Academic Journal
Disclosing the Decision to Decline Breast Screening and/or Breast Cancer Treatment Due to Concerns About Overdiagnosis and Overtreatment.
| Τίτλος: | Disclosing the Decision to Decline Breast Screening and/or Breast Cancer Treatment Due to Concerns About Overdiagnosis and Overtreatment. |
|---|---|
| Συγγραφείς: | Jeffers S; Diabetes Research Centre, Leicester General Hospital, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK.; National Institute for Health and Care Research Applied Research Collaboration East Midlands, Leicester, UK., Pilnick A; School of Nursing and Public Health, Manchester Metropolitan University, Manchester, UK., Armstrong N; School of Health & Medical Sciences, City St George's, University of London, London, UK. |
| Πηγή: | Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy [Health Expect] 2025 Oct; Vol. 28 (5), pp. e70468. |
| Τύπος έκδοσης: | Journal Article; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't |
| Γλώσσα: | English |
| Στοιχεία περιοδικού: | Publisher: Wiley Country of Publication: England NLM ID: 9815926 Publication Model: Print Cited Medium: Internet ISSN: 1369-7625 (Electronic) Linking ISSN: 13696513 NLM ISO Abbreviation: Health Expect Subsets: MEDLINE |
| Imprint Name(s): | Original Publication: Oxford, UK : Wiley, c1998- |
| Ιατρικοί όροι (MeSH): | Breast Neoplasms*/diagnosis , Breast Neoplasms*/therapy , Breast Neoplasms*/psychology , Early Detection of Cancer*/psychology , Decision Making* , Overdiagnosis* , Overtreatment* , Disclosure*, Mass Screening/psychology ; Humans ; Female ; Middle Aged ; United Kingdom ; Aged ; Interviews as Topic ; Adult ; Qualitative Research ; Medical Overuse ; State Medicine |
| Περίληψη: | Background or Context: Overdiagnosis and overtreatment have been acknowledged as harms of the NHS Breast Screening Programme (BSP) due to the uncertainty around if, or how, non-invasive and invasive cancers identified through screening will progress. Importance is therefore placed on encouraging individuals to make an informed choice about whether to participate in screening and any follow-on interventions. Even though all screening programmes generally state explicitly that individuals should have the freedom to choose, research into wider cancer screening programmes shows how disclosing a decision to decline may be regarded as problematic by others. However, literature exploring experiences of disclosing the decision to decline breast screening or subsequent interventions within the UK context is limited. Objective: We explore women's experiences of disclosing the decision to decline screening, treatment and/or other recommended medical interventions after being invited to the NHS BSP, to understand how making the decision to decline breast screening and/or breast cancer treatment was received by others. Design: Semi-structured interviews. Setting and Participants: Twenty women who had made the decision to decline screening, treatment and/or other interventions recommended after being invited to the NHS BSP were recruited through social media, online forums and word of mouth. Results: Some of the women discussed responses from their family and friends when disclosing their decision to decline and explained how they received supportive responses from some and negative responses from others. Difficulties in disclosing their intention to decline healthcare professionals were also discussed by some of the women. Receiving unsupportive responses meant that some of the women felt hesitant about how and where they disclosed their decision. Conclusions: To varying degrees, the findings revealed the burden of having to explain and account for the decision to decline and manage the potential reaction to this as not acceptable. Patient or Public Contribution: Before recruitment and data collection commenced, we sought feedback from an individual with lived experience in declining breast cancer screening and treatment due to concerns about overdiagnosis and overtreatment. This individual provided valuable insights on the study design and the most effective methods for recruiting participants from the targeted population. Additionally, a topic guide was developed for the semi-structured interviews, which was then tested through a pilot interview with the same individual. The feedback from this pilot interview was instrumental in refining and improving the topic guide. (© 2025 The Author(s). Health Expectations published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.) |
| References: | JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2017 Jul 1;143(7):663-669. (PMID: 28278335) Br J Cancer. 2015 Feb 3;112(3):562-6. (PMID: 25535731) Patient Educ Couns. 2017 Dec;100(12):2172-2181. (PMID: 28838630) BMJ Open. 2024 Dec 10;14(12):e089155. (PMID: 39658288) J Med Ethics. 2000 Oct;26(5):358-62. (PMID: 11055039) Psychol Health. 2021 Apr;36(4):478-495. (PMID: 32404016) J Natl Cancer Inst. 2010 May 5;102(9):605-13. (PMID: 20413742) BMJ. 2012 May 28;344:e3502. (PMID: 22645185) J Health Organ Manag. 2006;20(5):376-96. (PMID: 17087401) Cancer. 2004 Sep 1;101(5 Suppl):1201-13. (PMID: 15316915) BMJ Open. 2022 Jun 8;12(6):e061211. (PMID: 35676016) J Mammary Gland Biol Neoplasia. 2018 Dec;23(4):293-301. (PMID: 30206737) AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2018 Feb;210(2):285-291. (PMID: 29091010) Ann Intern Med. 2012 Apr 3;156(7):536-7. (PMID: 22473439) |
| Grant Information: | This study was supported by a PhD studentship funded by the Economic and Social Research Council through the Midlands Graduate School Doctoral Training Partnership (Grant number ES/P000711/1). |
| Entry Date(s): | Date Created: 20251014 Date Completed: 20251014 Latest Revision: 20260522 |
| Update Code: | 20260522 |
| PubMed Central ID: | PMC12518501 |
| DOI: | 10.1111/hex.70468 |
| PMID: | 41084277 |
| Βάση Δεδομένων: | MEDLINE |
| ISSN: | 1369-7625 |
|---|---|
| DOI: | 10.1111/hex.70468 |