↓ Skip to main content

The role of communication in breast cancer screening: a qualitative study with Australian experts

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cancer, October 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
7 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
16 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
60 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The role of communication in breast cancer screening: a qualitative study with Australian experts
Published in
BMC Cancer, October 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12885-015-1749-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Lisa M. Parker, Lucie Rychetnik, Stacy M. Carter

Abstract

One well-accepted strategy for optimising outcomes in mammographic breast cancer screening is to improve communication with women about screening. It is not always clear, however, what it is that communication should be expected to achieve, and why or how this is so. We investigated Australian experts' opinions on breast screening communication. Our research questions were: 1 What are the views of Australian experts about communicating with consumers on breast screening? 2 How do experts reason about this topic? We used a qualitative methodology, interviewing 33 breast screening experts across Australia with recognisable influence in the Australian mammographic breast cancer screening setting. We used purposive and theoretical sampling to identify experts from different professional roles (including clinicians, program managers, policy makers, advocates and researchers) with a range of opinions about communication in breast screening. Experts discussed the topic of communication with consumers by focusing on two main questions: how strongly to guide consumers' breast cancer screening choices, and what to communicate about overdiagnosis. Each expert adopted one of three approaches to consumer communication depending on their views about these topics. We labelled these approaches: Be screened; Be screened and here's why; Screening is available please consider whether it's right for you. There was a similar level of support for all three approaches. Experts' reasoning was grounded in how they conceived of and prioritised their underlying values including: delivering benefits, avoiding harms, delivering more benefits than harms, respecting autonomy and transparency. There is disagreement between experts regarding communication with breast screening consumers. Our study provides some insights into this persisting lack of consensus, highlighting the different meanings that experts give to values, and different ways that values are prioritised. We suggest that explicit discussion about ethical values might help to focus thinking, clarify concepts and promote consensus in policy around communication with consumers. More specifically, we suggest that decision-makers who are considering policy on screening communication should begin with identifying and agreeing on the specific values to be prioritised and use this to guide them in establishing what the communication aims will be and which communication strategy will achieve those aims.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 7 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 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Estonia 1 2%
Unknown 59 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 12 20%
Unspecified 6 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 8%
Other 4 7%
Professor 4 7%
Other 15 25%
Unknown 14 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 15 25%
Nursing and Health Professions 9 15%
Unspecified 6 10%
Social Sciences 3 5%
Psychology 2 3%
Other 8 13%
Unknown 17 28%
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 06 November 2015.
All research outputs
#7,551,990
of 23,881,329 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#2,010
of 8,483 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#92,561
of 286,461 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#57
of 228 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,881,329 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 68th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,483 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its peers.
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 286,461 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 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 228 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.