IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/medema/v46y2026i1p35-46.html

Patient and Physician Perspectives on Using Risk Prediction to Support Breast Cancer Surveillance Decision Making

Author

Listed:
  • Christine M. Gunn

    (The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth College, Lebanon, NH, USA
    Dartmouth Cancer Center, Lebanon, NH, USA)

  • Nancy Boyer

    (Center for Program Design and Evaluation, The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Lebanon, NH, USA)

  • Sidra Sheikh

    (Center for Program Design and Evaluation, The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Lebanon, NH, USA)

  • Janie M. Lee

    (University of Washington, Department of Radiology and Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center)

  • Steven Woloshin

    (The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth College, Lebanon, NH, USA)

  • Jennifer M. Specht

    (University of Washington, Division of Hematology and Oncology, Fred Hutch Cancer Center, Clinical Research Division)

  • Rebecca A. Hubbard

    (Department of Biostatistics, School of Public Health, Brown University, Providence, RI, USA)

  • Erin J. Aiello Bowles

    (Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Kaiser Permanente Washington, Seattle, WA, USA)

  • Yu-Ru Su

    (Kaiser Permanente Washington Health Research Institute, Kaiser Permanente Washington, Seattle, WA, USA)

  • Anna N. A. Tosteson

    (The Dartmouth Institute for Health Policy and Clinical Practice, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth College, Lebanon, NH, USA
    Dartmouth Cancer Center, Lebanon, NH, USA)

Abstract

Introduction Breast cancer survivors have a higher risk of interval cancers relative to the screening population. Patient characteristics including features of the primary cancer and its treatment can help predict interval second breast cancer risk, but patient and physician perspectives on how risk prediction tools might enhance surveillance decision making are not well characterized. Design We conducted a qualitative study of women with breast cancer who had completed primary treatment and multispecialty physicians recruited through Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium registries. We conducted semi-structured focus groups with 5 to 7 breast cancer survivors and individual physician interviews. All participants were presented with information about an interval cancer risk prediction tool. We elicited participant perspectives on aspects of the tool’s design, relevance, and use for surveillance decision making. Data coding, thematic analysis, and interpretation were guided by the principles of theoretical thematic analysis. Results Forty physician interviews and 4 focus groups involving 23 breast cancer survivors were analyzed. Two prominent areas of focus emerged: 1) perspectives on how a risk prediction tool would enhance and add value to patient-centered care and 2) risk prediction tools can be a means to improve communication about risk of in-breast recurrence or new breast cancer. Conclusions This study provides data on breast cancer survivor and physician perceptions of a new risk prediction tool to support surveillance imaging decisions among breast cancer survivors. Implications An interval second breast cancer risk prediction tool may promote evidence-based care across an array of physicians and different clinical settings. Future research should identify care delivery settings and features that promote adoption and support use in ways that improve shared decision making and patient outcomes. Highlights This qualitative study of breast cancer survivors and physicians found that risk prediction tools to support surveillance decisions were perceived positively when positioned as a supplement to the patient–physician relationship. Both patients and physicians said that a tool supported by strong evidence and accessible outputs would be valuable for shared decision making.

Suggested Citation

  • Christine M. Gunn & Nancy Boyer & Sidra Sheikh & Janie M. Lee & Steven Woloshin & Jennifer M. Specht & Rebecca A. Hubbard & Erin J. Aiello Bowles & Yu-Ru Su & Anna N. A. Tosteson, 2026. "Patient and Physician Perspectives on Using Risk Prediction to Support Breast Cancer Surveillance Decision Making," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 46(1), pages 35-46, January.
  • Handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:46:y:2026:i:1:p:35-46
    DOI: 10.1177/0272989X251379888
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0272989X251379888
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0272989X251379888?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Richard W. Martin & Stina Brogård Andersen & Mary Ann O’Brien & Paulina Bravo & Tammy Hoffmann & Karina Olling & Heather L. Shepherd & Kathrina Dankl & Dawn Stacey & Karina Dahl Steffensen, 2021. "Providing Balanced Information about Options in Patient Decision Aids: An Update from the International Patient Decision Aid Standards," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(7), pages 780-800, October.
    2. Holly O. Witteman & Kristin G. Maki & Gratianne Vaisson & Jeanette Finderup & Krystina B. Lewis & Karina Dahl Steffensen & Caroline Beaudoin & Sandrine Comeau & Robert J. Volk, 2021. "Systematic Development of Patient Decision Aids: An Update from the IPDAS Collaboration," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(7), pages 736-754, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Dawn Stacey & Robert J. Volk, 2021. "The International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IPDAS) Collaboration: Evidence Update 2.0," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 41(7), pages 729-733, October.
    2. Stacey L. Sheridan, 2022. "Translating Evidence Updates to International Standards: Is More Certainty Needed for International Standards on Decision Aids?," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 42(1), pages 3-7, January.
    3. Yulia Gendler & Ayala Blau, 2024. "Exploring Cultural and Religious Effects on HPV Vaccination Decision Making Using a Web-Based Decision Aid: A Quasi-experimental Study," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 44(4), pages 426-436, May.
    4. Ling Jie Cheng & Nan Luo & Le Ann Chen & Jing Ying Cheng & Gabriel Ka Po Liu & Wenru Wang & Hwee Weng Dennis Hey & Vivien Xi Wu, 2025. "Patients and Spine Surgeons’ Perspectives regarding Decision-Making and Outcomes in Lumbar Surgery: An Exploratory, Qualitative Study," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 18(2), pages 145-160, March.
    5. Helle Sorensen von Essen & Frantz Rom Poulsen & Rikke Hedegaard Dahlrot & Karin Piil & Karina Dahl Steffensen, 2022. "Development of a Patient Decision Aid to Support Shared Decision Making for Patients with Recurrent High-Grade Glioma," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(12), pages 1-17, June.
    6. Norah L. Crossnohere & Rosa Negash & Manny Schwimmer & Christiane Voisin & John F. P. Bridges & Daniel E. Jonas, 2025. "Values Clarification Methods in Decision Support Tools for Lung Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review and Content Analysis," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 45(7), pages 811-825, October.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:medema:v:46:y:2026:i:1:p:35-46. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.