» Articles » PMID: 27977602

Scarce Information About Breast Cancer Screening: An Italian Websites Analysis

Overview
Specialty General Medicine
Date 2016 Dec 16
PMID 27977602
Citations 6
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Although the public should have complete and correct information about risk/benefit ratio of breast cancer screening, public knowledge appears generally scarce and oriented to overestimate benefits, with little awareness of possible disadvantages of the screening.We evaluated any document specifically addressed to the general female public and posted on internet by Italian public health services. The presence of false positive, false positive after biopsy, false negative, interval cancer, overdiagnosis, lead-time bias, exposure to irradiation, and mortality reduction was analyzed.Of the 255 websites consulted, 136 (53.3%) had sites addressed to the female public. The most commonly reported information points were the false-positive (30.8% of sites) and radiation exposure (29.4%) rates. Only 11 documents mentioned overdiagnosis, 2 mentioned risk of false positive with biopsy, and only 1 mentioned lead-time bias. Moreover, only 15 sites (11.0%) reported quantitative data for any risk variables.Most documents about breast cancer screening published on the web for the female public contained little or no information about risk/benefit ratio and were biased in favor of screening.

Citing Articles

To Consent or Not to Consent to Screening, That Is the Question.

Hofmann B Healthcare (Basel). 2023; 11(7).

PMID: 37046909 PMC: 10094591. DOI: 10.3390/healthcare11070982.


Online information about mammography screening in Italy from 2014 to 2021.

Attena F, Abagnale L, Avitabile A BMC Womens Health. 2022; 22(1):132.

PMID: 35477449 PMC: 9044849. DOI: 10.1186/s12905-022-01718-w.


Young people's perspectives of thyroid cancer screening and its harms after the nuclear accident in Fukushima Prefecture: a questionnaire survey indicating opt-out screening strategy of the thyroid examination as an ethical issue.

Midorikawa S, Ohtsuru A BMC Cancer. 2022; 22(1):235.

PMID: 35241012 PMC: 8896110. DOI: 10.1186/s12885-022-09341-6.


Supporting women at average risk to make informed decisions about mammography when there is no "right" answer: a qualitative citizen deliberation study.

Tripp L, Abelson J CMAJ Open. 2019; 7(4):E730-E737.

PMID: 31836630 PMC: 6910141. DOI: 10.9778/cmajo.20190102.


How is cervical cancer screening information communicated in UK websites? Cross-sectional analysis of content and quantitative presentation formats.

Okan Y, Smith S, Bruine de Bruin W BMJ Open. 2019; 9(10):e029551.

PMID: 31662361 PMC: 6830680. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029551.


References
1.
Webster P, Austoker J . Does the English Breast Screening Programme's information leaflet improve women's knowledge about mammography screening? A before and after questionnaire survey. J Public Health (Oxf). 2007; 29(2):173-7. DOI: 10.1093/pubmed/fdm007. View

2.
Quanstrum K, Hayward R . Lessons from the mammography wars. N Engl J Med. 2010; 363(11):1076-9. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMsb1002538. View

3.
Fitzgerald S . Breast-cancer screening. N Engl J Med. 2012; 366(2):191. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMc1113373. View

4.
Hersch J, Barratt A, Jansen J, Houssami N, Irwig L, Jacklyn G . The effect of information about overdetection of breast cancer on women's decision-making about mammography screening: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial. BMJ Open. 2014; 4(5):e004990. PMC: 4025472. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-004990. View

5.
Esserman L, Shieh Y, Thompson I . Rethinking screening for breast cancer and prostate cancer. JAMA. 2009; 302(15):1685-92. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2009.1498. View