RESUMO
Recent treatment advances have resulted in significantly increased survival times following metastatic breast cancer (MBC) diagnosis. Novel treatment approaches-and their related side effects-have changed the landscape of MBC treatment decision-making. We developed a prototype of an online educational tool to prepare patients with MBC for shared decision-making with their oncologists. We describe the five phases of tool development: (1) in-depth, semi-structured qualitative interviews and (2) feedback on storyboards of initial content with patients with MBC and oncology providers. This was followed by three phases of iterative feedback with patients in which they responded to (3) initial, non-navigable website content and (4) a beta version of the full website. In the final phase (5), patients newly diagnosed with MBC (N = 6) used the website prototype for 1 week and completed surveys assessing acceptability, feasibility, treatment knowledge, preparation for decision-making, and self-efficacy for decision-making. Participants in Phase 1 characterized a cyclical process of MBC treatment decision-making and identified key information needs. Website content and structure was iteratively developed in Phases 2-4. Most participants in Phase 5 (n = 4) accessed the website 2-5 times. All participants who accessed the website at least once (n = 5) felt they learned new information from the website prototype and would recommend it to others newly-diagnosed with MBC. After using the website prototype, participants reported high preparation and self-efficacy for decision-making. This multiphase, iterative process resulted in a prototype intervention designed to support decision-making for MBC patients.
RESUMO
Introduction: Women with ≥20% lifetime breast cancer risk can receive supplemental breast cancer screening with MRI. We examined factors associated with recommendation for screening breast MRI among primary care providers (PCPs), gynecologists (GYNs), and radiologists. Methods: We conducted a sequential mixed-methods study. Quantitative: Participants (N = 72) reported recommendations for mammogram and breast MRI via clinical vignettes describing hypothetical patients with moderate, high, and very high breast cancer risk. Logistic regressions assessed the relationships of clinician-level factors (gender, specialty, years practicing) and practice-level factors (practice type, imaging facilities available) with screening recommendations. Qualitative: We interviewed a subset of survey participants (n = 17, 17/72 = 24%) regarding their decision-making about breast cancer screening recommendations. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed with directed content analysis. Results: Compared with PCPs, GYNs and radiologists were significantly more likely to recommend breast MRI for high-risk (ORs = 4.09 and 4.09, respectively) and very-high-risk patients (ORs = 8.56 and 18.33, respectively). Qualitative analysis identified two key phases along the clinical pathway for high-risk women. Phase 1 was "identifying high-risk women," which included three subthemes (systems for risk assessment, barriers to risk assessment, scope of practice issues). Phase 2 was "referral for screening," which included three subthemes (conflicting guidelines, scope of practice issues, legal implications). Frequency of themes differed between specialties, potentially explaining findings from the quantitative phase. Conclusions: There are significant differences between specialties in supplemental breast cancer screening recommendations. Multilevel interventions are needed to support identification and management of women with high breast cancer risk, particularly for PCPs.