Effects of different information brochures on women’s decision-making regarding mammography screening: study protocol for a randomized controlled questionnaire study

Trials

Michael Pentzek¹  Karl Wegscheider²  Heinz-Harald Abholz¹  Jürgen in der Schmitten¹  Elisabeth Gummersbach¹ 

[1] University of Duesseldorf, Medical Faculty, Institute of General Practice, Moorenstrasse 5, Dusseldorf D-40225, Germany;Medical Faculty, Department of Medical Biometry and Epidemiology, University of Hamburg, Hamburg D-20251, Germany

关键词: Decision making;    Informed consent;    Mammography screening;    Information brochure;   

Others  :  1092945
DOI  :  10.1186/1745-6215-14-319

 received in 2013-02-22, accepted in 2013-09-04,  发布年份 2013

【 摘 要 】

Background

In order to give informed consent for mammography screening, women need to be told the relevant facts; however, screening information often remains vague because of the worry that detailed information might deter women from participating in recommended screening programs. Since September 2010, German women aged 50 to 69 invited for mammography screening have received a new, comprehensive information brochure that frankly discusses the potential benefit and harm of mammography screening. In contrast, the brochure that was in use before September 2010 contained little relevant information.

The aim of this study is to compare the impact of the two different brochures on the intention of women to undergo mammography screening, and to broaden our understanding of the effect that factual information has on the women’s decision-making.

Methods

This is a controlled questionnaire study comparing knowledge, views and hypothetical preferences of women aged 48–49 years after receiving the old versus the new information brochure. German GP’s in the region of North Rhine-Westfalia will be asked by mail and telephone to participate in the study. Eligible women will be recruited via their general practitioners (GPs) and randomized to groups A ('new brochure’) and B ('old brochure’), with an intended recruitment of 173 participants per group. The study is powered to detect a 15% higher or lower intention to undergo mammography screening in women informed by the new brochure.

Discussion

This study will contribute to our understanding of the decision-making of women invited to mammography screening. From both ethical and public health perspectives, it is important to know whether frank, factual information leads to a change in the intention of women to participate in a recommended breast cancer screening program.

Trial registration

DRKS00004271

【 授权许可】

   
2013 Gummersbach et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Active Citizenship Network: European Charter of Patients’ Rights. [Presented in Brussels on 15 November 2002] [http://www.activecitizenship.net/patients-rights/projects/29-european-charter-of-patients-rights.html webcite] accessed on 2013-07-23
• [2]Steckelberg A, Berger B, Köpke S, Heesen C, Mühlhauser I: Criteria for evidence-based patient information. Z ärztl Fortbild Qual Gesundh.wes 2005, 99:343-351.
• [3]O’Connor AM: Decisional conflict. In Nursing Diagnosis and Intervention. Edited by McFarland GK, McFarlane EA. St. Louis: C.V. Mosby; 1993.
• [4]Gummersbach E, Abholz HH: Info-Flyer 'mammography screening’ in Germany -what information does it contain, and what information should it contain? Z Allg Med 2006, 82(11):491-494.
• [5]Mühlhauser I, Höldke B: Information zum Mammographiescreening - vom Trugschluss zur Ent-Täuschung. Radiologe 2002, 42:299-304.
• [6]Webster P, Austoker J: Does the English breast screening program’s information leaflet improve women’s knowledge about mammography screening? A before and after questionnaire survey. J Public Health (Oxf) 2007, 29(2):173-177.
• [7]Gummersbach E, Piccoliori G, Zerbe C, Altiner A, Othmann C, Rose C, Abholz HH: Are women getting relevant information about mammography screening for an informed consent: a critical appraisal of information brochures used for screening invitation in Germany, Italy, Spain and France. Eur J Pub Health 2009, 20(4):409-414.
• [8]Steckelberg A, Hülfenhaus C, Haastert B, Mühlhauser I: Effect of evidence based risk information on 'informed choice’ in colorectal cancer screening: randomized controlled trial. BMJ 2011, 342:d3193.
• [9]Jörgensen K, Götzsche P: Content of invitations for public funded screening mammography. BMJ 2006, 332:538-541.
• [10]Jimbo M, Rana GK, Hawley S, Margaret Holmes-Rovner M, Kelly-Blake K, Nease DE, Ruffin MT: What is lacking in current decision aids on cancer screening? CA Cancer J Clin 2013, 63:193-214.
• [11]O’Connor AM, Bennett CL, Stacey D, Barry M, Nananda F, Eden KB, Entwistle VA, Fiset V, Holmes-Rovner M, Khangura S, Llewellyn-Thomas H, Rovner D: Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009, 8(3):CD001431.
• [12]O’Connor AM: Validation of a decisional conflict scale. Med Decis Making 1995, 15(1):25-30.
• [13]Marteau TM, Dormandy E, Michie S: A measure of informed choice. Health Expect 2001, 4(2):99-108.
• [14]Mathieu E, Barratt AL, McGeechan K, Davey HM, Howard K, Houssami N: Helping women make choices about mammography screening: an online randomized trial of a decision aid for 40-year-old women. Patient Educ Couns 2010, 81:63.
• [15]Webster P, Austoker P: Women’s knowledge about breast cancer risk and their views of the purpose and implications of breast screening - a questionnaire survey. J Public Health 2006, 28(3):197-202.
• [16]Mathieu E, Barratt A, Davey HM, McGeechan K, Howard K, Houssam N: Informed choice in mammography screening. A randomized trial of a decision aid for 70-year-old women. Arch Intern Med 2007, 167(19):2039-2046.
• [17]Börgermann C, Vom Dorp F, Rossi R, Schenck M, et al.: Die Patientenaufklärung zur Prostatakarzinomfrüherkennung ist unzureichend. (The information of patients on the screening for prostate cancer is insufficient). Urologe 2009, 48(9):997-1001.
• [18]Riens B, Erhart M, Mangiapane S: Arztkontakte im Jahr 2007 - Hintergründe und Analysen. In Zentralinstitut für die kassenärztliche Versorgung in Deutschland. Berlin: Herbert-Lewin-Platz 3 – 10623; 2012. [Patient consultations with ambulatory physicians in the year 2007 - background and analyses] Versorgungsatlas.de. Veröffentlicht am 15.02
• [19]Gal I, Prigat A: Why organizations continue to create patient information leaflets with readability and usability problems: an exploratory study. Health Educ Res 2005, 20:485-493.
• [20]Kooperationsgemeinschaft Mammographie: Evaluationsbericht 2008 to 2009, Ergebnisse des Mammographie-Screening-Programms in Deutschland. Berlin: Evaluation report 2008 to 2009: Results of the mammography screening program in Germany; 2012.