↓ Skip to main content

How Do Women View Risk-Based Mammography Screening? A Qualitative Study

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of General Internal Medicine, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (60th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
5 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
22 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
72 Mendeley
Title
How Do Women View Risk-Based Mammography Screening? A Qualitative Study
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine, July 2018
DOI 10.1007/s11606-018-4601-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Xiaofei He, Karen E. Schifferdecker, Elissa M. Ozanne, Anna N. A. Tosteson, Steven Woloshin, Lisa M. Schwartz

Abstract

Decades of persuasive messages have reinforced the importance of traditional screening mammography at regular intervals. A potential new paradigm, risk-based screening, adjusts mammography frequency based on a woman's estimated breast cancer risk in order to maximize mortality reduction while minimizing false positives and overdiagnosis. Women's views of risk-based screening are unknown. To explore women's views and personal acceptability of a potential risk-based mammography screening paradigm. Four semi-structured focus group discussions about screening mammography and surveys before provision of information about risk-based screening. We analyzed coded focus group transcripts using a mixed deductive (content analysis) and inductive (grounded theory) approach. Convenience sample of 29 women (40-74 years old) with no personal history of breast cancer recruited by print and online media in New Hampshire and Vermont. Twenty-seven out of 29 women reported having undergone mammography screening. All participants were white and most were highly educated. Some women accepted the idea that early cancer detection with traditional screening was beneficial-although many also reported hearing inconsistent recommendations from clinicians and mixed messages from media reports about mammography. Some women were familiar with a risk-based screening paradigm (primarily related to cervical cancer, n = 8) and thought matching screening mammography frequency to personal risk made sense (n = 8). Personal acceptability of risk-based screening was mixed. Some believed risk-based screening could reduce the harms of false positives and overdiagnosis (n = 7). Others thought screening less often might result in missing a dangerous diagnosis (n = 14). Many (n = 18) expressed concerns about the feasibility of risk-based screening and questioned whether breast cancer risk estimates could be accurate. Some suspected that risk-based mammography was motivated by a desire to save money (n = 6). Some women thought risk-based screening made sense. Willingness to abandon traditional screening for the new paradigm was mixed. Broad acceptability of risk-based screening will require clearer communication about its rationale and feasibility and consistent messages from the health care team.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 72 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 72 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 9 13%
Researcher 7 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 7 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 8%
Student > Bachelor 4 6%
Other 10 14%
Unknown 29 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 13 18%
Social Sciences 6 8%
Psychology 5 7%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 7%
Arts and Humanities 3 4%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 35 49%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 August 2018.
All research outputs
#8,277,349
of 24,931,592 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#4,361
of 8,062 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#131,346
of 335,386 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#71
of 129 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,931,592 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,062 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 22.1. This one is in the 45th percentile – i.e., 45% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 335,386 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 60% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 129 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.