CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 11Global Cancer Incidence and ScreeningWomen's cancer prevention and managementPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare

Factors affecting intention to screen after being informed of benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: a study in 5 European countries in 2021

Open access
Ritchie, David, Van Hal, Guido, Van den Broucke, Stephan·2022·Archives of Public Health
DOI 10.1186/s13690-022-00902-6PMC PMC9125943
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Background: Participation in mammography screening comes with harms alongside benefits. Information about screening provided to women should convey this information yet concerns persist about its effect on participation. This study addressed factors that may influence the intention to screen once a woman has been informed about benefits and harms of participation. Methods: A cross-sectional survey of women from five countries (Belgium, France, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom) was performed in January 2021. The survey contained a statement regarding the benefits and harms of mammography screening along with items to measure cognitive variables from the theory of planned behaviour and health belief model and the 6-item version of the European Health Literacy Survey Questionnaire (HLS-EU-Q6). Logistic regression and mediation analysis were performed to investigate the effect of cognitive and sociodemographic variables. Results: A total of 1180 participants responded to the survey. 19.5% of participants ( n = 230) were able to correctly identify that mammography screening carries both benefits and harms. 56.9% of participants ( n = 672) responded that they would be more likely to participate in screening in the future after being informed about the benefits and harms of mammography screening. Perceived behavioural control and social norms demonstrated were significant in predicting intention, whereas, the effect of health literacy was limited. Conclusions: Informing women about the presence of benefits and harms of in mammography screening participation did not negatively impact upon intention to be screened. Information should also address perception on implementation factors alongside messages on benefits and harms. Overall, screening programme managers should not be discouraged by the assumption of decreased participation through increasing efforts to address the lack of knowledge on benefits and harms.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s13690-022-00902-6

Cites

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Health literacy was not associated with an intention to screen for breast cancer in a cross-sectional survey study in 5 European countries (Belgium, France, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom).

    “Health literacy was not associated with an intention to screen for BC in a cross-sectional survey study in 5 European countries (Belgium, France, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdon) [12].”

    From Improving cancer screening uptake: A behavioural and cultural insights perspective and rapid review (2026) · cites this paper as [12]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

No citation lists for this paper

No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.

References 35 · Cited by 11

Research works printed but not linked: 34

  1. [1]Sung H Ferlay J Siegel RL Laversanne M Soerjomataram I Jemal A Global cancer statistics 2020: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries CA Cancer J Clin 2021 71 3 209 249 10.3322/caac.21660 33538338 · DOI · Paper page
  2. [2]Wild CP Weiderpass E Stewart BW World cancer report: cancer research for cancer prevention Cancer Control 2020 199 512 39432694
  3. [3]Anderson BO Ilbawi AM Fidarova E Weiderpass E Stevens L Abdel-Wahab M The global breast cancer initiative: a strategic collaboration to strengthen health care for non-communicable diseases Lancet Oncol 2021 22 5 578 581 10.1016/S1470-2045(21)00071-1 33691141 · DOI
  4. [5]The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review. Lancet (London, England). 2012;380(9855):1778–86 [cited 2021 Jul 14]. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23117178/. 23117178
  5. [6]Mireille B Sue M Lennarth N Sisse N Hakan J Ellen P The impact of mammographic screening on breast cancer mortality in Europe: a review of observational studies J Med Screen 2012 19 Suppl 1 SUPPL. 1 14 25 22972807
  6. [7]Gøtzsche Peter C, Jørgensen K. Screening for breast cancer with mammography. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;2013(6) [cited 2021 Jul 14]. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23737396/. PMC6464778 23737396
  7. [8]Autier P Boniol M Koechlin A Pizot C Boniol M Effectiveness of and overdiagnosis from mammography screening in the Netherlands: population-based study BMJ 2017 359 j5224 10.1136/bmj.j5224 29208760 PMC5712859 · DOI
  8. [10]Marteau TM Dormandy E Michie S A measure of informed choice Health Expectations 2001 4 2 99 10.1046/j.1369-6513.2001.00140.x 11359540 PMC5060053 · DOI
  9. [11]Reder M Berens E-M Spallek J Kolip P Development of the informed choice in mammography screening questionnaire (IMQ): factor structure, reliability, and validity BMC Psychology 2019 7 1 1 12 10.1186/s40359-019-0291-2 30890190 PMC6423759 · DOI
  10. [12]WHO position paper on mammography screening. 2014 [cited 2021 Jul 14]; Available from: www.who. 25642524
  11. [13]Waller J Whitaker KL Winstanley K Power E Wardle J A survey study of women’s responses to information about overdiagnosis in breast cancer screening in Britain Br J Cancer 2014 111 9 1831 1835 10.1038/bjc.2014.482 25167224 PMC4453735 · DOI
  12. [14]Sasieni PD Smith RA Duffy SW Informed decision-making and breast cancer screening J Med Screen 2015 22 4 165 167 10.1177/0969141315587344 26018778 PMC4638309 · DOI
  13. [15]Ghanouni A Renzi C Meisel SF Waller J Common methods of measuring ‘informed choice’ in screening participation: challenges and future directions Prev Med Rep 2016 4 601 607 10.1016/j.pmedr.2016.10.017 27843761 PMC5107638 · DOI
  14. [16]Wegwarth O, Widschwendter M, Cibula D, Sundström K, Portuesi R, Lein I, et al. What do European women know about their female cancer risks and cancer screening? A cross-sectional online intervention survey in five European countries. BMJ Open. 2018;8(12) [cited 2020 Oct 29]. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30593552/. PMC6318519 30593552
  15. [17]Seaman K Dzidic PL Castell E Saunders C Breen LJ A systematic review of Women’s knowledge of screening mammography Breast 2018 42 81 93 10.1016/j.breast.2018.08.102 30199761 · DOI
  16. [18]Sørensen K van den Broucke S Fullam J Doyle G Pelikan J Slonska Z Health literacy and public health: a systematic review and integration of definitions and models BMC Public Health 2012 12 1 1 13 10.1186/1471-2458-12-80 22276600 PMC3292515 · DOI
  17. [19]Oldach BR Katz ML Health literacy and cancer screening: a systematic review Patient Educ Couns 2014 94 2 149 10.1016/j.pec.2013.10.001 24207115 PMC3946869 · DOI
  18. [20]Pruitt SL Shim MJ Mullen PD Vernon SW Amick BC III The Association of Area Socioeconomic Status and Breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review Cancer Epidemiol Biomark Prev 2009 18 10 2579 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-09-0135 PMC2760038 19815634 · DOI
  19. [21]NHS England Report of the independent review of adult screening programmes in England 2019
  20. [22]Stormacq C van den Broucke S Wosinski J Does health literacy mediate the relationship between socioeconomic status and health disparities? Integrative review Health Promot Int 2019 34 5 E1 17 10.1093/heapro/day062 30107564 · DOI · Paper page
  21. [23]Nutbeam D, Levin-Zamir D, Rowlands G. Health literacy in context. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2018;15(12) [cited 2021 Sep 5]. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30486332/. PMC6313523 30486332
  22. [24]Champion V Skinner CS Menon U Development of a self-efficacy scale for mammography Res Nurs Health 2005 28 4 329 336 10.1002/nur.20088 16028267 · DOI
  23. [26]Baron RM Kenny DA The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations J Pers Soc Psychol 1986 51 6 1173 1182 10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173 3806354 · DOI · Paper page
  24. [28]Pérez-Lacasta MJ Martínez-Alonso M Garcia M Sala M Perestelo-Pérez L Vidal C Effect of information about the benefits and harms of mammography on women’s decision making: the InforMa randomised controlled trial PLoS One 2019 14 3 e0214057 10.1371/journal.pone.0214057 30913217 PMC6435150 · DOI
  25. [29]Hersch J Barratt A Jansen J Irwig L McGeechan K Jacklyn G Use of a decision aid including information on overdetection to support informed choice about breast cancer screening: a randomised controlled trial Lancet. 2015 385 9978 1642 1652 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60123-4 25701273 · DOI
  26. [30]Domenighetti G D’Avanzo B Egger M Berrino F Perneger T Mosconi P Int J Epidemiol 2003 32 5 816 821 10.1093/ije/dyg257 14559757 · DOI
  27. [31]Schwartz LM Woloshin S Fowler FJ Jr Welch HG Enthusiasm for cancer screening in the United States JAMA 2004 291 1 71 78 10.1001/jama.291.1.71 14709578 · DOI
  28. [32]Waller J Douglas E Whitaker KL Wardle J Women’s responses to information about overdiagnosis in the UK breast cancer screening programme: a qualitative study BMJ Open 2013 3 4 e002703 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-002703 PMC3641428 23610383 · DOI
  29. [33]Hersch J Barratt A McGeechan K Jansen J Houssami N Dhillon H Informing women about Overdetection in breast cancer screening: two-year outcomes from a randomized trial J Natl Cancer Inst 2021 113 11 1523 1530 10.1093/jnci/djab083 33871631 PMC8562961 · DOI
  30. [34]Stiggelbout A, Copp T, Jacklyn G, Jansen J, Liefers G-J, McCaffery K, et al. Women’s acceptance of Overdetection in breast cancer screening: can we assess harm-benefit tradeoffs? 2019;40(1):42–51. 10.1177/0272989X19886886 [cited 2021 Sep 14]. Available from: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0272989X19886886. PMC6985988 31722605 · DOI
  31. [35]Hersch J, Jansen J, Barratt A, Irwig L, Houssami N, Howard K, et al. Women’s views on overdiagnosis in breast cancer screening: a qualitative study. BMJ. 2013;346(7892) [cited 2021 Sep 14]. Available from: https://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.f158. PMC3552499 23344309
  32. [36]Sicsic J Pelletier-Fleury N Moumjid N Women’s benefits and harms trade-offs in breast cancer screening: results from a discrete-choice experiment Value Health 2018 21 1 78 88 10.1016/j.jval.2017.07.003 29304944 · DOI
  33. [37]Baena-Canada JM Rosado-Varela P Exposito-Alvarez I Gonzalez-Guerrero M Nieto-Vera J Benitez-Rodriguez E Women's perceptions of breast cancer screening. Spanish screening programme survey Breast 2014 23 6 883 888 10.1016/j.breast.2014.09.010 25456103 · DOI
  34. [38]Tolma EL Reininger BM Evans A Ureda J Examining the theory of planned behavior and the construct of self-efficacy to predict mammography intention Health Educ Behav 2006 33 2 233 251 10.1177/1090198105277393 16531515 · DOI

Authors
Ritchie, D., Van Hal, G., & Van den Broucke, S.
Affiliations
University of Antwerp (BE)
Corresponding author
Ritchie, David
ORCID
Ritchie, David
Venue
Archives of Public Health
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2022-05-23
Volume
80
Issue
1
Pages
143-143
ISSN
  • 0778-7367 (ISSN-L)
  • 2049-3258
DOI
10.1186/s13690-022-00902-6
PMC
PMC9125943
OpenAlex
W4281295422
Cited by
11
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 2
FWCI
0.94
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Archives of Public Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Lirias (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Digital Access to Libraries (Université catholique de Louvain (UCL), l'Université de Namur (UNamur) and the Université Saint-Louis (USL-B)) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Women's cancer prevention and management
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Keywords
breast cancer screening, mammography, screening intention, informed consent, theory of planned behavior, Health Belief Model, health literacy, perceived behavioral control, social norms, screening uptake, women

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review