• Am J Prev Med · Sep 2020

    A Pre-Test-Post-Test Trial of a Breast Cancer Risk Report for Women in Their 40s.

    • Mara A Schonberg, Roger B Davis, Maria C Karamourtopoulos, Adlin Pinheiro, Scot B Sternberg, Alicia R Jacobson, Gianna M Aliberti, Tejas S Mehta, Jennifer L Cluett, Marc L Cohen, Tobie Atlas, and Nadine M Tung.
    • Division of General Medicine, Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts. Electronic address: mschonbe@bidmc.harvard.edu.
    • Am J Prev Med. 2020 Sep 1; 59 (3): 343-354.

    IntroductionGuidelines recommend individualized breast cancer screening and prevention interventions for women in their 40s. Yet, few primary care clinicians assess breast cancer risk.Study DesignPretest-Posttest trial.Setting/ParticipantsWomen aged 40-49 years were recruited from one large Boston-based academic primary care practice between July 2017 and April 2019.InterventionParticipants completed a pretest, received a personalized breast cancer risk report, saw their primary care clinician, and completed a posttest.Main Outcome MeasuresUsing mixed effects models, changes in screening intentions (0-100 scale [0=will not screen to 100=will screen]), mammography knowledge, decisional conflict, and receipt of screening were examined. Analyses were conducted from June 2019 to February 2020.ResultsPatient (n=337) mean age was 44.1 (SD=2.9) years, 61.4% were non-Hispanic white, and 76.6% were college graduates; 306 (90.5%) completed follow-up (203 with 5-year breast cancer risk <1.1%). Screening intentions declined from pre- to post-visit (79.3 to 68.0, p<0.0001), especially for women with 5-year risk <1.1% (77.2 to 63.3, p<0.0001), but still favored screening. In the 2 years prior, 37.6% had screening mammography compared with 41.8% over a mean 16 months follow-up (p=0.17). Mammography knowledge increased and decisional conflict declined. Eleven (3.3%) women met criteria for breast cancer prevention medications (ten discussed medications with their clinicians), 22 (6.5%) for MRI (19 discussed MRI with their clinician), and 67 (19.8%) for genetic counseling (47 discussed with the clinician).ConclusionsReceipt of a personalized breast cancer report was associated with women in their 40s making more-informed and less-conflicted mammography screening decisions and with high-risk women discussing breast cancer prevention interventions with clinicians.Trial RegistrationThis study is registered at www.clinicaltrials.govNCT03180086.Copyright © 2020 American Journal of Preventive Medicine. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

      Pubmed     Full text   Copy Citation     Plaintext  

      Add institutional full text...

    Notes

     
    Knowledge, pearl, summary or comment to share?
    300 characters remaining
    help        
    You can also include formatting, links, images and footnotes in your notes
    • Simple formatting can be added to notes, such as *italics*, _underline_ or **bold**.
    • Superscript can be denoted by <sup>text</sup> and subscript <sub>text</sub>.
    • Numbered or bulleted lists can be created using either numbered lines 1. 2. 3., hyphens - or asterisks *.
    • Links can be included with: [my link to pubmed](http://pubmed.com)
    • Images can be included with: ![alt text](https://bestmedicaljournal.com/study_graph.jpg "Image Title Text")
    • For footnotes use [^1](This is a footnote.) inline.
    • Or use an inline reference [^1] to refer to a longer footnote elseweher in the document [^1]: This is a long footnote..

    hide…