Comparing perceived clarity of information on overdiagnosis used for breast and prostate cancer screening in England: an experimental survey. Issue 8 (21st August 2017)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Ghanouni, Alex; Renzi, Cristina; McBride, Emily; Waller, Jo
• Is Part Of: BMJ open. Volume 7:Issue 8(2017)
• Publication Date: 2017-08-21
• Subjects: Decision Making -- Surveys and Questionnaires -- Early Detection of Cancer -- Mass Screening -- Medical Overuse; Medicine -- Research -- Periodicals; 610.72
• DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-015955
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2044-6055

Abstract

Abstract : Objectives: 'Overdiagnosis', detection of disease that would never have caused symptoms or death, is a public health concern due to possible psychological and physical harm but little is known about how best to explain it. This study evaluated public perceptions of widely used information on the concept to identify scope for improving communication methods. Design: Experimental survey carried out by a market research company via face-to-face computer-assisted interviews. Setting: Interviews took place in participants' homes. Participants: 2111 members of the general public in England aged 18–70 years began the survey; 1616 were eligible for analysis. National representativeness was sought via demographic quota sampling. Interventions: Participants were allocated at random to receive a brief description of overdiagnosis derived from written information used by either the NHS Breast Screening Programme or the prostate cancer screening equivalent. Primary and secondary outcome measures: The primary outcome was how clear the information was perceived to be (extremely/very clear vs less clear). Other measures included previous exposure to screening information, decision-making styles and demographic characteristics (eg, education). Binary logistic regression was used to assess predictors of perceived clarity. Results: Overdiagnosis information from the BSP was more likely to be rated as more clear compared with the prostate screening equivalent (adjusted OR: 1.43, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.75; p=0.001). Participants were more likely to perceive the information as more clear if they had previously encountered similar information (OR: 1.77, 1.40 to 2.23; p<0.0005) or a screening leaflet (OR: 1.35, 1.04 to 1.74; p=0.024) or had a more 'rational' decision-making style (OR: 1.06, 1.02 to 1.11; p=0.009). Conclusions: Overdiagnosis information from breast screening may be a useful template for communicating the concept more generally (eg, via organised campaigns). However, this information may be less well-suited to individuals who are less inclined to consider risks and benefits during decision-making.