BMJ 1998;317:263-264 ( 25 July )

Information in practice

How risks of breast cancer and benefits of screening are communicated to women: analysis of 58 pamphlets

Editorial by Coulter

Emma K Slaytor, postgraduate fellow,  Jeanette E Ward, director. 

Needs Assessment and Health Outcomes Unit, Central Sydney Area Health Service, Locked Bag 8, Newtown, 2042, NSW, Australia

Correspondence to: Associate Professor Ward jward{at}nah.rpa.cs.nsw.gov.au

Informed participation in population based screening programmes requires an explicit sharing of information about risks and benefits.1 However, many factors influence perceptions of risk and the value of risk reduction promised through screening. Campaigns that selectively quote incidence to "frighten" women into undergoing mammography have been criticised.2 Perceived risk, not objective risk, explains readiness to undergo screening in most models of health behaviour. Furthermore, the willingness of health purchasers to fund mammographic screening has been shown to be significantly influenced by the way in which data about effectiveness are presented: a programme achieving a 30% reduction in relative risk was more likely to be funded than two others described in terms of absolute risk reduction or numbers needed to screen to avert one death from breast cancer, even though all three were objectively identical in effectiveness.3 No studies have examined how risks of breast cancer and benefits of screening are communicated to women themselves.

    Methods and results
Top
Methods and results
Comment
References

In July 1997 we telephoned all cancer organisations, health departments, and mammographic screening programmes throughout Australia and asked for any information leaflets currently available for women about mammography. For each brochure, EKS used a 10 item score sheet to record its content. Independent assessment was performed by another staff member. Discrepancies were noted and resolved by consensus.

All organisations responded, resulting in 58 brochures. Independent agreement between the assessors was 98.9%. Lifetime risk of developing breast cancer was the most commonly stated risk (table), with considerable variation of estimates ranging from one in 11 to one in 16. Only one brochure provided information about the risk of dying from breast cancer. Three provided information about survival from breast cancer but only as "more than 70% of women survive," "two thirds of women survive," and "most women outlive this disease."

                              
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
 

Information about risks and benefits of mammographic screening in 58 Australian pamphlets for women

Relative risk reduction was the epidemiological information most often provided to communicate the benefits of mammographic screening (table), but the estimates included "about 30%," "about 40%," and "up to 50%," and six pamphlets from one state advised unequivocally that "women who have regular screening mammograms every two years halve their chances of dying from breast cancer." No pamphlets expressed benefit as absolute risk reduction or numbers needed to screen.

Information about the accuracy of screening tests was provided only occasionally. Sensitivity was expressed as: "mammograms pick up 90% of breast cancers." Six brochures stated that mammograms "are not 100% accurate (or foolproof)" without giving any detail.

    Comment
Top
Methods and results
Comment
References

Our study is the first to show the emphasis on incidence rather than mortality to communicate the risk of breast cancer to women. Since mammographic screening reduces mortality but not incidence,2 this partiality is worrying. In addition, mammographic screening increases the incidence of breast cancer by detecting innocuous disease that would never become clinically important. Thus, it is a circular argument to encourage participation in mammographic screening only because of an increasing number of cases.

The benefits of mammography were reported inconsistently and only ever as relative risk reduction and never as absolute risk reduction or numbers needed to screen to change an outcome for one woman. In a compelling reflection on mammographic screening in the United Kingdom, Maureen Roberts argued for a "truthful account of the facts" to be given to women: "It will not be what they want to hear."4 Ominously, perhaps, the provision of specific risk information discourages participation in mammography.5 If, like purchasers' willingness to pay,3 women's participation in screening can be manipulated by partial disclosure of epidemiological data, then informed decision making by consumers necessitates a disinterested presentation of all pertinent facts.

    Acknowledgments

Inspiration for this study was provided by the Sydney Breast Cancer Foundation, particularly Janet McDonald, Harriett Harrison, Frances Randall, Liz Story, and Lyn Trumbull.

Contributors: JEW conceived the study and supervised protocol development, including design of rating scale, by EKS. EKS collected data and analysed pamphlet content. JEW and EKS jointly wrote the paper. Terry Slevin, Corry Dobson, Lynne Flemming, and Julie Sladden assisted with telephone calls. Vincenza Colaluce assessed reliability of rating of pamphlets. JEW is guarantor for the paper.

Funding: The Sydney Breast Cancer Foundation.

Conflict of interest: None.

    References
Top
Methods and results
Comment
References

  1. McCormick J. Medical hubris and the public health: the ethical dimension. J Clin Epidemiol 1996; 49: 619-621[Medline].
  2. Baines C. Women and breast cancer: is it really possible for the public to be well informed? Can Med J Assoc 1992; 142: 2147-2148.
  3. Fahey T, Griffiths S, Peters TJ. Evidence based purchasing: understanding results of clinical trials and systematic reviews. BMJ 1995; 311: 1056-1059[Abstract/Free Full Text].
  4. Roberts MM. Breast screening: time for a rethink? BMJ 1991; 299: 1153-1155.
  5. Curry SJ, Taplin SH, Anderman C, Barlow WE, McBride C. A randomised trial of the impact of risk assessment and feedback on participation in mammographic screening. Prev Med 1993; 22: 350-360[Medline].

(Accepted 20 March 1998)

© BMJ 1998
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?

Relevant Articles

Informed choice for screening: implications for evaluation
Les Irwig, Kirsten McCaffery, Glenn Salkeld, and Patrick Bossuyt
BMJ 2006 332: 1148-1150. [Full Text] [PDF]

Content of invitations for publicly funded screening mammography
Karsten Juhl Jørgensen and Peter C Gøtzsche
BMJ 2006 332: 538-541. [Full Text] [PDF]

Leaflets about breast screening are misleading
BMJ 1998 317: 0. [Full Text]

Evidence based patient information
Angela Coulter
BMJ 1998 317: 225-226. [Extract] [Full Text]

This article has been cited by other articles:

  • Osterlie, W, Solbjor, M, Skolbekken, J-A, Hofvind, S, Saetnan, A R, Forsmo, S (2008). Challenges of informed choice in organised screening. J. Med. Ethics 34: e5-e5 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Covey, J. (2007). A Meta-analysis of the Effects of Presenting Treatment Benefits in Different Formats. Med Decis Making 27: 638-654 [Abstract]  
  • Marshall, L. A., Williams, D. (2006). Health information: does quality count for the consumer?: How consumers evaluate the quality of health information materials across a variety of media. Journal of Librarianship and Information Science 38: 141-156 [Abstract]  
  • Black, W. C. (2006). Randomized Clinical Trials for Cancer Screening: Rationale and Design Considerations for Imaging Tests. JCO 24: 3252-3260 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Irwig, L., McCaffery, K., Salkeld, G., Bossuyt, P. (2006). Informed choice for screening: implications for evaluation.. BMJ 332: 1148-1150 [Full text]  
  • Jorgensen, K. J., Gotzsche, P. C (2006). Content of invitations for publicly funded screening mammography.. BMJ 332: 538-541 [Full text]  
  • Hargreaves, K., Stewart, R., Oliver, S. (2005). Newborn screening information supports public health more than informed choice. Health Education Journal 64: 110-119 [Abstract]  
  • Chamot, E., Charvet, A., Perneger, T. V. (2004). Women's Preferences for Doctor's Involvement in Decisions about Mammography Screening. Med Decis Making 24: 379-385 [Abstract]  
  • Zwahlen, M., D'Avanzo, B., Egger, M., Berrino, F., Perneger, T., Mosconi, P., Domenighetti, G. (2004). Authors' response. Int J Epidemiol 33: 904-905 [Full text]  
  • Jorgensen, K. J., Gotzsche, P. C (2004). Presentation on websites of possible benefits and harms from screening for breast cancer: cross sectional study. BMJ 328: 148- [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Domenighetti, G., D'Avanzo, B., Egger, M., Berrino, F., Perneger, T., Mosconi, P., Zwahlen, M. (2003). Women's perception of the benefits of mammography screening: population-based survey in four countries. Int J Epidemiol 32: 816-821 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Edwards, A., Unigwe, S., Elwyn, G., Hood, K. (2003). Effects of communicating individual risks in screening programmes: Cochrane systematic review. BMJ 327: 703-709 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Gigerenzer, G., Edwards, A. (2003). Simple tools for understanding risks: from innumeracy to insight. BMJ 327: 741-744 [Full text]  
  • Thornton, H., Edwards, A., Baum, M. (2003). Women need better information about routine mammography. BMJ 327: 101-103 [Full text]  
  • Risk, A., Petersen, C. (2002). Health Information on the Internet: Quality Issues and International Initiatives. JAMA 287: 2713-2715 [Full text]  
  • Edwards, A., Elwyn, G., Mulley, A. (2002). Explaining risks: turning numerical data into meaningful pictures. BMJ 324: 827-830 [Full text]  
  • Shepperd, S., Charnock, D. (2002). Against internet exceptionalism. BMJ 324: 556-557 [Full text]  
  • Murphy, D. J., Gahm, G. J., Santilli, S., North, P., Oliver, S. C.N., Shapiro, H. (2002). Seniors' Preferences for Cancer Screening and Medication Use Based on Absolute Risk Reduction. Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biological Sciences and Medical Sciences 57: M100-105 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Chamot, E, Perneger, T V (2001). Misconceptions about efficacy of mammography screening: a public health dilemma. J. Epidemiol. Community Health 55: 799-803 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Duncan, B., Hart, G., Scoular, A. (2001). Screening and the Construction of Scepticism: The Case of Chlamydia. Health (London) 5: 165-185 [Abstract]  
  • Smith, T. J., Hillner, B. E. (2000). Tamoxifen Should be Cost-Effective in Reducing Breast Cancer Risk in High-Risk Women. JCO 18: 284-284 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Goodare, H., King, M., Baum, M., Johnson, A., Shekhdar, J., Day, N E, Boer, R., de Koning, H., Threlfall, A., Woodman, C., Street, A., Friedman, E. (1999). NHS breast screening programme. BMJ 318: 397a-397 [Full text]  
  • Johnson, M. (1999). Communication in healthcare: A review of some key issues. Journal of Research in Nursing 4: 18-30 [Abstract]  
  • Schwartz, L. M., Woloshin, S., Welch, H. G. (1999). Risk Communication in Clinical Practice: Putting Cancer in Context. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 1999: 124-133 [Abstract] [Full text]  
  • Coulter, A. (1998). Evidence based patient information. BMJ 317: 225-226 [Full text]  

Rapid Responses:

Read all Rapid Responses

Information on cervical cancer screening must be uniform
Guido Van Hal
bmj.com, 10 Sep 1998 [Full text]
Access jobs at BMJ Careers
Whats new online at Student BMJ