1 Cantonal Health Office, Via Orico 5, 6500 Bellinzona, Switzerland and Institute of Health Economics and Management (IEMS), University of Lausanne, Switzerland. E-mail: gianfranco.domenighetti{at}ti.ch
2 Laboratory of Epidemiology and Social Psychiatry, Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri, Milan, Italy.
3 MRC Health Services Research Collaboration, Department of Social Medicine, University of Bristol, UK.
4 Epidemiology Unit, National Cancer Institute Milan, Italy.
5 Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Geneva, Geneva, Switzerland.
6 Unit for Research on Patients Participation in Health Care, Laboratory of Oncological Clinical Research, Istituto di Ricerche Farmacologiche Mario Negri, Milan, Italy.
7 Division of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Department of Social & Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland.
Professor Gianfranco Domenighetti, Institute of Health Economics and Management (IEMS) University of Lausanne, Switzerland. E-mail: gianfranco.domenighetti{at}ti.ch
![]() |
Abstract |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Methods Telephone survey of random samples of the female population aged 15 years in the US, UK, Italy, and Switzerland using three closed questions on the expected benefits of mammography screening.
Results A total of 5964 women were contacted and 4140 women (69%) participated. Misconceptions were widespread: a majority of women believed that screening prevents or reduces the risk of contracting breast cancer (68%), that screening at least halves breast cancer mortality (62%), and that 10 years of regular screening will prevent 10 or more breast cancer deaths per 1000 women (75%). In multivariate analysis higher number of correct answers was positively associated with higher educational status (odds ratio [OR] = 1.44, 95% CI: 1.25, 1.66) and negatively with having had a mammography in the last 2 years (OR = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.73, 1.01). Compared with US women (reference group) and Swiss women (OR = 0.98, 95% CI: 0.82, 1.18) respondents in Italy (OR = 0.61, 95% CI: 0.50, 0.74) and the UK (OR = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.60, 0.88) gave fewer correct answers.
Conclusion In the US and three European countries a high proportion of women overestimated the benefits that can be expected from screening mammography. This finding raises doubts on informed consent procedures within breast cancer screening programmes.
Users of health services should receive accurate information on the effectiveness, risks, and limitations of medical interventions in order to be able to actively participate in decision making.1 Ensuring that the target group of a screening programme receives accurate information about benefits and harms of screening presents particular challenges. Most people targeted for screening are free from disease and not in regular contact with health services. Participation in screening programmes must therefore be actively promoted to achieve high coverage. Indeed, in one study the perceived benefits of mammography screening were found to be predictive of participation in Caucasian (but not in African American) women, and another study, also based on the Health Beliefs Model, reported that perceived benefits accounted for a substantial proportion of the variance between women who wanted a mammogram and women who did not.2,3 Of note, some have argued that women who are not complying with screening recommendations would benefit from additional emphasis on mammography benefits.4
The promotion of population-based screening may result in unrealistic expectations, and truly informed consent may therefore be difficult to achieve. For example, women may erroneously believe that screening prevents breast cancer rather than detecting cancer at an earlier stage. A recent survey in Geneva showed that only 20% of women assessed screening efficacy realistically.5 We examined womens perceptions on the likely benefits of mammography screening in four industrialized nations, the US, the UK, Italy, and Switzerland, countries which differ with respect to national screening policies and the implementation of screening programmes.
![]() |
Methods |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Trained interviewers from an independent survey company conducted computer-assisted telephone interviews. A random digit dialling method was used to produce telephone numbers and contact households.8 A sample size of 1000 interviews per country was considered adequate to detect meaningful differences in knowledge levels between countries and groups of women defined by socio-demographic characteristics. No formal sample size calculation was performed. All phone calls were made between 5:30 pm and 8:30 pm local time. This time window was chosen to make sure that women working outside the house would also be included. When a woman was contacted she was asked whether she would be willing to participate in a survey on breast cancer screening. She was advised that the interview would last about 5 minutes. Response rates were calculated as the proportion of contacted women who answered all three questions. Reasons for non-participation were not recorded.
Three closed questions were asked relating to whether screening prevents breast cancer, what reduction in breast cancer mortality can be achieved among women aged 50 years, and how many deaths can be prevented among 1000 women screened for 10 years (Table 1
second question was that screening reduces breast cancer mortality in women aged
50 years by about a quarter.9 Finally, based on this risk reduction and the breast cancer mortality rates published by WHO for women aged
50 years,10 it can be assumed that between 5.1 deaths (Italy) and 6.7 deaths (UK) could be prevented among 1000 women aged
50 screened every 2 years for 10 years. The correct answer to the third question therefore was that about five deaths can be prevented. This is higher than the widely quoted figure,11 from randomized trials, of 1 death prevented per 1000 women screened for 10 years, because we included in our calculation all women aged
50 years. The elderly, who have high breast cancer mortality rates, were generally excluded from trials.
|
![]() |
Results |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Only a minority of women (26%) correctly indicated that screening does not have any influence on the risk of contracting breast cancer (Table 1). Even smaller proportions of women expected a reduction in mortality close to the estimate from randomized controlled trials (19%). Women resident in the US were more likely to answer the first question correctly than women from the other countries. Conversely, respondents in the US less often gave the appropriate answer to the second question. Few women (4% overall) answered the last question on the absolute number of deaths prevented correctly, with the surveys in continental Europe yielding a slightly higher proportion of correct answers. For all three questions the differences between countries continued to be evident in multivariate logistic regression analyses adjusted for age, educational level, occupation, and history of mammography (tables available from authors).
Table 2 gives the distribution of knowledge scores in each country for all women and separately for women aged 4049 years, 5059 years, and
60 years. Overall, the majority of women did not give any correct answer (59%). There was a tendency for older women to be less knowledgeable than young and middle-aged women. The results from univariate and multivariate ordinal logistic regression analyses are shown in Table 3
. In univariate analysis women aged
50 years had lower knowledge scores than younger women, but this difference was attenuated in multivariate analysis. Similarly, women who did not work and women with a history of mammography had lower scores in univariate analysis, with associations attenuated in multivariate analysis. In univariate and multivariate analyses, women with higher educational levels had higher scores than women with less education and, compared with women in the US, respondents in Italy and the UK had lower knowledge scores. Knowledge in Switzerland was comparable to the US. There was some evidence that the effect of a history of mammography (P = 0.024 by test of interaction), and the effect of educational level (P = 0.015) differed across countries. In analyses stratified by country, the effect of a previous mammography on knowledge scores was stronger in Italy (OR = 0.71, 95% CI: 0.50, 1.00) but weaker in Switzerland (OR = 0.78, 95% CI: 0.58, 1.06) and the US (OR = 0.87, 95% CI: 0.63, 1.21), and in the opposite direction in the UK (OR = 1.17, 95% CI: 0.83, 1.67). The effect of higher levels of education was strong in the US (OR = 1.87, 95% CI: 1.43, 2.47) and the UK (OR = 1.70, 95% CI: 1.26, 2.30) but weaker in Switzerland (OR = 1.33, 95% CI: 0.98, 1.80) and absent in Italy (OR = 0.99, 95% CI: 0.73, 1.33).
|
|
![]() |
Discussion |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
Unsurprisingly, better educated women tended to provide more correct answers than women with lower educational attainment. We were interested in the effect of invitations to undergo mammography screening and therefore included women aged 50 years as well as younger women. There was some evidence that women in the age groups targeted by screening programmes were less well informed than younger women, and that women who recently underwent screening were less well informed than women who did not. The lower knowledge scores in older women was partly explained by lower levels of educational attainment in this group. Interestingly, an analysis of US womens magazines found that the information provided is persuasive and prescriptive in magazines aimed at lower educational levels but more balanced and informative in publications read by women with higher education.16
An Australian study of 58 pamphlets on mammography screening found that benefits were generally expressed as relative risk reductions and only a minority mentioned the possibility of false positive or false negative tests.17 No leaflet gave absolute risk reductions or the number of women that need to be screened to avoid one death. Patients, purchasers, and doctors consider an intervention to be more desirable when effectiveness data is presented in relative rather than absolute terms.1820 In an earlier survey,21 we found that the publics willingness to participate in a hypothetical screening programme is clearly influenced by the quality and extent of the information provided.
Our study has a number of limitations. It consisted of three questions on the likely benefits of screening only, and did not examine the awareness of adverse effects, including the consequences of exposure to radiation and of false positive or false negative test results. Indeed, it could be argued that by exclusively addressing the benefits of screening our survey may have contributed to unrealistic expectations. An Australian study found that women also have unrealistically high expectations of the sensitivity of screening mammography, with about 40% of women reporting that screening should detect all cancers (sensitivity of 100%).22 More recently, a study of women in the US reported that women were aware and tolerant of false positive mammography results although few had heard about ductal carcinoma in situ.23
The questionnaire was developed in consultation with health professionals with expertise in this area. These experts agreed that all three questions were relevant, although we did not assess their judgements formally. We discussed an early draft of the questionnaire with six women of different educational levels and performed a pilot study in a larger group of women. It is therefore reasonable to assume that our questionnaire has both face and content validity. The very small number of correct answers to our third question nevertheless raises the possibility that some women may have misunderstood the question and assumed that it related to women with breast cancer, rather than women attending breast cancer screening.
Questions had to be answered without warning in a short period of time during a telephone interview. The results from such a survey should not be over-interpreted: some women who do not answer correctly in this situation may still be able to appropriately appraise the pertinent facts and make informed choices when the decision is salient to them. By excluding households without phones and households with ex-directory (unlisted) numbers, surveys based on telephone interviewing may not obtain representative samples of the general population.8 It is difficult to assess how this will have affected our results but people and households without telephones are a deprived group who would be expected to be less knowledgeable about breast cancer screening. It is possible that this may have introduced bias in comparisons between countries, if, for example, poorer households were excluded to a greater degree in the US than in the European surveys.
At the time this survey was conceived there was consensus that screening mammography reduces mortality from breast cancer among women in their 50s and 60s, although there was debate on the effectiveness of screening in younger women.24 This changed recently with the publication of Gøtzsche and Olsens meta-analysis of seven randomized trials of mammography screening, which concluded that screening was of uncertain benefit.25,26 The authors considered five trials, which had shown a reduction in breast cancer mortality, to be of inadequate quality and excluded their results. A meta-analysis of the remaining two studies showed no protective effect of mammography. Furthermore, the meta-analysis showed an increase in mastectomies in screened women, and no reduction in all-cause mortality. The review by Gøtzsche and Olsen is, however, controversial and the WHO, the US Preventive Services Task Force, the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care, and many other bodies continue to recommend mammography screening.24,27,28 A detailed discussion of Gøtzsche and Olsens review is beyond the scope of this article but, clearly, women considering screening need to know that there is debate, and what the issues are.
In conclusion, the female populations studied in four countries appear to be ill informed about the likely benefit of mammography screening and many women offered screening may not be able to exercise choice based on an accurate presentation of all pertinent facts. Using selected information about screening for encouraging high uptake is not appropriate, and there is an urgent need for correcting the misconceptions that are prevalent in the population.15 Maureen Roberts, the clinical director of the Edinburgh Breast Screening Project who died of breast cancer argued over 10 years ago that the decision must be theirs, and a truthful account of the facts must be available to the public and the individual patient.29
KEY MESSAGES
|
![]() |
Acknowledgments |
---|
![]() |
References |
---|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |
---|
2 Miller AM, Champion VL. Attitudes about breast cancer and mammography: racial, income, and educational differences. Women Health 1997;26:4163.[ISI][Medline]
3 Price JH, Desmond SM, Slenker S, Smith D, Stewart PW. Urban black womens perceptions of breast cancer and mammography. J Community Health 1992;17:191204.[Medline]
4 Champion VL. Beliefs about breast cancer and mammography by behavioral stage. Oncology Nursing Forum 1994;21:100914.[Medline]
5 Chamot E, Perneger TV. Misconceptions about efficacy of mammography screening: a public health dilemma. J Epidemiol Community Health 2001;55:799803.
6 Shapiro S, Coleman EA, Broeders M, Codd M, de Koning H, Fracheboud J et al. Breast cancer screening programmes in 22 countries: current policies, administration and guidelines. International Breast Cancer Screening Network (IBSN) and the European Network of Pilot Projects for Breast Cancer Screening. Int J Epidemiol 1998;27:73542.[Abstract]
7 Rosselli del Turco M, Zappa M. Osservatorio Nazionale per la Prevenzione de Tumori Femminili. Roma: Lega Italiana Contro i Tumori, 2002.
8 Groves RM, Biemer PP, Lyberg LE, Massey JT, Nicholis WL, Waksberg J. Telephone Survey Methodology. New York City: John Wiley & Sons, 2001.
9 Kerlikowske K, Grady D, Rubin SM, Sandrock C, Ernster VL. Efficacy of screening mammography. A meta-analysis. JAMA 1995;273: 14954.[Abstract]
10 Ferlay J, Bray F, Pisani P, Parkin DM. GLOBOCAN 2000: Cancer Incidence, Mortality and Prevalence. Worldwide, Version 1.0. IARC CancerBase No. 5. Lyon: IARC Press, 2001.
11 Rembold CM. Number needed to screen: development of a statistic for disease screening. BMJ 1998;317:30712.
12 McCullagh P, Nelder JA. Generalized linear models. London: Chapman and Hall, 1989.
13 Long JS, Freese J. Regression models for categorical dependent variables using STATA. College Station, TX: Stata Press, 2001.
14 Austoker J. Gaining informed consent for screening. Is difficultbut many misconceptions need to be undone. BMJ 1999;319:72223.
15 Raffle AE. Information about screeningis it to achieve high uptake or to ensure informed choice? Health Expect 2001;4:9298.[CrossRef][Medline]
16 Dobias KS, Moyer CA, McAchran SE, Katz SJ, Sonnad SS. Mammography messages in popular media: implications for patient expectations and shared clinical decision-making. Health Expect 2001;4:12735.[Medline]
17 Slaytor EK, Ward JE. How risks of breast cancer and benefits of screening are communicated to women: analysis of 58 pamphlets. BMJ 1998;317:26364.
18 Bucher HC, Weinbacher M, Gyr K. Influence of method of reporting study results on decision of physicians to prescribe drugs to lower cholesterol concentration. BMJ 1994;309:76164.
19 Fahey T, Griffiths S, Peters TJ. Evidence based purchasing: understanding the results of clinical trials and systematic reviews. BMJ 1995;311:105660.
20 Hux JE, Naylor CD. Communicating the benefits of chronic preventive therapy: does the format of efficacy data determine patients acceptance of treatment? Med Decis Making 1995;15:15257.[ISI][Medline]
21 Domenighetti G, Grilli R, Maggi JR. Does provision of an evidence-based information change public willingness to accept screening tests? Health Expect 2000;3:14550.[CrossRef][Medline]
22 Barratt A, Cockburn J, Furnival C, McBride A, Mallon L. Perceived sensitivity of mammographic screening: womens views on test accuracy and financial compensation for missed cancers. J Epidemiol Community Health 1999;53:71620.[Abstract]
23 Schwartz LM, Woloshin S, Sox HC, Fischhoff B, Welch HG. US womens attitudes to false-positive mammography results and detection of ductal carcinoma in situ: cross-sectional survey. West J Med 2000;173:30712.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
24 Fletcher SW, Elmore JG. Mammographic screening for breast cancer. N Engl J Med 2003;348:167280.
25 Gøtzsche PC, Olsen O. Is screening for breast cancer with mammography justifiable? Lancet 2000;355:12934.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
26 Olsen O, Gøtzsche PC. Cochrane review on screening for breast cancer with mammography. Lancet 2001;358:134042.[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
27 Kmietowicz Z. WHO insists screening can cut breast cancer rates. BMJ 2002;324:695.
28 Preventive Services Task Force. Screening for breast cancer: recommendations and rationale. Ann Intern Med 2002;137:34446.
29 Roberts MM. Breast screening: time for a rethink? BMJ 1989;299: 115355.[ISI][Medline]