7. Inviting women to screening programmes
For informing women about the benefits and harms of participating in an organised population-based breast cancer screening programme, the ECIBC's Guidelines Development Group:
- suggests using a decision aid (conditional recommendation, low certainty of the evidence)
- recommends using numbers in addition to plain language (strong recommendation, moderate certainty of the evidence)
- suggests using infographics in addition to plain language with numbers (conditional recommendation, low certainty of the evidence)
- suggests not using storytelling in addition to plain language with number (conditional recommendation, very low certainty of the evidence)
Informing about benefits and harms: use of decision aids
Issued on: June 2021
Healthcare question
Should a decision aid that explains the benefits and harms of screening vs. an invitation letter be used for informing women about the benefits and harms of participating in an organised population-based breast cancer screening programme?
Recommendation
The ECIBC's Guidelines Development Group (GDG) suggests using a decision aid that explains the benefits and harms of screening over an invitation letter for informing women about the benefits and harms of participating in an organised population-based breast cancer screening programme.
Recommendation strength
| Conditional recommendation |
| Low certainty of the evidence |
Justification
The decision on this recommendation takes into account the balance between desirable and undesirable effects that probably favours the use of decision aids, but in the context of low certainty of the evidence. The desirable anticipated effects were judged as moderate due to increases in informed decision-making and participants’ adequate knowledge about screening, while the undesirable anticipated effects were judged as trivial.
The GDG highlighted the importance of the quality of the decision aids. In particular, they should be evidence-based and appropriate to the context of their use.
Subgroup considerations
The GDG considered the importance of tailoring the decision aids to the cultural contexts and level of literacy of the populations to whom they are distributed.
Considerations for implementation and policy making
- The GDG does not support any specific decision aid that was included in the reviewed evidence. However, decision aids should be appropriately developed, evidence-based and tailored to the context of use.
- The GDG considered that the recommendation for use of decision aids applies to all age groups.
- Decision aids should be tailored to the cultural-context and level of literacy of the population(s) for whom they are to be used.
- The GDG supports the use of pictograms and graphical representations, where possible, in the form of decision aids, including a focus on graphics designed to explain the changes in both relative risk and absolute risk, for breast cancer screening. For more details on this, refer to the ECIBC recommendations on the use of numbers, infographics and storytelling.
Monitoring and evaluation
The GDG felt that the quality of decision aids needs to be high and that it is important to monitor and evaluate their implementation, as well as continue to study their use in research contexts.
Research priorities
- Develop best practices for decision aids used in Europe to educate women on breast cancer screening.
- Evaluate the best ways of describing information in decision aids, including a comparison of the use of graphics versus text explanations for various populations.
- Assess the perspectives, understanding, confidence and participation rates of women receiving these decision aids. In particular, the GDG considered qualitative research would be useful for this.
- Assess whether women are adequately prepared and aware while participating in studies concerning the use of decision aids (e.g. through informed consent). This could vary depending on the age group. The use of plain language could facilitate in translating recommendations in a more understandable manner.
- During the updating of this recommendation, additional data from randomised contolled trials was found and the GDG felt it is unlikely that the body of evidence coming from observational research would have increased the certainty of the evidence or changed the strength or direction of the recommendation.
Supporting material
- Organised vs. non-organised screening
- Double vs. single reading in mammograpy screening
- Communication skills training
- Communication with care providers
- Optimal number of mammography readings
- Specialised training
- Risk stratification
- Women aged 40-44: screening vs. no screening
- Women aged 45-49: screening vs. no screening
- Women aged 45-49: annual vs. biennial screening
- Women aged 45-49: annual vs. triennial screening
- Women aged 45-49: triennial vs. biennial screening
- Women aged 50-69: screening vs. no screening
- Women aged 50-69: annual vs. biennial screening
- Women aged 50-69: annual vs. triennial screening
- Women aged 50-69: triennial vs. biennial screening
- Women aged 70-74: screening vs. no screening
- Women aged 70-74: annual vs. biennial screening
- Women aged 70-74: annual vs. triennial screening
- Women aged 70-74: triennial vs. biennial screening
- Single reading with AI support
- Double reading with AI support
- Screening with tomosynthesis vs. mammography
- Screening with tomosynthesis plus mammography vs. mammography alone
- Tailored screening with tomosynthesis
- Screening with tomosynthesis vs. mammography
- Tailored screening with MRI
- Tailored screening with ABUS
- Tailored screening with HHUS
- Informing about benefits and harms: use of decision aids
- Informing about benefits and harms: Numbers in addition to plain language
- Informing about benefits and harms: Infographics in addition to plain language
- Informing about benefits and harms: Story telling in addition to plain language
- Inviting women to screening: letter vs. no invitation
- Inviting socially disadvantaged women to screening: Targeted vs. general communication strategy
- Inviting women with an intellectual disability to screening
- Inviting non-native speakers to screening
- Inviting socially disadvantaged women to screening: Tailored vs. targeted communication strategy
- Inviting socially disadvantaged women to screening: Tailored vs. general communication strategy
- Inviting women to subsequent screening rounds: letter vs. no invitation
- Inviting women to screening: letter with fixed appointment vs. letter
- Inviting women to subsequent screening rounds: letter with fixed appointment vs. lett
- Inviting women to screening: letter with GP signature vs. letter
- Inviting women to subsequent screening rounds: letter with GP signature vs. letter
- Inviting women to screening: letter followed by phone call vs. letter
- Inviting women to subsequent screening rounds: letter followed by phone call vs. letter
- Inviting women to screening: letter followed by phone call vs. no invitation
- Inviting women to screening: letter followed by written reminder vs. letter
- Inviting women to subsequent screening rounds: letter followed by written reminder vs. letter
- Inviting women to screening: letter followed by face to face intervention vs. letter
- Inviting women to subsequent screening rounds: letter followed by face to face intervention vs. letter
- Inviting women to screening: e-mail vs. letter
- Inviting women to screening: automated telephone call vs. letter
- Inviting women to screening: letter followed by automated telephone call vs. letter
- Inviting women to screening: letter followed by SMS notification vs. letter
- Inviting women to screening: letter followed by personalised phone call vs. automated phone call
- Negative result: letter vs. nothing
- Further assessment: letter followed by a phone call
- Further assessment: timing of results
- Negative result: phone call vs. letter
- Negative result: face to face interview vs. letter
- Negative result: timing of results
- Tomosynthesis vs. assessment mammography
- Obtaining a sample from a suspicious breast lesion
- Type of guidance for needle core biopsy
- Stage 1: conventional exams
- Stage 1: PET-CT exams
- Stage 2: conventional exams
- Stage 2: PET-CT exams
- Stage 3: conventional exams
- Stage 3: PET-CT exams
- Stage 3: conventional exams plus PET-CT
- Use of clip-marking
- Additional magnetic resonance imaging
- Contrast-enhanced mammography
- Threshold of oestrogen for endocrine therapy
- Threshold of progesterone for endocrine therapy
- Multigene testing: 70 gene signature at low clinical risk
- Multigene testing: 70 gene signature at high clinical risk
- Multigene testing: 21 gene recurrence score
- Organising screening programmes
- Risk stratification
- Women 40-44
- Women 45-49
- Women 50-69
- Women 70-74
- Women with high breast density
- General Population
- Vulnerable Population
- Informing women about their results
- Women recalled due to suspicious lesions
- Obtaining a sample from a suspicious lesion
- Type of guidance for needle core biopsy
- Stage 1
- Stage 2
- Stage 3
- Planning surgical treatment
- Hormone receptor to guide use of endocrine therapy
- Multigene testing to guide use of chemotherapy