Informed ChoiceDo women make an informed choice about participating in breast cancer screening? A survey among women invited for a first mammography screening examination
Introduction
Breast cancer screening has positive health effects in terms of reducing the risk of dying from breast cancer [1], [2], [3]. However, a negative effect of screening is that many women are advised to have a diagnostic assessment because of a positive screening result although they will never have breast cancer. The number of these women is of course much larger than those saved from a breast cancer death as a result of screening [3]. For population-based cancer screening programmes, at the population level the benefits should outweigh the harms [4]. However, individuals may still not want to be screened, because the balance between benefits and harms can be valued differently for their own personal situation.
In several Western countries, informed decision-making about participating in screening, also in cancer screening, has become an explicit purpose [5], [6]. An informed choice about participation in breast cancer screening requires that invited women have opportunities to weigh all possible favourable and unfavourable effects of screening so as to enable them to form an opinion and subsequently make an autonomous choice, free from external pressures or barriers [7]. There has been a shift from promoting the benefits of screening towards providing comprehensive information to enable people to make an informed choice [7], [8], [9], [10].
Following Marteau, we defined an informed choice as one that is based on relevant knowledge while the decision-maker's attitude is consistent with her actual screen behaviour [11]. Note that in applying the concept of informed choice, non-attendance can be a perfectly acceptable outcome of the deliberative process, if it is based on sufficient decision-relevant knowledge and consistent with the decision-maker's attitude towards participating in the screening programmes [11].
In the Netherlands, breast cancer screening is offered free of charge every two years to all women in the 50–75 age brackets through a governmental funded screening programme. Regional screening organizations invite women to participate by sending them a personal letter. Information about the screening is provided in a leaflet enclosed with the invitation letter. However, it was not known whether women invited for breast cancer screening are able to make an informed decision about whether or not to participate in the screening programme.
The purpose of this study is to determine the level of informed choice in a representative sample of women who are invited for breast cancer screening for the first time.
Section snippets
Study design, participants and data collection
In the Netherlands, women receive their first invitation to participate in breast cancer screening around their 50th birthday. To all 460 women in the regions of The Hague, Leiden and Delft who were newly eligible for the screening programme – mostly women who turned 50 in August 2008 – the screening organization (Bevolkingsonderzoek Zuid-West) sent an invitation letter, a standard information leaflet (version 2007) and the questionnaire to assess the level of informed choice. The content and
Response and characteristics of the responding women
Of the 460 women invited for breast cancer screening, 229 (49.8%) completed the postal questionnaire. The respondents’ ages were 49 (11.5%), 50 (49.8%), 51 (38.3) and 60 (0.4%) (new resident). In 34.5% of respondents the educational level was low, 37.3% had an intermediate level of education and 28.2% had a high level of education.
Knowledge
The mean total score was 10.9 (standard deviation 1.7). The internal consistency of the scale was 0.55 (Cronbach's alpha). Scores significantly increased in
Discussion
A recent study concluded that in several European countries information brochures about breast cancer screening lack information that is essential in order to arrive at an informed decision [20]. Moreover, information on the harms and benefits of the screening must be understood and should be unbiased [21]. Apparently, presenting information about the harms and benefits of breast cancer screening in an understandable and balanced way is a complex matter [22].
We assessed the level of
Acknowledgements
Van Agt, Fracheboud, Van der Steen and De Koning have no support from any organization for the submitted work; no financial relationships with any organizations that might have an interest in the submitted work in the previous three years, any other relationships or activities that could appear to have influenced the submitted work. Only De Koning declares financial activities outside the submitted work, consisting of a grant from a German insurance company, SCOR Global Life, paid to his
References (33)
- et al.
Initiation of population-based mammography screening in Dutch municipalities and effect on breast-cancer mortality: a systematic review
Lancet
(2003) - et al.
Informed decision-making in prenatal screening for Down's syndrome: what knowledge is relevant?
Patient Educ Couns
(2011) - et al.
The multi-dimensional measure of informed choice: a validation study
Patient Educ Couns
(2002) - et al.
Helping women make choices about mammography screening: an online randomized trial of a decision aid for 40-year-old women
Patient Educ Couns
(2010) - et al.
Informed choice in antenatal Down syndrome screening: a cluster-randomised trial of combined versus separate visit testing
Patient Educ Couns
(2006) - et al.
Development of a measure of informed choice suitable for use in low literacy populations
Patient Educ Couns
(2007) - et al.
Print information to inform decisions about mammography screening participation in 16 countries with population-based programs
Patient Educ Couns
(2006) - et al.
Efficacy of a simple, low-cost educational intervention in improving knowledge about risks and benefits of screening mammography
Mayo Clin Proc
(2006) - et al.
Fifteen years of population-based breast cancer screening in the Netherlands
Semin Breast Dis
(2007) - et al.
Where is the theory? Evaluating the theoretical frameworks described in decision support technologies
Patient Educ Couns
(2008)