A scoping review of communication tools for risk-based breast cancer screening
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Risk-based breast cancer screening involves giving women tailored recommendations regarding breast screening initiation, frequency and imaging modalities based on their personal breast cancer risk. It is unclear what risk-based screening communication tools exist across the world for women between 50 and 74 years of age. Hence this scoping review aimed to investigate the breadth of communication tools available to inform women, without a previous breast cancer diagnosis nor those who are known carriers of cancer-susceptibility genes, of risk-based screening and to report an overview of the information the tools present. METHODS: Medline, CINAHL, Scopus and Cochrane Library databases and grey literature using Google advanced were searched. The readability, understandability and actionability of each tool was assessed. RESULTS: Four research articles and five additional communication tools were identified as relevant for the design and testing of risk-based screening communication. The discussed benefits and harms of risk-based screening and breast cancer risk factors varied between communication tools with some including outcomes not substantiated by robust evidence. Moreover, the readability and actionability of communication tools varied and were limited. The understandability of most tools was adequate. CONCLUSIONS: There are few risk-based screening communication tools designed, tested and available for women without a previous breast cancer diagnosis nor those who are known carriers of cancer-susceptibility genes. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Addressing the balance of risks and benefits in future communication tools, and their readability and actionability is important for access to valuable decision support.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.030 | 0.164 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.023 | 0.022 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".