MarxR. Overscreening for women’s cancer: time for change. Med Decis Making. 2022;42(8):1041-1044. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X221123547
2.
HarrisRPSheridanSLLewisCL, et al. The harms of screening: a proposed taxonomy and application to lung cancer screening. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(2):281–5. DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.12745
3.
NathanAGMarshallIMCooperJMHuangES. Use of decision aids with minority patients: a systematic review. J Gen Intern Med. 2016;31(6):663–76. DOI: 10.1007/s11606-016-3609-2
4.
PeekMETangHCargillAChinMH. Are there racial differences in patients’ shared decision-making preferences and behaviors among patients with diabetes?Med Decis Making. 2011;31(3):422–31. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X10384739
5.
Cooper-PatrickLGalloJJGonzalesJJ, et al. Race, gender, and partnership in the patient-physician relationship. JAMA. 1999;282(6):583–9. DOI: 10.1001/jama.282.6.583
6.
LevinsonWHudakPLFeldmanJJ, et al. “It’s not what you say. . .”: racial disparities in communication between orthopedic surgeons and patients. Med Care. 2008;46(4):410–6. DOI: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e31815f5392
7.
YenRWSmithJEngelJ, et al. A systematic review and meta-analysis of patient decision aids for socially disadvantaged populations: update from the International Patient Decision Aid Standards (IDPAS). Med Decis Making. 2021;41(7):870–96. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X211020317
8.
JinJ. Breast cancer screening guidelines in the united states. JAMA. 2015;314(15):1658. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2015.11766
9.
HarrisRPSheridanSLLewisCL, et al. The harms of screening: a proposed taxonomy and application to lung cancer screening. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(2):281–6.
10.
PaceLEKeatingNL. A systematic assessment of benefits and risks to guide breast cancer screening decisions. JAMA. 2014;311(13):1327–35.
11.
OeffingerKCFonthamEHEtzioniR, et al. Breast cancer screening for women at average risk: 2015 guideline update from the american cancer society. JAMA. 2015;314(15):1599–614. DOI: 10.1001/jama.2015.12783
12.
SiuAL. Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement screening for breast cancer. Ann Intern Med. 2016;164(4):279–96. DOI: 10.7326/M15-2886
13.
van RavesteynNTSchechterCBHamptonJM, et al. Trade-offs between harms and benefits of different breast cancer screening intervals among low-risk women. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2021;113(8):1017–26. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djaa218
14.
Practice bulletin number 179: breast cancer risk assessment and screening in average-risk women. Obstet Gynecol. 2017;130(1):e1–16. DOI: 10.1097/aog.0000000000002158
15.
SchwartzLMWoloshinSFowlerJFJWelchHG. Enthusiasm for cancer screening in the United States. JAMA. 2004;291(1):71–8. DOI: 10.1001/jama.291.1.71
16.
MaschkeAPaasche-OrlowMKKressinNRSchonbergMABattagliaTAGunnCM. Discussions of potential mammography benefits and harms among patients with limited health literacy and providers: “oh, there are harms?”J Health Commun. 2020;25(12):951–61. DOI: 10.1080/10810730.2020.1845256
17.
HoustenAJHooverDSBrittonM, et al. Perceptions of conflicting breast cancer screening recommendations among racially/ethnically diverse women: a multimethod study. J Gen Intern Med. 2022;37(5):1145–54. DOI: 10.1007/s11606-021-07336-w
18.
PaceLEKeatingNL. Should women at lower-than-average risk of breast cancer undergo less frequent screening?J Natl Cancer Inst. 2021;113(8):953–54. DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djaa219
19.
MuscatDMSmithJMacO, et al. Addressing health literacy in patient decision aids: an update from the International Patient Decision Aid Standards. Med Decis Making. 2021;41(7):848–69. DOI: 10.1177/0272989x211011101
20.
BonnerCTrevenaLJGaissmaierW, et al. Current best practice for presenting probabilities in patient decision aids: fundamental principles. Med Decis Making. 2021;41(7):821–33. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X21996328
21.
PatelNSLeeMMartiJL. Assessment of screening mammography recommendations by breast cancer centers in the US. JAMA Intern Med. 2021;181(5):717–9. DOI: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2021.0157
Wiltsey StirmanSBaumannAAMillerCJ. The FRAME: an expanded framework for reporting adaptations and modifications to evidence-based interventions. Implement Sci. 2019;14(1):58. DOI: 10.1186/s13012-019-0898-y
24.
WoodwardENMatthieuMMUchenduUSRogalSKirchnerJE. The health equity implementation framework: proposal and preliminary study of hepatitis C virus treatment. Implement Sci. 2019;14(1):26. DOI: 10.1186/s13012-019-0861-y
25.
SheltonRCChambersDAGlasgowRE. An extension of RE-AIM to enhance sustainability: addressing dynamic context and promoting health equity over time. Front Public Health. 2020;8:134. DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2020.00134
26.
NápolesAMStewartAL. Transcreation: an implementation science framework for community-engaged behavioral interventions to reduce health disparities. BMC Health Serv Res. 2018;18(1):710. DOI: 10.1186/s12913-018-3521-z
27.
Joseph-WilliamsNAbhyankarPBolandL, et al. What works in implementing patient decision aids in routine clinical settings? A rapid realist review and update from the International Patient Decision Aid Standards Collaboration. Med Decis Making. 2020;41(7):907–37. DOI: 10.1177/0272989X20978208
