Promoting Informed Choice for Breast Cancer Screening

Active, not recruiting

Brief Summary: Identify the prevalence and predictors of reactance, self-exemption, disbelief, source derogation in reaction to evidence about mammography benefits and harms, and consequences for decision-making and trust.

Detailed Description: In this study, the goal is to identify the prevalence and predictors of reactance, self-exemption, disbelief, and source derogation in reaction to evidence about mammography benefits and harms, and consequences for decision-making and trust. Research has not yet systematically identified the proportion of women who respond negatively (vs. positively) to evidence about the benefits and harms of mammography screening, or attempted to explain these responses by examining theory-driven predictors. The Investigator will develop and conduct a probability-based nationally representative survey in which mammography evidence is communicated using current best practices in risk communication. The Investigators will identify theory-driven predictors of negative and positive responses to that evidence, and identify consequences of these responses for screening decision-making and trust.

Recruitment & Eligibility

Inclusion Criteria

Exclusion Criteria

Non-English or Spanish Speaking
Persons unable to provide informed consent (e.g. sever dementia or cognitive disability or illiterate
History of breast cancer
Known BRCA 1/2 mutation

Arm && Interventions

Group	Intervention	Description
Women age 39-49 in the United States	Decision aid	The group is women age 39-49 in the United States who receive a decision aid intervention. The intervention is a breast cancer screening decision aid with information about screening guidelines, breast cancer mortality reduction, false positives, overdiagnosis, and a personal breast cancer risk estimate.

Primary Outcome Measures

Name	Time	Method
Source derogation	24 hours	In response to mammography evidence, feeling that the source of the evidence is not trustworthy or competent. 4 questions total, each on a 7 point Likert scale, with mean scores that range from 1 to 7. Higher mean score reflects more source derogation.
Reactance	24 hours	In response to mammography evidence, feeling that the information is manipulative or biased. 4 questions total, each on a 7 point Likert scale, with mean scores that range from 1 to 7. Higher mean scores reflect greater reactance.
Disbelief	24 hours	In response to mammography evidence, feeling that the evidence is not accurate or believable. 4 questions total, each on a 7 point Likert scale, with mean scores that range from 1 to 7. Higher mean score reflects more disbelief in the information.
Self exemption	24 hours	Feeling that mammography evidence is not relevant to oneself.34 questions total, each on a 7 point Likert scale, with mean scores that range from 1 to 7. Higher mean scores indicate greater belief that the information is not self relevant.
Screening Intentions	24 hours	Intentions to engage in mammography screening. Options will include: 1. I am planning to start/continue having regular mammograms this year. 2. I am planning to wait until I'm older but before age 50 to have my first/next mammogram. 3. I am planning to wait until I am 50 to have my first/next mammogram. 4. I am not planning to have a mammogram in the future at any age

Secondary Outcome Measures

Name	Time	Method
Mammography screening knowledge (adapted from Hersch et al., 2015)	24 hours	10 items that assess knowledge about mammography benefits and harms such as overdiagnosis; calculated as proportion out of 10 correct. Higher scores reflect greater knowledge; assessed both pre vs. post receipt of screening decision aid
Medical mistrust scale (Eaton et al., 2015)	24 hours	6 question scale that assesses mistrust in healthcare providers. Calculated as mean trust (range 1-low trust to 5-high trust). Assessed both pre and post receipt of screening decision aid to evaluate change

Locations (1): University of Colorado Hospital
🇺🇸
Aurora, Colorado, United States