3
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Contenido de los documentos informativos dirigidos a las mujeres sobre el cribado de cáncer de mama en España Translated title: Content of official addressed to women informative documents about breast cancer screening in Spain

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          RESUMEN Fundamentos: Existen diversos métodos para facilitar la toma de decisiones informada antes de acudir a un programa de cribado. El objetivo de este trabajo fue analizar la información de los documentos oficiales sobre los programas de cribado de cáncer de mama (PCCM). Métodos: Estudio descriptivo. Análisis del contenido de los documentos informativos de los PCCM vigentes en España en 2016. Se elaboró una lista de comprobación con la información necesaria para la toma de decisiones. Dos investigadores revisaron independientemente los documentos. Se comprobó la concordancia interinvestigador y se resolvieron por consenso las discrepancias. Se calcularon las frecuencias absolutas y relativas de cada ítem. Resultados: Se revisaron 8 cartas de invitación a participar y 14 de citación, 12 dípticos o trípticos, 8 folletos y 14 webs, procedentes de 18 PCCM. La información resultó ser muy dispar según cada programa. 8 programas (44,4%) informaban sobre qué es el cáncer de mama y 7 (38,9%) sobre el riesgo acumulado de desarrollarlo. 15 (83,3%) explicaban los objetivos del PCCM y 14 (77,8%) en qué consiste una mamografía. 14 programas (77,8%) presentaban como beneficios el cribado los tratamientos menos invasivos, 12 el aumento de la supervivencia (66,7%) y 10 la disminución de la mortalidad específica (55,6%). La mayoría de los programas no informaban sobre la posibilidad de falsos positivos (27,8%) o falsos negativos (38,9%). Sólo 7 (38,9%) mencionaban la posibilidad de sobrediagnóstico y 6 (33,3%) de sobretratamiento. Conclusiones: La información que facilitan los diferentes PCCM es variable y no contiene información suficiente para la toma de decisiones informada.

          Translated abstract

          ABSTRACT Background: There are several methods to promote informed decision making before undergoing a screening program. This research aimed to analyze the contents of official documents about breast cancer screening programs. Methods: A descriptive research was performed. After a literature review an agreed checklist was performed with the information needed to make decisions about participation in mammography screening programs. Informative documents about mammography screening valid in Spain in 2016 were analyzed by two independent researchers. The inter-rater agreement was verified and the discrepancies were solved by consensus. Absolute and relative frequencies of each item were calculated. Results: 8 invitations and 14 citation letters, 12 leaflets, 8 brochures and 14 websites, from 18 screening programs, were reviewed. The information turned out to be very different according to each program. Only a third warned that participation is voluntary. 8 programs (44.4%) offered information on what is breast cancer and 7 (38.9%) on the cumulative risk of developing the disease. 15 (83.3%) explained the objectives of the program and 14 (77.8%) explained what mammography is. 14 programs (77.8%) presented as screening benefits the least invasive treatments, 12 the increase in survival (66.7%) and 10 the decrease in specific mortality (55.6%). Most of the programs did not report the possibility of false positives (27.8%) or false negatives (38.9%). Only 7 (38.9%) mentioned the possibility of overdiagnosis and 6 (33.3%) of overtreatment. Conclusions: The information provided by the different breast cancer screening programs is variable and does not contain sufficient information for informed decision-making.

          Related collections

          Most cited references30

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Developing a quality criteria framework for patient decision aids: online international Delphi consensus process.

          To develop a set of quality criteria for patient decision support technologies (decision aids). Two stage web based Delphi process using online rating process to enable international collaboration. Individuals from four stakeholder groups (researchers, practitioners, patients, policy makers) representing 14 countries reviewed evidence summaries and rated the importance of 80 criteria in 12 quality domains on a 1 to 9 scale. Second round participants received feedback from the first round and repeated their assessment of the 80 criteria plus three new ones. Aggregate ratings for each criterion calculated using medians weighted to compensate for different numbers in stakeholder groups; criteria rated between 7 and 9 were retained. 212 nominated people were invited to participate. Of those invited, 122 participated in the first round (77 researchers, 21 patients, 10 practitioners, 14 policy makers); 104/122 (85%) participated in the second round. 74 of 83 criteria were retained in the following domains: systematic development process (9/9 criteria); providing information about options (13/13); presenting probabilities (11/13); clarifying and expressing values (3/3); using patient stories (2/5); guiding/coaching (3/5); disclosing conflicts of interest (5/5); providing internet access (6/6); balanced presentation of options (3/3); using plain language (4/6); basing information on up to date evidence (7/7); and establishing effectiveness (8/8). Criteria were given the highest ratings where evidence existed, and these were retained. Gaps in research were highlighted. Developers, users, and purchasers of patient decision aids now have a checklist for appraising quality. An instrument for measuring quality of decision aids is being developed.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Screening for breast cancer with mammography

            A variety of estimates of the benefits and harms of mammographic screening for breast cancer have been published and national policies vary. To assess the effect of screening for breast cancer with mammography on mortality and morbidity. We searched PubMed (22 November 2012) and the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (22 November 2012). Randomised trials comparing mammographic screening with no mammographic screening. Two authors independently extracted data. Study authors were contacted for additional information. Eight eligible trials were identified. We excluded a trial because the randomisation had failed to produce comparable groups.The eligible trials included 600,000 women in the analyses in the age range 39 to 74 years. Three trials with adequate randomisation did not show a statistically significant reduction in breast cancer mortality at 13 years (relative risk (RR) 0.90, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79 to 1.02); four trials with suboptimal randomisation showed a significant reduction in breast cancer mortality with an RR of 0.75 (95% CI 0.67 to 0.83). The RR for all seven trials combined was 0.81 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.87). We found that breast cancer mortality was an unreliable outcome that was biased in favour of screening, mainly because of differential misclassification of cause of death. The trials with adequate randomisation did not find an effect of screening on total cancer mortality, including breast cancer, after 10 years (RR 1.02, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.10) or on all-cause mortality after 13 years (RR 0.99, 95% CI 0.95 to 1.03).Total numbers of lumpectomies and mastectomies were significantly larger in the screened groups (RR 1.31, 95% CI 1.22 to 1.42), as were number of mastectomies (RR 1.20, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.32). The use of radiotherapy was similarly increased whereas there was no difference in the use of chemotherapy (data available in only two trials). If we assume that screening reduces breast cancer mortality by 15% and that overdiagnosis and overtreatment is at 30%, it means that for every 2000 women invited for screening throughout 10 years, one will avoid dying of breast cancer and 10 healthy women, who would not have been diagnosed if there had not been screening, will be treated unnecessarily. Furthermore, more than 200 women will experience important psychological distress including anxiety and uncertainty for years because of false positive findings. To help ensure that the women are fully informed before they decide whether or not to attend screening, we have written an evidence-based leaflet for lay people that is available in several languages on www.cochrane.dk. Because of substantial advances in treatment and greater breast cancer awareness since the trials were carried out, it is likely that the absolute effect of screening today is smaller than in the trials. Recent observational studies show more overdiagnosis than in the trials and very little or no reduction in the incidence of advanced cancers with screening.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Breast-Cancer Tumor Size, Overdiagnosis, and Mammography Screening Effectiveness.

              The goal of screening mammography is to detect small malignant tumors before they grow large enough to cause symptoms. Effective screening should therefore lead to the detection of a greater number of small tumors, followed by fewer large tumors over time.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                resp
                Revista Española de Salud Pública
                Rev. Esp. Salud Publica
                Ministerio de Sanidad, Consumo y Bienestar social (Madrid, Madrid, Spain )
                1135-5727
                2173-9110
                2018
                : 92
                : e201810076
                Affiliations
                [1] Leioa Bizkaia orgnameUniversidad del País Vasco (UPV/EHU) orgdiv1Facultad de Medicina y Enfermería Spain
                [2] Bilbao Bizkaia orgnameOSI Bilbao Basurto orgdiv1Unidad de Docencia e Investigación de Enfermería España
                [3] Mirabel Cáceres orgnameConsultorio Rural Mirabel España
                Article
                S1135-57272018000100434 S1135-5727(18)09200000434
                71faf41e-95e6-4b4d-a2e2-d59d96fd48e7

                This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 International License.

                History
                : 05 July 2018
                : 23 August 2018
                Page count
                Figures: 0, Tables: 0, Equations: 0, References: 33, Pages: 0
                Product

                SciELO Public Health


                Uso de información científica en la toma de decisiones en salud,Toma de Decisiones,Cribado,Cáncer de mama,Prevención secundaria,Mamografía,Alfabetización en Salud,Servicios de información,Comunicación en Salud,Use of scientific information for health decision making,Decision making,Straining,Breast neoplasm,Secondary prevention,Mammography,Health Literacy,Information services,Health Communication

                Comments

                Comment on this article