Prueba de cribado mamográficocómo reciben la información y cómo quieren ser informadas las usuarias

  1. Luque-Ribelles, Violeta 1
  2. Quílez Cutillas, Alicia 2
  3. Rosado Varela, Petra 3
  4. Baena, José Manuel 2
  1. 1 Universidad de Cádiz
    info

    Universidad de Cádiz

    Cádiz, España

    ROR https://ror.org/04mxxkb11

  2. 2 Hospital Universitario Puerta del Mar
    info

    Hospital Universitario Puerta del Mar

    Cádiz, España

    ROR https://ror.org/040xzg562

  3. 3 Hospital Universitario de Puerto Real
    info

    Hospital Universitario de Puerto Real

    Puerto Real, España

    ROR https://ror.org/04fbqvq73

Zugehörigkeit anzeigen +
Zeitschrift:
International Journal of Developmental and Educational Psychology: INFAD. Revista de Psicología

ISSN: 0214-9877

Datum der Publikation: 2019

Titel der Ausgabe: SALUD, PSICOLOGÍA Y EDUCACIÓN

Ausgabe: 5

Nummer: 1

Seiten: 145-158

Art: Artikel

DOI: 10.17060/IJODAEP.2019.N1.V5.1577 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openOpen Access editor

Andere Publikationen in: International Journal of Developmental and Educational Psychology: INFAD. Revista de Psicología

Objetivos de desarrollo sostenible

Zusammenfassung

There is currently intense international debate about the benefits of offering breast cancerscreening tests (BCST) to all women aged 50 and older, as it is not clear that they outweigh the risks. Also, public perception is unrealistic. Participants overestimate the benefits and are oblivious to the negative physical or psychological impact of overdiagnosis and false positives. In addition, there is no clear strategy to make easier for them to make informed decisions about their participation in the test. In this context, a deliberative democracy (DD) process was carried out in Cadiz (Spain) with the dual objective of knowing the opinion of the participants on the PCCM; and knowing which strategies they consider would improve the information reception process and facilitate informed decision making. Participated thirteen women between the ages of 50 and 65. The DD process took place over three afternoons: (1) information on mammographic screening was provided; (2) arguments weregiven for and against the PCCM; and (3) participants deliberated on the information provided, and proposed changes to the information they receive. Participants expressed their opinion about the BCST in terms of its objectives, the sources of information, and the people to whom it is addressed, the clarity of the information, and when and how they receive it. They also indicated how they would like to receive information about the BCST–mode of arrival—, the moment, the contents about which they would like to be informed, the target persons and the action protocol. It is concluded that it is necessary to know the point of view of the participants about the information that they receive of the BCST in order to improve their quality and adapt it to their needs.

Bibliographische Referenzen

  • Active Citizenship Network. (2002). Carta Europea de los derechos de los pacientes. Roma
  • Baena-Cañada, J.M., Rosado-Varela, P., Expósito-Álvarez, I., González-Guerrero, M., Nieto-Vera, J., & Benítez-Rodríguez, E. (2014). Women’s perceptions of breast cancer screening. Spanish screening programme survey. The Breast, 23, 883-8. doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2014.09.010
  • Biller-Adorno, N., & Jüni, P. (2014). Abolishing mammography screening programs? A view from the Swiss Medical Board. NEJM, 22; 370(21):1965-7. doi: 10.1056/NEJMp1401875
  • Gigerenzer, G., Mata, J., & Frank, R. (2009). Public Knowledge of Benefits of Breast and Prostate Cancer Screening in Europe. JNCI, 101, 1216-20.
  • Gøtzsche, P.C. (2015). Mammography screening is harmful and should be abandoned. J R Soc Med., 108(9), 341–5. doi: 10.1177/0141076815602452.
  • Harris, R.P., Wilt, T.J., & Qaseem, A. (2015). High Value Care Task Force of the American College of Physicians. A value framework for cancer screening: advice for high-value care from the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med, 162(10), 712-7. doi 10.7326/M14-2327.
  • Hendriks, C., 2002. The ambiguous role of civil society in deliberative democracy. In: Australasian Political Studies Association Conference. ANU, Canberra.
  • Hoffmann, T.C., & Del Mar, C. (2015). Patients’ expectations of the benefits and harms of treatments, screening, and tests: a systematic review. JAMA Intern Med; 175, 274-86. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2014.6016.
  • Irwig, L., & Glasciou, P. (2000). Informed consent for screening by community sampling. Effective Clin Pract, 3, 47–50.
  • Jimbo, M., Rana, G.K., Hawley, S., Holmes-Rovner, M., Kelly-Blake, K., Nease, D.E. Jr., et al. (2013). What is lacking in current decision aids on cancer screening? CA Cancer J Clin , 63(3), 193–214. doi:10.3322/caac.21180.
  • Jørgensen, K.J., & Gøtzsche P.C. (2006). Content of invitations for publicly funded screening mammography. BMJ, 332, 538-41.
  • Lauby-Secretan, B., Scoccianti, C., Loomis, D., Benbrahim-Tallaa, L., Bouvard, V., Bianchini, F., et al. (2015). For the International Agency for Research on Cancer Working Group. Breast-Cancer Screening — Viewpoint of the IARC Working Group. N Engl J Med, 372, 2353-8. DOI:10.1056/NEJMsr1504363.
  • Mansbridge, J., Bohman, J., Chambers, S., Estlund, D., Føllesdal, A., et al., 2010. The place of selfinterest and the role of power in deliberative democracy. Journal of Political Philosophy 18, 64e100
  • Márquez, S., y Lacalle, J.R. (2013). Beneficios y efectos adversos del cribado de cáncer de mama: revisión de la evidencia científica. Secretaría General de Salud Pública, Inclusión Social y Calidad de Vida. Consejería de Salud y Bienestar Social.
  • Porroche-Escudero, A. (2017). Problematizando la desinformación en las campañas de concienciación sobre el cáncer de mama. Gaceta Sanitaria, 1383.
  • REDECAN (2019). http://redecan.org/es/page.cfm?id=21&title=estadisticas
  • Sebastián, J., Manos, D., Bueno, M.J., y Mateos, N. (2007). Imagen corporal y autoestima en mujeres con cáncer de mama participantes en un programa de intervención psicosocial. Clínica y salud, 18(2), 137-161.
  • Stacey, D., Légaré, F., Col, N.F., Bennett, C.L., Barry, M.J., Eden, K.B., et al. (2014). Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 28(1). CD001431. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD001431.pub4.
  • Schwartz, L.M., Woloshin, S., Sox, H.C., Fischhoff, B., Welch, H.G. (2000). US women’s attitudes to false positive mammography results and detection of ductal carcinoma in situ: cross sectional survey. BMJ, 320, 1635-40.
  • Strauss, A., y Corbin, J. (1998). Bases de la investigación cualitativa. Técnicas y procedimientos para desarrollar la teoría fundamentada. Colombia: Universidad de Antioquia.
  • Taylor, S. (2003). Psicología de la salud. México: McGraw Hill
  • Valls-Llobet, C. (2009). Mujeres, salud y poder. Universitat de Valencia: Cátedra.
  • Wilkinson, S. (2008). Mujeres feministas en lucha contra el cáncer de mama: lo personal y lo político.Anuario de Psicología, 39(1), 23-39.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet