Table 1.

The Main Characteristics of the Included Studies

Study, design, country	Data collection period	Patients				Intervention	Outcome		Total results
		No. of interventions, age in years, mean, range	No. of controls, average age	No. at baseline (in before–after)	Assessed breast cancer risk		After intervention	Control, or pretest for before–after
Hersch et al., 201515 RCT Australia	1/2014–7/2014	419, 49.7 median, 48–50 range	419, 49.7 median, 48–50	N/A	Yes, average risk	“Decision aid contained evidence-based information about important outcomes of breast screening over the past 20 years”	69 unsure 350 decided: 308 plan to start 42 do not plan to start	30 unsure 389 decided: 363 intended to start 26 do not plan to start	“Fewer women in the intervention group than in the control group intended to be screened (308/419 [74%] vs. 363/419 [87%]; P < 0.001).”
Mathieu et al., 201017 RCT Australia	9/2005–6/2007	117, 41.9 mean, 38–45 range	209, 41.8 mean, 38–45 range	N/A	Yes*	PtDA to identify women’s knowledge of the benefits and harms of screening for breast cancer	21 unsure 96 decided: 50 plan to start 46 do not plan to start	82 unsure 127 decided: 83 plan to start 44 do not plan to start	“Women in the intervention group… were more likely to have made a decision (82% vs. 61% P < 0.001).” “Of those who made a decision, women in the intervention group were less likely to start screening now (52% vs. 65% P = 0.05).”
Mathieu et al., 200718 RCT Australia	8/2005–6/2006	349, 70.4 (SD = 0.7)	356, 70.3 (SD = 0.6)	N/A	Yes*	PtDA to assess the effect of a decision aid on whether to continue or stop mammography screening for women aged 70 years	17 unsure 332 decided: 33 plan to stop screening 299 plan to continue screening	36 unsure 320 decided: 33 plan to stop screening 287 plan to continue screening	“Women in the intervention group were less likely to be undecided (odds ratio, 0.32 [95% confidence interval, 0.17–0.63]; P = 0.001). Among those women who had a made a decision regarding screening, the decision aid did not alter the odds of intending to stop screening (odds ratio, 1.28 [95% confidence interval, 0.63–2.61]; P = 0.50).”
Scariati et al., 201520 Before–after USA	7/14/00–4/10/12	51, mean not reported 38–48 range	N/A	51	Yes, average risk	“Screening mammography decision aid”	2 unsure 49 decided: 5 will stop screening 44 will continue screening	4 unsure 47 decided: 5 will stop screening 42 will continue screening	“However, these women reported no change in screening intention (Z = −1.5, P = 0.132).”
Eden et al., 201516 Before–after USA	2/2014– 7/2014	75, 45 mean, 40–49 range	N/A	75	Yes, average risk	“Mammography decision aid as a web-based application”	9 unsure 66 decided: 59 plan to start 7 do not plan	11 unsure 64 decided: 54 plan to start 10 do not plan to start	“Most women reported that they intended to have a mammogram before age 50, both before and after using MammoPad, and there was no significant change over time (Z = 1.543, P = 0.123).”
Schonberg et al., 201419 Before–after USA	2010–2011	45, 79 median, 75–89 range	N/A	45	Yes*	“Mammography screening decision aid”	13 unsure 32 decided: 25 plan to start 7 do not plan to start	5 unsure 40 decided: 37 plan to start 3 do not plan to start	“After reading the DA, fewer participants intended to be screened” (P = 0.04).

* Women were eligible for the study if they were not previously diagnosed with breast cancer. However, neither family history of breast cancer nor BRCA1/2 gene mutations were used as exclusion criteria. DA decision aid