Development and Evaluation of Messages for Reducing Overscreening of Breast Cancer in Older Women.

IF 4.3 3区 材料科学 Q1 ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC
ACS Applied Electronic Materials Pub Date : 2024-05-01 Epub Date: 2024-03-12 DOI:10.1097/MLR.0000000000001993
Nancy L Schoenborn, Sarah E Gollust, Mara A Schonberg, Craig E Pollack, Cynthia M Boyd, Qian-Li Xue, Rebekah H Nagler
{"title":"Development and Evaluation of Messages for Reducing Overscreening of Breast Cancer in Older Women.","authors":"Nancy L Schoenborn, Sarah E Gollust, Mara A Schonberg, Craig E Pollack, Cynthia M Boyd, Qian-Li Xue, Rebekah H Nagler","doi":"10.1097/MLR.0000000000001993","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Many older women are screened for breast cancer beyond guideline-recommended thresholds. One contributor is pro-screening messaging from health care professionals, media, and family/friends. In this project, we developed and evaluated messages for reducing overscreening in older women.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We surveyed women ages 65+ who were members of a nationally representative online panel. We constructed 8 messages describing reasons to consider stopping mammograms, including guideline recommendations, false positives, overdiagnosis, and diminishing benefits from screening due to competing risks. Messages varied in their format; some presented statistical evidence, and some described short anecdotes. Each participant was randomized to read 4 of 8 messages. We also randomized participants to one of 3 message sources (clinician, family member, and news story). We assessed whether the message would make participants \"want to find out more information\" and \"think carefully\" about mammograms.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Participants (N=790) had a mean age of 73.5 years; 25.8% were non-White. Across all messages, 73.0% of the time, participants agreed that the messages would make them seek more information (range among different messages=64.2%-78.2%); 46.5% of the time participants agreed that the messages would make them think carefully about getting mammograms (range =36.7%-50.7%). Top-rated messages mentioned false-positive anecdotes and overdiagnosis evidence. Ratings were similar for messages from clinicians and news sources, but lower from the family member source.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Overall, participants positively evaluated messages designed to reduce breast cancer overscreening regarding perceived effects on information seeking and deliberation. Combining the top-rated messages into messaging interventions may be a novel approach to reduce overscreening.</p>","PeriodicalId":3,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10997450/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Electronic Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1097/MLR.0000000000001993","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"材料科学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/3/12 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ENGINEERING, ELECTRICAL & ELECTRONIC","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Many older women are screened for breast cancer beyond guideline-recommended thresholds. One contributor is pro-screening messaging from health care professionals, media, and family/friends. In this project, we developed and evaluated messages for reducing overscreening in older women.

Methods: We surveyed women ages 65+ who were members of a nationally representative online panel. We constructed 8 messages describing reasons to consider stopping mammograms, including guideline recommendations, false positives, overdiagnosis, and diminishing benefits from screening due to competing risks. Messages varied in their format; some presented statistical evidence, and some described short anecdotes. Each participant was randomized to read 4 of 8 messages. We also randomized participants to one of 3 message sources (clinician, family member, and news story). We assessed whether the message would make participants "want to find out more information" and "think carefully" about mammograms.

Results: Participants (N=790) had a mean age of 73.5 years; 25.8% were non-White. Across all messages, 73.0% of the time, participants agreed that the messages would make them seek more information (range among different messages=64.2%-78.2%); 46.5% of the time participants agreed that the messages would make them think carefully about getting mammograms (range =36.7%-50.7%). Top-rated messages mentioned false-positive anecdotes and overdiagnosis evidence. Ratings were similar for messages from clinicians and news sources, but lower from the family member source.

Conclusions: Overall, participants positively evaluated messages designed to reduce breast cancer overscreening regarding perceived effects on information seeking and deliberation. Combining the top-rated messages into messaging interventions may be a novel approach to reduce overscreening.

开发和评估减少老年妇女乳腺癌过度筛查的信息。
背景:许多老年妇女接受的乳腺癌筛查超出了指南建议的临界值。其中一个原因是来自医护人员、媒体和家人/朋友的支持筛查的信息。在这个项目中,我们开发并评估了减少老年妇女过度筛查的信息:我们对具有全国代表性的在线小组中 65 岁以上的女性成员进行了调查。我们制作了 8 条信息,描述了考虑停止乳房 X 光检查的原因,包括指南建议、假阳性、过度诊断以及筛查带来的益处因竞争风险而减少。信息的格式各不相同;有些提供了统计证据,有些则描述了简短的趣闻轶事。每位参与者被随机分配阅读 8 条信息中的 4 条。我们还将参与者随机分配到 3 个信息来源(临床医生、家庭成员和新闻报道)中的一个。我们评估了这些信息是否会让参与者 "想要了解更多信息 "和 "仔细考虑 "乳房 X 光检查:参与者(790 人)的平均年龄为 73.5 岁;25.8% 为非白人。在所有信息中,73.0% 的受试者同意这些信息会让他们了解更多信息(不同信息之间的范围=64.2%-78.2%);46.5% 的受试者同意这些信息会让他们在接受乳房 X 光检查时慎重考虑(范围=36.7%-50.7%)。评分最高的信息提到了假阳性轶事和过度诊断证据。对来自临床医生和新闻来源的信息的评分相似,但对来自家庭成员的信息的评分较低:总体而言,参与者积极评价了旨在减少乳腺癌过度筛查的信息,认为这些信息对信息寻求和审议产生了影响。将评价最高的信息整合到信息干预中可能是减少过度筛查的一种新方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.20
自引率
4.30%
发文量
567
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信