Department of General Practice, Faculty of Medicine, University of Nantes, Nantes, France.
Division of Population Medicine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, United Kingdom.
Cancer. 2020 Jun 15;126(12):2765-2774. doi: 10.1002/cncr.32858. Epub 2020 Apr 8.
Mammographic screening contributes to a reduction in specific mortality, but it has disadvantages. Decision aids are tools designed to support people's decisions. Because these aids influence patient choice, their quality is crucial. The objective of the current study was to conduct a systematic review of decision aids developed for women eligible for mammographic screening who have an average breast cancer risk and to assess the quality of these aids. The systematic review included articles published between January 1, 1997, and August 1, 2019, in the PubMed, Embase, Cochrane, and PsycInfo databases. The studies were reviewed independently by 2 reviewers. Any study containing a decision aid for women eligible for mammographic screening with an average breast cancer risk was included. Two double-blind reviewers assessed the quality of the selected decision aids using the International Patient Decision Aid Standards instrument, version 3 (IPDASi). Twenty-three decision aids were extracted. Classification of decision aid quality using the IPDASi demonstrated large variations among the decision aids (maximum IPDASi score, 188; mean ± SD score, 132.6 ± 23.8; range, 85-172). Three decision aids had high overall scores. The 3 best-rated dimensions were disclosure (maximum score, 8; mean score, 6.8), focusing on transparency; information (maximum score, 32; mean score, 26.1), focusing on the provision of sufficient details; and probabilities (maximum score, 32; mean score 25), focusing on the presentation of probabilities. The 3 lowest-rated dimensions were decision support technology evaluation (maximum score, 8; mean score, 4.3), focusing on the effectiveness of the decision aid; development (maximum score, 24; mean score, 12.6), evaluating the development process; and plain language (maximum score, 4; mean score, 1.9), assessing appropriateness for patients with low literacy. The results of this review identified 3 high-quality decision aids for breast cancer screening.
乳腺 X 线筛查有助于降低特定死亡率,但也存在缺点。决策辅助工具是旨在支持人们决策的工具。由于这些辅助工具会影响患者的选择,因此其质量至关重要。本研究的目的是对适用于具有平均乳腺癌风险的有资格进行乳腺 X 线筛查的女性的决策辅助工具进行系统评价,并评估这些辅助工具的质量。系统评价包括 1997 年 1 月 1 日至 2019 年 8 月 1 日期间在 PubMed、Embase、Cochrane 和 PsycInfo 数据库中发表的文章。由 2 名独立评审员对研究进行了审查。纳入的研究包含适用于具有平均乳腺癌风险的有资格进行乳腺 X 线筛查的女性的决策辅助工具。2 名双盲评审员使用国际患者决策辅助工具标准仪器,第 3 版(IPDASi)评估所选决策辅助工具的质量。提取了 23 个决策辅助工具。使用 IPDASi 对决策辅助工具质量进行分类显示,决策辅助工具之间存在很大差异(最大 IPDASi 评分 188;平均分数±标准差 132.6±23.8;范围 85-172)。有 3 个决策辅助工具的总体评分较高。3 个评价最高的维度为披露(最高评分 8;平均评分 6.8),重点是透明度;信息(最高评分 32;平均评分 26.1),重点是提供足够的细节;概率(最高评分 32;平均评分 25),重点是呈现概率。3 个评价最低的维度为决策支持技术评估(最高评分 8;平均评分 4.3),重点是决策辅助工具的有效性;开发(最高评分 24;平均评分 12.6),评估开发过程;以及通俗易懂的语言(最高评分 4;平均评分 1.9),评估是否适合低文化素养的患者。本研究结果确定了 3 种高质量的乳腺癌筛查决策辅助工具。