Back to Search Start Over

A qualitative study on a decision aid for breast cancer screening: Views from women and health professionals.

Authors :
Toledo-Chávarri A
Rué M
Codern-Bové N
Carles-Lavila M
Perestelo-Pérez L
Pérez-Lacasta MJ
Feijoo-Cid M
Source :
European journal of cancer care [Eur J Cancer Care (Engl)] 2017 May; Vol. 26 (3). Date of Electronic Publication: 2017 Feb 01.
Publication Year :
2017

Abstract

This qualitative study evaluates a decision aid that includes the benefits and harms of breast cancer screening and analyses women's perception of the information received and healthcare professionals' perceptions of the convenience of providing it. Seven focus groups of women aged 40-69 years (n = 39) and two groups of healthcare professionals (n = 23) were conducted in Catalonia and the Canary Islands. The focus groups consisted of guided discussions regarding decision-making about breast cancer screening, and acceptability and feasibility of the decision aid. A content analysis was performed. Women positively value receiving information regarding the benefits and harms of breast cancer screening. Several women had difficulties understanding some concepts, especially those regarding overdiagnosis. Women preferred to share the decisions on screening with healthcare professionals. The professionals noted the lack of inclusion of some harms and benefits in the decision aid, and proposed improving the clarity of the statistical information. The information on overdiagnosis generates confusion among women and controversy among professionals. Faced with the new information presented by the decision aid, the majority of women prefer shared decision-making; however, its feasibility might be limited by a lack of knowledge and attitudes of rejection from healthcare professionals.<br /> (© 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
1365-2354
Volume :
26
Issue :
3
Database :
MEDLINE
Journal :
European journal of cancer care
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
28145105
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1111/ecc.12660