Show simple item record

FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorHersch, Jolyn
dc.contributor.authorBarratt, Alexandra
dc.contributor.authorMcGeechan, Kevin
dc.contributor.authorJansen, Jesse
dc.contributor.authorHoussami, Nehmat
dc.contributor.authorDhillon, Haryana
dc.contributor.authorJacklyn, Gemma
dc.contributor.authorIrwig, Les
dc.contributor.authorMcCaffery, Kirsten
dc.date.accessioned2023-03-07T04:21:08Z
dc.date.available2023-03-07T04:21:08Z
dc.date.issued2021en_AU
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2123/30172
dc.description.abstractBackground Supporting well-informed decisions about breast cancer screening requires communicating that inconsequential disease may be detected, leading to overdiagnosis and overtreatment. Having previously shown that telling women about overdetection improved informed choice, we investigated effects on screening knowledge and participation over 2 years. Methods We conducted a community-based, parallel-group, randomized controlled trial in Australia. Participants were women aged 48-50 years, without personal or strong family history of breast cancer, who had not undergone mammography in the past 2 years. We randomly assigned 879 women to receive the intervention decision aid (evidence-based information on overdetection, breast cancer mortality reduction, and false-positives) or control decision aid (identical but without overdetection information). We interviewed 838 women postintervention and recontacted them for follow-up at 6 months and 1 and 2 years. Main outcomes for this report are screening knowledge and participation. Results We interviewed 790, 746, and 712 participants at 6 months, 1, and 2 years, respectively. The intervention group demonstrated superior knowledge throughout follow-up. After 2 years, conceptual knowledge was adequate in 123 (34.4%) of 358 women in the intervention group compared with 71 (20.1%) of 354 control participants(odds ratio = 2.04, 95% confidence interval = 1.46 to 2.85). Groups were similar in total screening participation (200 [55.1%] vs 204 [56.0%]; = 0.97, 95% confidence interval = 0.73 to 1.29). Conclusions A brief decision aid produced lasting improvement in women’s understanding of potential consequences of screening, including overdetection, without changing participation rates. These findings support the use of decision aids for breast cancer screening.en_AU
dc.language.isoenen_AU
dc.publisherOxford University Pressen_AU
dc.relation.ispartofJournal of the National Cancer Instituteen_AU
dc.rightsCreative Commons Attribution 4.0en_AU
dc.subjectaustraliaen_AU
dc.subjectdecision support techniquesen_AU
dc.subjectfollow-upen_AU
dc.subjectmammographyen_AU
dc.subjectmortalityen_AU
dc.subjectbreast canceren_AU
dc.subjectbreast neoplasm screeningen_AU
dc.subjectevidence-based practiceen_AU
dc.subjectfalse-positive resultsen_AU
dc.subjectcommunityen_AU
dc.subjectoverdiagnosisen_AU
dc.subjectovertreatmenten_AU
dc.titleInforming Women About Overdetection in Breast Cancer Screening: Two-Year Outcomes From a Randomized Trialen_AU
dc.typeArticleen_AU
dc.identifier.doi10.1093/jnci/djab083
dc.type.pubtypePublisher's versionen_AU
dc.relation.nhmrc1062389
dc.relation.nhmrc1112509
dc.relation.nhmrc1194410
dc.relation.nhmrc1121110
usyd.facultySeS faculties schools::Faculty of Medicine and Health::Sydney School of Public Healthen_AU
usyd.citation.volume113en_AU
usyd.citation.issue11en_AU
usyd.citation.spage1523en_AU
usyd.citation.epage1530en_AU
workflow.metadata.onlyYesen_AU


Show simple item record

Associated file/s

There are no files associated with this item.

Associated collections

Show simple item record

There are no previous versions of the item available.