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
. 2020 Apr;35(4):1069-1077.
doi: 10.1007/s11606-019-05622-2. Epub 2020 Jan 9.

Acceptability of an Interactive Computer-Animated Agent to Promote Patient-Provider Communication About Breast Density: a Mixed Method Pilot Study

Christine Gunn  1 , Ariel Maschke  2 , Timothy Bickmore  3 , Mark Kennedy  4 , Margaret F Hopkins  5 , Michael D C Fishman  6 , Michael K Paasche-Orlow  7 , Erica T Warner  5
Affiliations

Acceptability of an Interactive Computer-Animated Agent to Promote Patient-Provider Communication About Breast Density: a Mixed Method Pilot Study

Christine Gunn et al. J Gen Intern Med. 2020 Apr.

Abstract

Background: Half of women undergoing mammography have dense breasts. Mandatory dense breast notification and educational materials have been shown to confuse women, rather than empower them.

Objective: This study used a mixed method, multi-stakeholder approach to assess acceptability of an interactive, computer-animated agent that provided breast density information to women and changes in knowledge, satisfaction, and informational needs.

Design: A pre-post survey and qualitative focus groups assessed the acceptability of the computer-animated agent among women. An anonymous, online survey measuring acceptability was delivered to a multi-stakeholder group.

Participants: English-speaking, mammography-eligible women ages 40-74 were invited and 44 women participated in one of nine focus groups. In addition, 14 stakeholders representing primary care, radiology, patient advocates, public health practitioners, and researchers completed the online survey.

Interventions: A prototype of a computer-animated agent was delivered to women in a group setting; stakeholders viewed the prototype independently.

Main measures: Data collected included open-ended qualitative questions that guided discussion about the content and form of the computer-animated agent. Structured surveys included domains related to knowledge, acceptability, and satisfaction. Stakeholder acceptability was measured with a series of statements about aspects of the intervention and delivery approach and are reported as the proportion of respondents who endorsed each statement.

Key results: Six of 12 knowledge items demonstrated improvement post-intervention, satisfaction with the agent was high (81%), but the number of unanswered questions did not improve (67% vs. 54%, p = 0.37). Understanding of the distinction between connective and fatty tissue in the breast did not increase (30% vs. 26%, p = 0.48). Results of the multi-stakeholder survey suggest broad acceptability of the approach and agent.

Conclusions: Findings highlight the benefits of a brief interactive educational exposure as well as misperceptions that persisted. Results demonstrate the need for an evidence-based, accessible intervention that is easy to understand for patients.

Keywords: acceptability; breast density; health information technology; mammography; patient-provider communication.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The following authors have no conflicts of interest: Dr. Christine Gunn, Ms. Ariel Maschke, Dr. Timothy Bickmore, Mr. Mark Kennedy, Ms. Margaret Hopkins, Dr. Michael Paashe-Orlow, and Dr. Erica Warner. Dr. Michael Fishman is a consultant for Zebra Medical Vision and a member of the Scientific Advisory Board for Hologic.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Screenshot of prototype computer-animated agent, Danya.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Comment in

References

    1. Sprague BL, Gangnon RE, Burt V, et al. Prevalence of Mammographically Dense Breasts in the United States. Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2014;106(10). - PMC - PubMed
    1. Wang AT, Vachon CM, Brandt KR, Ghosh K. Breast density and breast cancer risk: a practical review. Mayo Clin Proc. 2014;89(4):548–557. - PubMed
    1. Porter PL, El-Bastawissi AY, Mandelson MT, et al. Breast Tumor Characteristics as Predictors of Mammographic Detection: Comparison of Interval- and Screen-Detected Cancers. JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 1999;91(23):2020–2028. - PubMed
    1. Mandelson MT, Oestreicher N, Porter PL, et al. Breast density as a predictor of mammographic detection: comparison of interval- and screen-detected cancers. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2000;92(13):1081–1087. - PubMed
    1. McCarthy AM, Keller BM, Pantalone LM, et al. Racial Differences in Quantitative Measures of Area and Volumetric Breast Density. JNCI: Journal of the National Cancer Institute. 2016;108(10):dwj104. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types