ObjectiveBreast cancer screening decision aids (DAs) are designed to help women decide whether or not to participate in mammography-based programmes. We aimed to explore women’s and healthcare professionals’ expectations of a breast cancer screening DA, as part of the French DEDICACES study.MethodsThis French qualitative study was based on semistructured, individual interviews with women from the general population, general practitioners (GPs), midwives, gynaecologists, radiologists and screening centre managers. Sampling was purposive and used diversification criteria. The inductive analysis was based on grounded theory.ResultsBetween April 2018 and May 2019, we interviewed 40 people: 13 women, 14 GPs, 4 gynaecologists, 3 midwives, 3 radiologists and 3 screening centre managers. The women and the healthcare professionals considered that a DA could help to improve levels of knowledge, harmonise medical practice and provide reliable, comprehensive information. Overall, the interviewees wanted an easy-to-use, intuitive, graphic-rich, interactive, computer-based, patient-centred DA. Use of the DA might be limited by a lack of familiarity with shared decision-making (SDM), the risk of misuse and a preference for asymmetric positive information.ConclusionThe present results are likely to facilitate the development of the first validated tool for SDM support in French breast cancer screening programmes.

No abstract

Background: Many people in Europe remain undiagnosed for human immunodeficiency virus (HIV), hepatitis B virus (HBV), hepatitis C virus (HCV). Objectives: To evaluate acceptability and effectiveness of a questionnaire designed to facilitate identification of risk factors for these viruses. Methods: We performed an observational study, in a prospectively enrolled cohort of patients in Paris (France) seen in 2014. Eighteen GPs administered a questionnaire to the first 50 patients, collecting information about risk factors. GPs were randomized into two groups: A (self-administered questionnaire) and B (GP-administered questionnaire). We used the overall response rate to assess the acceptability of the questionnaire. We used the rate of newly identified risk factors and compared the number of tests performed one year before and immediately after the intervention to assess the effectiveness of the questionnaire. Results: 842 patients were randomized: 349 (41.5%) in group A and 493 (58.5%) in group B. Acceptability was 88.5% (95%CI: 86.3–90.6); 93.1% (95%CI: 90.5–95.8) in-group A and 85.2% (95%CI: 82.1–88.3) in group B (P = 0.0004). Prevalence of risk factors was 51.8% (95%CI: 48.2–54.4) and 58.3% were newly identified (95%CI: 52.9–63.7). The number of HIV tests performed during the four weeks after intervention increased by 27% compared to the same period one year before (P = 0.22). It increased by 113% (P = 0.005) and 135% (P = 0.005) for HBV and HCV, respectively. Conclusion: The questionnaire proved acceptable and effective in identifying risk factors for HIV, HBV and HCV in general practice.