One categorical variable with four categories. It asks if the measure of breast cancer risk will do more harm than good, more good than harm, it depends, do not know. The absolute and relative frequencies of the four categories will be obtained. Following the Sekhon et al. review (2017)

Three categorical variables with five categories, ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). First variable: The information about the individual risk of breast cancer provides calmness. Second variable: Receiving information about risks produces anxiety. Third variable: The information about the individual risk of breast cancer makes me worry. The scores of the three items will not be added as a scale, they will be reported separately. Adapted from Hersch et al. (2015)

Categorical variable with three categories. It asks what type of screening the participants would choose (personalized risk-based or "one-size-fits-all")

Eleven conceptual knowledge questions (Yes/No) and four numerical knowledge questions with categories on the effect of screening. A total of 22 marks could be obtained, 11 coming from the questions on conceptual knowledge and 11 coming from the questions on numerical knowledge that measured absolute and relative values of the screening outcomes. The threshold to define adequate knowledge is to score at least 50% of the available marks, including at least one numerical mark, on all the three screening outcome subscales that refer to mortality reduction, overdiagnosis, and false positives. Adapted from Hersch et al. (2015)

O'Connor Decisional Conflict Scale, 10-item low literacy version, on a scale from 0 (no decisional conflict) to 100 (extreme decisional conflict). Scores less than 25 are associated with implementing decisions; score exceeding 37.5 are associated with decision delay or feeling unsure about implementation.

Three Likert scale statements rated from 1 (not at all confident) to 5 (very confident). A total score is obtained summing the scores of the three items and dividing by three.

Adapted from the O'Connor Decision Self-Efficacy Scale

Six-item short form of the Spielberger State Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) on a scale from 20 to 80, with higher scores indicating greater levels of anxiety. To calculate the total STAI score, reverse scoring of the positive items (calm, relaxed, content), sum all six scores and multiply total score by 20/6.

Women will be asked how important it is for them to consider the chances of (1) avoiding breast cancer death, (2) being diagnosed and treated for a cancer that is not harmful, and (3) having a false positive. The four response options range from very important (1) to not at all important (4). The scores of the three items will not be added as a scale, they will be reported separately. According to Hersch et al. (2015)

Four items ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). Total scores can range from 4 to 20. Higher scores indicate higher self-efficacy. Following the Sekhon et al. review (2017)

It will be measured using five items. Each item ranges from 1 to 5. Total scores can range from 5 to 25. A positive assessment is defined as a total score greater or equal to 20. Higher scores indicate more positive experience assessment. Following the Sekhon et al. review (2017)

Confidence Likert scale with one item ranging from very low confidence (1) to very high confidence (5) . Following the Sekhon et al. review (2017)

Two categorical variables with five categories each, ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5). First variable: I understood the information I received about my risk of breast cancer in relation to women of my age. Second variable: I have understood the recommendations given to me about the screening of breast cancer in the coming years, based on my risk of breast cancer. The scores of the two items will not be added as a scale, they will be reported separately. Following the Sekhon et al. review (2017)

Continuous variable, number of minutes. Recorded by the participant doctors

Number of women that accept to participate divided by number of women contacted

Number of women that complete the different phases divided by number of participating women