Interventionen zur Steigerung des Brustkrebsbewusstseins bei Frauen
Referencias
References to studies included in this review
References to studies excluded from this review
References to ongoing studies
Additional references
Characteristics of studies
Characteristics of included studies [ordered by study ID]
| Methods | Accrual: August 2007 to May 2008 Muticentre (breast screening units n = 7); UK‐based Parallel group randomised controlled trial using stratified block randomisation (block sizes of three, six and nine). Follow‐up: one month; one year | |
| Participants | Women aged 67 to 70 attending for final routine appointment on the UK NHS Breast Screening programme. | |
| Interventions | Intervention group 1 (n = 287): received a booklet conveying key breast cancer awareness messages, given by a radiographer to each woman who had received her final routine mammogram, in addition to the usual care. Intervention group 2 (n = 294): received a 10‐min one‐to‐one verbal interaction with a radiographer or research psychologist plus booklet plus usual care. Control group (n = 286): received the usual care (women were informed that they were no longer eligible for routine screening, advised to continue to be screened every 3 years on request and given a card with contact details and a suggested date for contact). | |
| Outcomes | Primary Outcomes Knowledge of breast cancer symptoms, knowledge of age‐related risk, confidence to check breasts and overall breast cancer awareness. Breast cancer awareness Women’s breast cancer awareness measured using a breast cancer awareness score (a combination of responses to the three questions from the trial‐specific questionnaire on: knowledge of symptoms, knowledge of age‐related risk and reported breast checking). | |
| Notes | Two‐year follow‐up reported by Forbes 2011a. Study funded by Cancer Research UK. | |
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Low risk | Stratified block randomisation described. |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Low risk | Detail on randomisation provided. |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) | High risk | Lack of blinding of personnel & participants. |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) | High risk | Lack of blinding of outcome assessors. |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) | Low risk | Detail on attrition provided. |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Low risk | All relevant outcomes detailed in Methods section were reported in Results section. |
| Other bias | Low risk | No other potential sources of bias were identified. |
| Methods | RCT Accrual not specified Convenient sample randomised into intervention or control group; randomisation method not specified Follow‐up: one month | |
| Participants | Female employees of Zahedan University of Medical Sciences (ZUMS) Mean (SD) age: Intervention group 35.38 (8.01); Control group: 34.39 (8.98) | |
| Interventions | Intervention group (n = 65) An educational programme of three 60‐ to 90‐min sessions delivered by the researchers through lectures, questions and answers, PowerPoint presentations, videos, an educational booklet and compact disc (CD) to increase women’s breast cancer awareness. Effects were measured one month later. Control group (n = 65) No intervention. | |
| Outcomes | Primary Outcomes Women’s awareness of breast cancer symptoms and attitudes towards breast cancer (perceived susceptibility, perceived seriousness, perceived benefits and barriers and self‐efficacy). Secondary Outcomes Breast cancer preventive behaviours (i.e. breast self‐examining behaviour, clinical breast examination, mammography and healthy diet). | |
| Notes | ||
| Risk of bias | ||
| Bias | Authors' judgement | Support for judgement |
| Random sequence generation (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Insufficient information provided to make a valid judgement. |
| Allocation concealment (selection bias) | Unclear risk | Insufficient information provided to make a valid judgement. |
| Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) | Unclear risk | Insufficient information provided to make a valid judgement. |
| Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) | Unclear risk | Insufficient information provided to make a valid judgement. |
| Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) | Low risk | No women were excluded, lost to follow‐up and no attrition was reported. |
| Selective reporting (reporting bias) | Unclear risk | Lack of information on the meaning of breast cancer preventive behaviours and how the construct was measured. |
| Other bias | Unclear risk | (i) Lack of clarity around the constructs of the Health Belief Model (ii) training of interventionists and (iii) adherence to intervention protocol. |
Characteristics of excluded studies [ordered by study ID]
| Study | Reason for exclusion |
| Intervention study on BSE with no control group. | |
| A pilot study of an intervention focused on breast cancer screening. | |
| Cross‐sectional study with no control group. | |
| Cross‐sectional survey. | |
| Breast cancer screening focused. | |
| Cross‐sectional survey. | |
| A systematic review on interventions for general cancer awareness. | |
| PEP associated paper: describing the development of the psycho‐educational intervention. | |
| PEP‐associated paper: reports on a preliminary evaluation before and after study with no control group. | |
| Comparison study with no control group. | |
| PEP‐associated paper, promoting early presentation in older women in general practice, no control group. | |
| Cross‐sectional survey. | |
| Cross‐sectional survey. | |
| Exploratory qualitative study. | |
| Conference abstract: survey. | |
| Conference abstract: mixed cancer focus. | |
| PEP‐associated paper: qualitative study on the involvement of users in the design of the PEP intervention. | |
| PEP‐associated paper: promoting early symptomatic presentation in older women with breast cancer in the NHS breast screening programme – conference abstract. | |
| PEP‐associated paper: a report on training the trainers – conference abstract. | |
| PEP‐associated paper: a first report of a National pilot of the PEP study. | |
| Mixed cancer focus: breast and cervical screening education. | |
| PEP‐associated paper: evaluation of further development of PEP, no control group. | |
| RCT focusing on adherence to clinical breast examination (CBE). | |
| Literature review on breast cancer awareness in Indian women. | |
| RCT focusing on BSE and CBE. | |
| Cross‐sectional survey. | |
| Breast cancer screening focused. | |
| Intervention to increase practice of BSE. | |
| Quasi‐experimental study, no control group – conference abstract. | |
| Cross‐sectional survey. | |
| Intervention focusing on awareness of risk of breast cancer. | |
| Cross‐sectional survey. | |
| Cross‐sectional study on BSE. | |
| Cross‐sectional survey – conference abstract. | |
| Conference abstract: based on screening mammography. | |
| A cross‐sectional study on knowledge related to BSE. | |
| Intervention focused on breast cancer screening. | |
| RCT on breast cancer screening. | |
| Mixed cancer focus: cervical and breast cancer. | |
| One‐group pre‐survey and post‐survey design. | |
| An educational intervention for breast cancer knowledge and screening behaviours with no control group. | |
| Cross‐sectional survey on screening and breast cancer awareness. |
Characteristics of ongoing studies [ordered by study ID]
| Trial name or title | The impact of education on preventive behavior of breast cancer |
| Methods | Parallel‐group, triple‐blind, randomised controlled trial |
| Participants | Women over age 30 who are not diagnosed with breast cancer |
| Interventions | Intervention 1: intervention groups: face‐to‐face interviews and training (6 sessions) based on preventive behaviour of breast cancer. Intervention 2: Control: face‐to‐face training (for moral reasons) will be provided in 6 sessions on preventive behavior of breast cancer, post intervention 1. |
| Outcomes | Promotion of preventive breast cancer behaviour and awareness of breast cancer prevention; time frame: 3 months postintervention |
| Starting date | 12 June 2013 |
| Contact information | |
| Notes |
| Trial name or title | Disseminating Breast Cancer Prevention to African American Women |
| Methods | Parallel‐group, double‐blind, randomised controlled trial, 3‐ and 6‐month follow‐up, N = 200 |
| Participants | African American women, aged 35 to 70. |
| Interventions | Active Comparator: Evidential Group Participants received education about breast cancer prevention and specific information about African American women and breast cancer risk. Active Comparator: Non‐Evidential Group Participants in this group received general information about breast cancer prevention without anything specific to African American women. |
| Outcomes | Primary Outcome: women's knowledge about breast cancer prevention; communication about breast cancer prevention with HCP; the extent to which participants distrust medical research. Secondary Outcomes: assessment of the relationship between participants' education and primary outcomes; assessment of the relationship between participants' family history and the primary outcomes; assessment of the relationship between participants' beliefs about research and the primary outcomes |
| Starting date | 17 February 2011 |
| Contact information | Benita L Weathers, MPH [email protected] |
| Notes |
| Trial name or title | A Cross Sectional Study of a Breast Health Education Program for Under‐served Latino Women in Union and Mecklenburg County. |
| Methods | Intervention Model: Single Group Assignment, N = 250 approximately. |
| Participants | Latino women 18 years and over. |
| Interventions | Small group breast health educational sessions for Latino women in home setting. |
| Outcomes | Change in baseline of breast cancer health literacy; time frame: one year. |
| Starting date | Registered on 20 July 2014 |
| Contact information | Daniel Carrizosa, MD, Carolinas Healthcare System, Levine Cancer Institute. |
| Notes |
Study flow diagram.
Risk of bias summary: review authors' judgements about each risk of bias item for each included study.
