Informed choice about breast cancer prevention: randomized controlled trial of an online decision aid intervention

Ida J Korfage, Andrea Fuhrel-Forbis, Peter A Ubel, Brian J Zikmund-Fisher, Sarah M Greene, Jennifer B McClure, Dylan M Smith, Sharon Hensley Alford, Angela Fagerlin, Ida J Korfage, Andrea Fuhrel-Forbis, Peter A Ubel, Brian J Zikmund-Fisher, Sarah M Greene, Jennifer B McClure, Dylan M Smith, Sharon Hensley Alford, Angela Fagerlin

Abstract

Introduction: Tamoxifen and raloxifene are chemopreventive drugs that can reduce women’s relative risk of primary breast cancer by 50%; however, most women eligible for these drugs have chosen not to take them. The reasons for low uptake may be related to women’s knowledge or attitudes towards the drugs. We aimed to examine the impact of an online breast cancer chemoprevention decision aid (DA) on informed intentions and decisions of women at high risk of breast cancer.

Methods: We conducted a randomized clinical trial, assessing the effect of a DA about breast cancer chemoprevention on informed choices about chemoprevention. Women (n = 585), 46- to 74-years old old, completed online baseline, post-test, and three-month follow-up questionnaires. Participants were randomly assigned to either an intervention group, a standard control group that answered questions about chemoprevention at baseline, or a three-month control group that did not answer questions about chemoprevention at baseline. The main outcome measures were whether women’s intentions and decisions regarding chemoprevention drugs were informed, and whether women who viewed the DA were more likely to make informed decisions than women who did not view the DA, using a dichotomous composite variable ‘informed choice’ (yes/no) to classify informed decisions as those reflecting sufficient knowledge and concordance between a woman’s decision and relevant attitudes.

Results: Analyses showed that more intervention than standard control participants (52.7% versus 5.9%) made informed decisions at post-test, P <0.001. At the three-month follow-up, differences in rates of informed choice between intervention (16.9%) and both control groups (11.8% and 8.0%) were statistically non-significant, P = 0.067.

Conclusions: The DA increased informed decision making about breast cancer chemoprevention, although the impact on knowledge diminished over time. This study was not designed to determine how much knowledge decision makers must retain over time. Examining informed decisions increases understanding of the impact of DAs. A standard for defining and measuring sufficient knowledge for informed decisions is needed.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT00967824

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Flow diagram of study populations and assessment.

References

    1. Fisher B, Costantino JP, Wickerham DL, Redmond CK, Kavanah M, Cronin WM, Vogel V, Robidoux A, Dimitrov N, Atkins J, Daly M, Wieand S, Tan-Chiu E, Ford L, Wolmark N. Tamoxifen for prevention of breast cancer: report of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project P-1 Study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1998;15:1371–1388. doi: 10.1093/jnci/90.18.1371.
    1. Fisher B, Costantino JP, Wickerham DL, Cecchini RS, Cronin WM, Robidoux A, Bevers TB, Kavanah MT, Atkins JN, Margolese RG, Runowicz CD, James JM, Ford LG, Wolmark N. Tamoxifen for the prevention of breast cancer: current status of the National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project P-1 Study. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2005;15:1652–1662. doi: 10.1093/jnci/dji372.
    1. Jordan VC. Tamoxifen: the herald of a new era of preventive therapeutics. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1997;15:747–749. doi: 10.1093/jnci/89.11.747.
    1. Bober SL, Hoke LA, Duda RB, Regan MM, Tung NM. Decision-making about tamoxifen in women at high risk for breast cancer: clinical and psychological factors. J Clin Oncol. 2004;15:4951–4957. doi: 10.1200/JCO.2004.05.192.
    1. Port E, Montgomery L, Heerdt A, Borgen P. Patient reluctance toward tamoxifen use for breast cancer primary prevention. Ann Surg Oncol. 2001;15:580–585. doi: 10.1007/s10434-001-0580-9.
    1. Stacey D, O'Connor AM, DeGrasse C, Verma S. Development and evaluation of a breast cancer prevention decision aid for higher-risk women. Health Expect. 2003;15:3–18. doi: 10.1046/j.1369-6513.2003.00195.x.
    1. Fagerlin A, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Smith DM, Nair V, Derry HA, McClure JB, Greene S, Stark A, Hensley Alford S, Lantz P, Hayes DF, Wiese C, Claud Zweig S, Pitsch R, Jankovic A, Ubel PA. Women's decisions regarding tamoxifen for breast cancer prevention: responses to a tailored decision aid. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2010;15:613–620. doi: 10.1007/s10549-009-0618-4.
    1. Fagerlin A, Dillard AJ, Smith DM, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Pitsch R, McClure JB, Greene S, Hensley Alford S, Nair V, Hayes DF, Wiese C, Ubel PA. Women's interest in taking tamoxifen and raloxifene for breast cancer prevention: response to a tailored decision aid. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2011;15:681–688. doi: 10.1007/s10549-011-1450-1.
    1. Kaplan CP, Haas JS, Pérez-Stable EJ, Gregorich SE, Somkin C, Des Jarlais G, Kerlikowske K. Breast cancer risk reduction options: awareness, discussion, and use among women from rour ethnic groups. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2006;15:162–166. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-04-0758.
    1. Melnikow J, Paterniti D, Azari R, Kuenneth C, Birch S, Kuppermann M, Nuovo J, Keyzer J, Henderson S. Preferences of women evaluating risks of tamoxifen (POWER) study of preferences for tamoxifen for breast cancer risk reduction. Cancer. 2005;15:1996–2005. doi: 10.1002/cncr.20981.
    1. Metcalfe KA, Snyder C, Seidel J, Hanna D, Lynch HT, Narod S. The use of preventative measures among healthy women who carry BRCA1 or BRCA2 mutation. Fam Cancer. 2005;15:97–103. doi: 10.1007/s10689-005-4215-3.
    1. Salant T, Ganschow PS, Olopade OI, Lauderdale DS. Why take it if you don't have anything? Breast cancer risk perceptions and prevention choices at a public hospital. J Gen Intern Med. 2006;15:779–785. doi: 10.1111/j.1525-1497.2006.00461.x.
    1. Donovan R, Jalleh G, Jones S. The word 'cancer': reframing the context to reduce anxiety arousal. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2003;15:291–293.
    1. Paterniti DA, Melnikow J, Nuovo J, Henderson S, DeGregorio M, Kuppermann M, Nease R. "I'm going to die of something anyway": Women's perceptions of tamoxifen for breast cancer risk reduction. Ethnic Dis. 2005;15:365–372.
    1. Promoting Disease Management in Medicare. Hearings before the Subcommittee on Health of the House Committee on Ways and Means, 107th Cong, 2nd Sess. 2002. (Testimony of J. E. Wennberg)
    1. Osterlie W, Solbjor M, Skolbekken JA, Hofvind S, Saetnan AR, Forsmo S. Challenges of informed choice in organised screening. J Med Ethics. 2008;15:e5. doi: 10.1136/jme.2008.024802.
    1. Marteau TM, Dormandy E, Michie S. A measure of informed choice. Health Expect. 2001;15:99–108. doi: 10.1046/j.1369-6513.2001.00140.x.
    1. Michie S, Dormandy E, Marteau TM. The multi-dimensional measure of informed choice: a validation study. Patient Educ Couns. 2002;15:87–91. doi: 10.1016/S0738-3991(02)00089-7.
    1. O'Connor A, O'Brien-Pallas LL. In: Nursing Diagnosis and Intervention. McFarland GK, McFarlane EA, editor. Toronto: C.V. Mosby Company; 1989. Decisional conflict; pp. 573–588.
    1. Gail MH, Brinton LA, Byar DP, Donald K, Green SB, Schairer C, Mulvihill JJ. Projecting individualized probabilities of developing breast cancer for white females who are being examined annually. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1989;15:1879–1886. doi: 10.1093/jnci/81.24.1879.
    1. Vogel VG, Costantino JP, Wickerham DL, Cronin WM, Cecchini RS, Atkins JN, Bevers TB, Fehrenbacher L, Pajon ER, Wade JL, Robidoux A, Margolese RG, James J, Lippman SM, Runowicz CD, Ganz PA, Reis SE, McCaskill-Stevens W, Ford LG, Jordan VC, Wolmark N, National Surgical Adjuvant, Breast Bowel Project. Effects of tamoxifen vs raloxifene on the risk of developing invasive breast cancer and other disease outcomes. JAMA. 2006;15:2727–2741. doi: 10.1001/jama.295.23.joc60074.
    1. van den Bergh KAM, Essink-Bot M-L, van Klaveren RJ, de Koning HJ. Informed decision making does not affect health-related quality of life in lung cancer screening (NELSON trial) Eur J Cancer. 2010;15:3300–3306. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2010.05.030.
    1. Reyna VF. A theory of medical decision making and health: fuzzy trace theory. Med Decis Making. 2008;15:850–865. doi: 10.1177/0272989X08327066.
    1. Fagerlin A, Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Ubel PA, Jankovic A, Derry HA, Smith DM. Measuring numeracy without a math test: development of the subjective numeracy scale. Med Decis Making. 2007;15:672–680. doi: 10.1177/0272989X07304449.
    1. Zikmund-Fisher BJ, Smith DM, Ubel PA, Fagerlin A. Validation of the subjective numeracy scale (SNS): effects of low numeracy on comprehension of risk communications and utility elicitations. Med Decis Making. 2007;15:663–671. doi: 10.1177/0272989X07303824.
    1. Conner M, Sparks P. Ambivalence and attitudes. Eur Rev Soc Psychol. 2002;15:37–70. doi: 10.1080/14792772143000012.
    1. Stacey D, Bennett CL, Barry MJ, Col NF, Eden KB, Holmes-Rovner M, Llewellyn-Thomas H, Lyddiatt A, Legare F, Thomson R. Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011. p. CD001431.
    1. Mathieu E, Barratt A, Davey HM, McGeechan K, Howard K, Houssami N. Informed choice in mammography screening: a randomized trial of a decision aid for 70-year-old women. Arch Intern Med. 2007;15:2039–2046. doi: 10.1001/archinte.167.19.2039.
    1. Smith SK, Trevena L, Simpson JM, Barratt A, Nutbeam D, McCaffery KJ. A decision aid to support informed choices about bowel cancer screening among adults with low education: randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2010;15:c5370. doi: 10.1136/bmj.c5370.
    1. Bandilla W, Bosnjak M, Altdorfer P. Survey administration effects? Soc Sci Computer Rev. 2003;15:235–243. doi: 10.1177/0894439303021002009.
    1. Etter JF, Perneger TV. A comparison of cigarette smokers recruited through the Internet or by mail. Int J Epidemiol. 2001;15:521–5. doi: 10.1093/ije/30.3.521.

Source: PubMed

スポンサーと協力者

医学的状態

薬物療法

3
購読する