Search

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.

ObjectivesTo elaborate and validate operational definitions for appropriate inaction and for inappropriate inertia in the management of patients with hypertension in primary care.DesignA two-step approach was used to reach a definition consensus. First, nominal groups provided practice-based information on the two concepts. Second, a Delphi procedure was used to modify and validate the two definitions created from the nominal groups results.Participants14 French practicing general practitioners participated in each of the two nominal groups, held in two different areas in France. For the Delphi procedure, 30 academics, international experts in the field, were contacted; 20 agreed to participate and 19 completed the procedure.ResultsInappropriate inertia was defined as: to not initiate or intensify an antihypertensive treatment for a patient who is not at the blood pressure goals defined for this patient in the guidelines when all following conditions are fulfilled: (1) elevated blood pressure has been confirmed by self-measurement or ambulatory blood pressure monitoring, (2) there is no legitimate doubt on the reliability of the measurements, (3) there is no observance issue regarding pharmacological treatment, (4) there is no specific iatrogenic risk (which alters the risk-benefit balance of treatment for this patient), in particular orthostatic hypotension in the elderly, (5) there is no other medical priority more important and more urgent, and (6) access to treatment is not difficult. Appropriate inaction was defined as the exact mirror, that is, when at least one of the above conditions is not met.ConclusionDefinitions of appropriate inaction and inappropriate inertia in the management of patients with hypertension have been established from empirical practice-based data and validated by an international panel of academics as useful for practice and research.