Hazel Thornton’s research while affiliated with University of Leicester and other places

Communication that empowers the public, patients, clinicians, and policy makers to think differently about overdiagnosis will help support a more sustainable healthcare future for all, argue Kirsten McCaffery and colleagues. Overdiagnosis and overtreatment have serious implications for individuals, healthcare systems, and society, and effective strategies are urgently needed to help the public, clinicians, and policy makers address this problem. Communication about overdiagnosis has been highlighted as essential for moving forward but presents several challenges, such as the potential to confuse the public, undermine trust, and adversely affect people who already have a diagnosis. Various communication based strategies offer real promise; we describe what is known and what we need to know to communicate effectively and safely about overdiagnosis and overtreatment.

Background: Mammography screening can reduce breast cancer mortality. However, most women are unaware that inconsequential disease can also be detected by screening, leading to overdiagnosis and overtreatment. We aimed to investigate whether including information about overdetection of breast cancer in a decision aid would help women aged around 50 years to make an informed choice about breast screening. Methods: We did a community-based, parallel-group, randomised controlled trial in New South Wales, Australia, using a random cohort of women aged 48-50 years. Recruitment to the study was done by telephone; women were eligible if they had not had mammography in the past 2 years and did not have a personal or strong family history of breast cancer. With a computer program, we randomly assigned 879 participants to either the intervention decision aid (comprising evidence-based explanatory and quantitative information on overdetection, breast cancer mortality reduction, and false positives) or a control decision aid (including information on breast cancer mortality reduction and false positives). Participants and interviewers were masked to group assignment. The primary outcome was informed choice (defined as adequate knowledge and consistency between attitudes and screening intentions), which we assessed by telephone interview about 3 weeks after random allocation. The primary outcome was analysed in all women who completed the relevant follow-up interview questions fully. This trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, number ACTRN12613001035718. Findings: Between January, 2014, and July, 2014, 440 women were allocated to the intervention group and 439 were assigned to the control group. 21 women in the intervention group and 20 controls were lost to follow-up; a further ten women assigned to the intervention and 11 controls did not answer all questions on attitudes. Therefore, 409 women in the intervention group and 408 controls were analysed for the primary outcome. 99 (24%) of 409 women in the intervention group made an informed choice compared with 63 (15%) of 408 in the control group (difference 9%, 95% CI 3-14; p=0·0017). Compared with controls, more women in the intervention group met the threshold for adequate overall knowledge (122/419 [29%] vs 71/419 [17%]; difference 12%, 95% CI 6-18; p<0·0001), fewer women expressed positive attitudes towards screening (282/409 [69%] vs 340/408 [83%]; 14%, 9-20; p<0·0001), and fewer women intended to be screened (308/419 [74%] vs 363/419 [87%]; 13%, 8-19; p<0·0001). When conceptual knowledge alone was considered, 203 (50%) of 409 women in the intervention group made an informed choice compared with 79 (19%) of 408 in the control group (p<0·0001). Interpretation: Information on overdetection of breast cancer provided within a decision aid increased the number of women making an informed choice about breast screening. Becoming better informed might mean women are less likely to choose screening. Funding: Australian National Health and Medical Research Council. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

It is difficult, well nigh impossible, to undo an ineffective programme after it has been set up. Those involved—the government in this case—automatically adopt a defensive position so as not to disappoint the people they have promised to help. They promise “risk assessment” to help prevent heart disease, stroke, diabetes, kidney disease, and certain types of dementia.1 It is misleading to affix different labels of “risk awareness,” “risk assessment,” and “risk management” to such programmes. “Health checks” or “screening”—the intent and content are the same. Nor does changing the name of the NHS breast screening programme’s age extension trial from a randomised controlled trial to an epidemiological study alter what is being inflicted on unsuspecting women to no benefit and great cost to them and the NHS coffers.2The accepted scientific process is to determine what is already known about a topic by undertaking a thorough systematic review of available evidence before implementing an idea such as offering health checks. To promise evaluation (also used to justify not stopping the age extension trial) after blindly setting up a programme, using people as pawns to see how much they might benefit, disregarding how much they will be harmed, and expending tax payers resources is breathtakingly naive and arrogant, and totally unscientific. So much for the director of public health and wellbeing’s promise that “PHE [Public Health England] is committed to bringing greater scientific oversight to this programme.” Education is needed here, not just of the public, but for many of those “in the business” too.3NotesCite this as: BMJ 2015;350:h990

Objective To develop, pilot and refine a decision aid (ahead of a randomised trial evaluation) for women around age 50 facing their initial decision about whether to undergo mammography screening. Design Two-stage mixed-method pilot study including qualitative interviews (n=15) and a randomised comparison using a quantitative survey (n=34). Setting New South Wales, Australia. Participants Women aged 43–59 years with no personal history of breast cancer. Interventions The decision aid provides evidence-based information about important outcomes of mammography screening over 20 years (breast cancer mortality reduction, overdetection and false positives) compared with no screening. The information is presented in a short booklet for women, combining text and visual formats. A control version produced for the purposes of comparison omits the overdetection-related content. Outcomes Comprehension of key decision aid content and acceptability of the materials. Results Most women considered the decision aid clear and helpful and would recommend it to others. Nonetheless, the piloting process raised important issues that we tried to address in iterative revisions. Some participants found it hard to understand overdetection and why it is of concern, while there was often confusion about the distinction between overdetection and false positives. In a screening context, encountering balanced information rather than persuasion appears to be contrary to people's expectations, but women appreciated the opportunity to become better informed. Conclusions The concept of overdetection is complex and new to the public. This study highlights some key challenges for communicating about this issue. It is important to clarify that overdetection differs from false positives in terms of its more serious consequences (overtreatment and associated harms). Screening decision aids also must clearly explain their purpose of facilitating informed choice. A staged approach to development and piloting of decision aids is recommended to further improve understanding of overdetection and support informed decision-making about screening.

Introduction: Women are largely unaware that mammography screening can cause overdetection of inconsequential disease, leading to overdiagnosis and overtreatment of breast cancer. Evidence is lacking about how information on overdetection affects women's breast screening decisions and experiences. This study investigates the consequences of providing information about overdetection of breast cancer to women approaching the age of invitation to mammography screening. Methods and analysis: This is a randomised controlled trial with an embedded longitudinal qualitative substudy. Participants are a community sample of women aged 48–50 in New South Wales, Australia, recruited in 2014. Women are randomly allocated to either quantitative only follow-up (n=904) or additional qualitative follow-up (n=66). Women in each stream are then randomised to receive either the intervention (evidence-based information booklet including overdetection, breast cancer mortality reduction and false positives) or a control information booklet (including mortality reduction and false positives only). The primary outcome is informed choice about breast screening (adequate knowledge, and consistency between attitudes and intentions) assessed via telephone interview at 2 weeks postintervention. Secondary outcomes measured at this time include decision process (decisional conflict and confidence) and psychosocial outcomes (anticipated regret, anxiety, breast cancer worry and perceived risk). Women are further followed up at 6 months, 1 and 2 years to assess self-reported screening behaviour and long-term psychosocial outcomes (decision regret, quality of life). Participants in the qualitative stream undergo additional in-depth interviews at each time point to explore the views and experiences of women who do and do not choose to have screening. Ethics and dissemination: The study has ethical approval, and results will be published in peer-reviewed journals. This research will help ensure that information about overdetection may be communicated clearly and effectively, using an evidence-based approach, to women considering breast cancer screening. Trial registration number: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12613001035718.

Mammographic screening is increasingly in the spotlight as evidence accumulates that the potential for harm is greater than that for providing benefit.1 Thanks to intensive international research efforts, and updated systematic reviews,2 this compelling evidence is increasingly acknowledged and accepted, not only by policy makers and providers, but also by citizens, at …