What do women and healthcare professionals expect of decision aids for breast cancer screening? A qualitative study in France.
breast tumours
preventive medicine
primary care
qualitative research
Journal
BMJ open
ISSN: 2044-6055
Titre abrégé: BMJ Open
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101552874
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
15 03 2022
15 03 2022
Historique:
entrez:
16
3
2022
pubmed:
17
3
2022
medline:
6
4
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Breast cancer screening decision aids (DAs) are designed to help women decide whether or not to participate in mammography-based programmes. We aimed to explore women's and healthcare professionals' expectations of a breast cancer screening DA, as part of the French DEDICACES study. This French qualitative study was based on semistructured, individual interviews with women from the general population, general practitioners (GPs), midwives, gynaecologists, radiologists and screening centre managers. Sampling was purposive and used diversification criteria. The inductive analysis was based on grounded theory. Between April 2018 and May 2019, we interviewed 40 people: 13 women, 14 GPs, 4 gynaecologists, 3 midwives, 3 radiologists and 3 screening centre managers. The women and the healthcare professionals considered that a DA could help to improve levels of knowledge, harmonise medical practice and provide reliable, comprehensive information. Overall, the interviewees wanted an easy-to-use, intuitive, graphic-rich, interactive, computer-based, patient-centred DA. Use of the DA might be limited by a lack of familiarity with shared decision-making (SDM), the risk of misuse and a preference for asymmetric positive information. The present results are likely to facilitate the development of the first validated tool for SDM support in French breast cancer screening programmes.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35292502
pii: bmjopen-2021-058879
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-058879
pmc: PMC8928302
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e058879Informations de copyright
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts
Competing interests: None declared.
Références
Eur J Cancer Care (Engl). 2017 May;26(3):
pubmed: 28145105
JAMA. 1971 Mar 15;215(11):1777-85
pubmed: 5107709
Oncotarget. 2016 Mar 15;7(11):12885-92
pubmed: 26883201
BMJ Open. 2014 Sep 25;4(9):e006016
pubmed: 25256188
Lancet. 2015 Apr 25;385(9978):1642-52
pubmed: 25701273
JAMA. 2018 May 1;319(17):1814-1815
pubmed: 29715344
PLoS One. 2014 Apr 15;9(4):e94670
pubmed: 24736389
Cancer. 2020 Jun 15;126(12):2765-2774
pubmed: 32267546
Nurs Res. 1966 Winter;15(1):56-61
pubmed: 5175452
Br J Cancer. 2013 Jun 11;108(11):2205-40
pubmed: 23744281
CMAJ. 2018 Dec 10;190(49):E1441-E1451
pubmed: 30530611
PLoS One. 2009;4(3):e4705
pubmed: 19259269
BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2011 Mar 09;11:17
pubmed: 21385470
CA Cancer J Clin. 2021 May;71(3):209-249
pubmed: 33538338
JAMA. 2014 Apr 2;311(13):1327-35
pubmed: 24691608
Int J Qual Health Care. 2007 Dec;19(6):349-57
pubmed: 17872937
Lancet. 1985 Apr 13;1(8433):829-32
pubmed: 2858707
JAMA. 2015 Oct 20;314(15):1615-34
pubmed: 26501537
BMJ Open. 2017 Oct 06;7(10):e016894
pubmed: 28988175
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Apr 12;4:CD001431
pubmed: 28402085