The dotted line marks the accepted area of correct estimates for each of the cancer risks.

References

    1. Etzioni R, Penson DF, Legler JM, et al. Overdiagnosis due to prostate-specific antigen screening: lessons from U.S. prostate cancer incidence trends. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002;94:981–90. 10.1093/jnci/94.13.981 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Welch HG, Black WC. Overdiagnosis in cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 2010;102:605–13. 10.1093/jnci/djq099 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Marcus PM, Prorok PC, Miller AB, et al. Conceptualizing overdiagnosis in cancer screening. J Natl Cancer Inst 2015;107 djv014 10.1093/jnci/djv014 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Buys SS, Partridge E, Black A, et al. Effect of screening on ovarian cancer mortality: the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Randomized Controlled Trial. JAMA 2011;305:2295–303. 10.1001/jama.2011.766 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Schröder FH, Hugosson J, Roobol MJ, et al. Screening and prostate cancer mortality: results of the European Randomised Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC) at 13 years of follow-up. The Lancet 2014;384:2027–35. 10.1016/S0140-6736(14)60525-0 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

MeSH terms