Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40231782›Full record

ArticleJournal of the American Geriatrics Society2025

Creating a Mammography Conversation Aid for Shared Decision-Making Between Clinicians and Women Aged 75 and Older.

Mara A Schonberg, Natasha K Stout, Sarah Stein, Matthew Corey, Jessica Jushchyshyn, Ria Shah, Emily Wolfson, Jeanne S Mandelblatt, Victor M Montori, Ilana Richman and 6 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Does Messaging for Reducing Breast Cancer Overscreening in Older Women Have Differential Responses among Medical Minimizers and Maximizers?Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2026
    Trial
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

16 authors.

Mara A SchonbergDivision of General Medicine, Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5162-5922
Natasha K StoutDepartment of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Sarah SteinDepartment of Population Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Matthew CoreyDivision of General Medicine and Geriatrics, Department of Medicine, Cambridge Health Alliance, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA.
Jessica JushchyshynDivision of General Medicine, Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Ria ShahDivision of General Medicine, Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Emily WolfsonDivision of General Medicine, Department of Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Jeanne S MandelblattDepartment of Oncology, Georgetown University Medical Center and Institute for Cancer and Aging Research (I-CARE) and Cancer Prevention and Control Program at Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA.
Victor M MontoriKnowledge and Evaluation Research Unit and Division of Endocrinology, Diabetes, Metabolism, Nutrition, Department of Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Ilana RichmanDivision of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, Connecticut, USA.
Daniel MatlockDivision of Geriatric Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Center, Aurora, Colorado, USA.
Clyde B SchechterDepartment of Family and Social Medicine and Epidemiology and Population Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, New York, USA.
Russell HarrisDepartment of Medicine, University of North Carolina School of Medicine, Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USA.
Barbara LeStagePatient Advocate Committee, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Jinani JayasekeraHealth Equity and Decision Sciences Research Lab, Division of Intramural Research, National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Nancy L SchoenbornDivision of Geriatric Medicine and Gerontology, Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.

Funding

Comparative Modeling of Precision Breast Cancer Control Across the Translational Continuum - SupplementU01CA253911 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN-MADISON · PI ALAGOZ, OGUZHAN, DE KONING, HARRY J · 2020 to 2025
$10.6M
Comparative Modeling: Informing Breast Cancer Control Practice & PolicyU01CA152958 · NCI · GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY · PI BERRY, DONALD A, DE KONING, HARRY J · 2010 to 2015
$7.6M
Bio-behavioral Research At The Intersection of Cancer and AgingR35CA197289 · NCI · GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY · PI MANDELBLATT, JEANNE · 2015 to 2021
$6.2M
Social Determinants of Health as Transducers of Cellular Aging: A New Multi-level Paradigm to Reduce Survivorship Disparities at the Intersection of Cancer and AgingR35CA283926 · NCI · GEORGETOWN UNIVERSITY · PI Jeanne Mandelblatt · 2023 to 2026
$3.7M
A Conversation Aid on Mammography Screening to Support Shared Decision Making between Clinicians and Women Aged 75 and OlderR01AG065311 · NIA · BETH ISRAEL DEACONESS MEDICAL CENTER · PI SCHONBERG, MARA A · 2020 to 2024
$3.2M
Messaging Strategies to Reduce Breast Cancer Over-Screening in Older WomenR01AG066741 · NIA · JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY · PI SCHOENBORN, NANCY · 2021 to 2024
$2.3M
Health Equity and Decision SciencesZIAMD000022 · NIMHD · NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON MINORITY HEALTH AND HEALTH DISPARITIES · PI JAYASEKERA, JINANI · 2023 to 2025
$962k
Research and mentoring program in shared decision making in the care of older adultsK24AG071906 · NIA · BETH ISRAEL DEACONESS MEDICAL CENTER · PI SCHONBERG, MARA A · 2021 to 2025
$946k
CLC NIH HHS ZIA MD000022Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute R35CA197289Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute R35CA283926Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute U01CA152958Division of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute U01CA253911Intramural NIH HHS ZIA MD000022NCI NIH HHS R35 CA197289NCI NIH HHS R35 CA283926NCI NIH HHS U01 CA152958NCI NIH HHS U01 CA253911NIA NIH HHS K24 AG071906NIA NIH HHS R01 AG065311NIA NIH HHS R01 AG066741NIA NIH HHS R01 R01AG06674
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGuidelines recommend primary care practitioners ("PCPs") engage women ≥ 75 years in shared decision-making (SDM) around mammography screening. Therefore, we aimed to develop a web-based conversation aid about mammography screening for women ≥ 75 using output from established simulation models to provide screening outcomes based on > 23,000 combinations of individual women's health and breast cancer risk factors.

methodsWe used an end-user centered design approach to develop a prototype web-based conversation aid incorporating feedback. From July 2023 to April 2024, 10 PCPs from a Boston-area health system and a safety-net hospital used the prototype aid during encounters with women ≥ 75 without breast cancer or dementia (n = 30; 1-5 patients per PCP). We observed aid use and assessed clinician effort to involve patients in SDM using OPTION5 (assesses five components of SDM, scores range 0-100). We surveyed PCPs and patients about the aid's acceptability. Patients completed the SDM-process scale (scores range 0-4) to rate the SDM quality experienced. Participants' comments were subject to thematic analysis.

resultsOf 10 PCP-participants, seven were female and four were community-based. Of 30 patient-participants, 22 (73%) were non-Hispanic White, 9 (30%) had ≥ 2 Charlson comorbidities and mean age was 78.5 years (SD 2.8). Nine PCPs agreed that the aid helped them with SDM and was easy-to-use; six felt it had too much information; and seven planned to continue using the aid. Patients rated the SDM-process highly (scores = 3.0 [SD 0.9]) and we observed high SDM (mean OPTION5 = 77.9 [SD 20.6]). Participants felt the aid was "empowering" and "helpful for decision-making." After SDM discussions, seven patients intended to stop screening, nine to screen less frequently, and 14 to continue screening regularly.

conclusionsWe developed a novel conversation aid that supports SDM about mammography screening with women ≥ 75 years. Lessons learned will guide revisions of a final tool for testing in a clinical trial.

Indexed as

mammographyshared decision‐makingwomen 75+

Identifiers

PMID40231782
PMCPMC12353055

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.