1
|
Behr C, Koffijberg H, IJzerman M, Kauczor HU, Revel MP, Silva M, von Stackelberg O, van Til J, Vliegenthart R. Willingness to participate in combination screening for lung cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and cardiovascular disease in four European countries. Eur Radiol 2024; 34:4448-4456. [PMID: 38060003 PMCID: PMC11213747 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-023-10474-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/12/2023] [Revised: 10/04/2023] [Accepted: 10/22/2023] [Indexed: 12/08/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Lung cancer screening (LCS), using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT), can be more efficient by simultaneously screening for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and cardiovascular disease (CVD), the Big-3 diseases. This study aimed to determine the willingness to participate in (combinations of) Big-3 screening in four European countries and the relative importance of amendable participation barriers. METHODS An online cross-sectional survey aimed at (former) smokers aged 50-75 years elicited the willingness of individuals to participate in Big-3 screening and used analytical hierarchy processing (AHP) to determine the importance of participation barriers. RESULTS Respondents were from France (n = 391), Germany (n = 338), Italy (n = 399), and the Netherlands (n = 342), and consisted of 51.2% men. The willingness to participate in screening was marginally influenced by the diseases screened for (maximum difference of 3.1%, for Big-3 screening (73.4%) vs. lung cancer and COPD screening (70.3%)) and by country (maximum difference of 3.7%, between France (68.5%) and the Netherlands (72.3%)). The largest effect on willingness to participate was personal perceived risk of lung cancer. The most important barriers were the missed cases during screening (weight 0.19) and frequency of screening (weight 0.14), while diseases screened for (weight 0.11) ranked low. CONCLUSIONS The difference in willingness to participate in LCS showed marginal increase with inclusion of more diseases and limited variation between countries. A marginal increase in participation might result in a marginal additional benefit of Big-3 screening. The amendable participation barriers are similar to previous studies, and the new criterion, diseases screened for, is relatively unimportant. CLINICAL RELEVANCE STATEMENT Adding diseases to combination screening modestly improves participation, driven by personal perceived risk. These findings guide program design and campaigns for lung cancer and Big-3 screening. Benefits of Big-3 screening lie in long-term health and economic impact, not participation increase. KEY POINTS • It is unknown whether or how combination screening might affect participation. • The addition of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and cardiovascular disease to lung cancer screening resulted in a marginal increase in willingness to participate. • The primary determinant influencing individuals' engagement in such programs is their personal perceived risk of the disease.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Carina Behr
- Health Technology and Services Research, Faculty of Behavioural and Management Science, University of Twente, Drienerlolaan 5, 7522 NB, Enschede, The Netherlands
| | - Hendrik Koffijberg
- Health Technology and Services Research, Faculty of Behavioural and Management Science, University of Twente, Drienerlolaan 5, 7522 NB, Enschede, The Netherlands
| | - Maarten IJzerman
- Health Technology and Services Research, Faculty of Behavioural and Management Science, University of Twente, Drienerlolaan 5, 7522 NB, Enschede, The Netherlands
- Cancer Health Services Research, Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Melbourne, VIC, 3010, Australia
- Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Hans-Ulrich Kauczor
- Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany
- Translational Lung Research Center, Member of the German Lung Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Marie-Pierre Revel
- Service de radiologie, Université de Paris, Assistance Publique des hôpitaux de Paris, Hôpital Cochin, 85 boulevard Saint-Germain, 75006, Paris, France
- Inserm U1016, Institut Cochin, 22 rue Méchain, 75014, Paris, France
| | - Mario Silva
- Scienze Radiologiche, Department of Medicine and Surgery (DiMeC), University of Parma, Pad. Barbieri, Ospedale Universitario di Parma, Via Gramsci 14, 43126, Parma, Italy
| | - Oyunbileg von Stackelberg
- Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, Heidelberg University Hospital, Im Neuenheimer Feld 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany
- Translational Lung Research Center, Member of the German Lung Research Center, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Janine van Til
- Health Technology and Services Research, Faculty of Behavioural and Management Science, University of Twente, Drienerlolaan 5, 7522 NB, Enschede, The Netherlands
| | - Rozemarijn Vliegenthart
- Department of Radiology, University of Groningen, University Medical Centre Groningen, Hanzeplein 1, 9713 GZ, Groningen, The Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Gelhorn H, Ross MM, Kansal AR, Fung ET, Seiden MV, Krucien N, Chung KC. Patient Preferences for Multi-Cancer Early Detection (MCED) Screening Tests. THE PATIENT 2023; 16:43-56. [PMID: 35844011 DOI: 10.1007/s40271-022-00589-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 05/29/2022] [Indexed: 01/07/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Emerging blood-based multi-cancer early detection (MCED) tests can detect a variety of cancer types across stages with a range of sensitivity, specificity, and ability to predict the origin of the cancer signal. However, little is known about the general US population's preferences for MCED tests. OBJECTIVE To quantify preferences for MCED tests among US adults aged 50-80 years using a discrete choice experiment (DCE). METHODS To quantify preferences for attributes of blood-based MCED tests, an online DCE was conducted with five attributes (true positives, false negatives, false positives, likelihood of the cancer type unknown, number of cancer types detected), among the US population aged 50-80 years recruited via online panels and social media. Data were analyzed using latent class multinomial logit models and relative attribute importance was obtained. RESULTS Participants (N = 1700) were 54% female, mean age 63.3 years. Latent class modeling identified three classes with distinct preferences for MCED tests. The rank order of attribute importance based on relative attribute importance varied by latent class, but across all latent classes, participants preferred higher accuracy (fewer false negatives and false positives, more true positives) and screenings that detected more cancer types and had a lower likelihood of cancer type unknown. Overall, 72% of participants preferred to receive an MCED test in addition to currently recommended cancer screenings. CONCLUSIONS While there is significant heterogeneity in cancer screening preferences, the majority of participants preferred MCED screening and the accuracy of these tests is important. While the majority of participants preferred adding an MCED test to complement current cancer screenings, the latent class analyses identified a small (16%) and specific subset of individuals who value attributes differently, with particular concern regarding false-negative and false-positive test results, who are significantly less likely to opt-in.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Heather Gelhorn
- Evidera, Inc., Suite 1400, 7101 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD, 20814, USA.
| | - Melissa M Ross
- Evidera, Inc., Suite 1400, 7101 Wisconsin Avenue, Bethesda, MD, 20814, USA
| | - Anuraag R Kansal
- GRAIL LLC, a subsidiary of Illumina Inc. (currently held separate from Illumina Inc. under the terms of the Interim Measures Order of the European Commission dated 29 October, 2021), Menlo Park, CA, USA
| | - Eric T Fung
- GRAIL LLC, a subsidiary of Illumina Inc. (currently held separate from Illumina Inc. under the terms of the Interim Measures Order of the European Commission dated 29 October, 2021), Menlo Park, CA, USA
| | | | | | - Karen C Chung
- GRAIL LLC, a subsidiary of Illumina Inc. (currently held separate from Illumina Inc. under the terms of the Interim Measures Order of the European Commission dated 29 October, 2021), Menlo Park, CA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Multi-stage Internet public opinion risk grading analysis of public health emergencies: An empirical study on Microblog in COVID-19. Inf Process Manag 2022; 59:102796. [PMID: 34744256 PMCID: PMC8556697 DOI: 10.1016/j.ipm.2021.102796] [Citation(s) in RCA: 14] [Impact Index Per Article: 7.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/19/2021] [Revised: 09/11/2021] [Accepted: 10/15/2021] [Indexed: 01/04/2023]
Abstract
In the period of Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), millions of people participate in the discussion of COVID-19 on the Internet, which can easily trigger public opinion and threaten social stability. This paper creatively proposes a multi-stage risk grading model of Internet public opinion for public health emergencies. On the basis of general public opinion risk grading analysis, the model continuously pays attention to the risk level of Internet public opinion based on the time scale of regular or major information updates. This model combines Analytic Hierarchy Process Sort II (AHPSort II) and Swing Weighting (SW) methods and proposes a new Multi-Criteria Decision Making (MCDM) method - AHPSort II-SW. Intuitionistic fuzzy number and linguistic fuzzy number are introduced into the model to evaluate the criteria that cannot be quantified. The multi-stage model is tested using more than 2,000 textual data about COVID-19 collected from Microblog, a leading social media platform in China. Seven public opinion risk assessments were conducted from January 23 to April 8, 2020. The empirical results show that in the early COVID-19 outbreak, the risk of public opinion is more serious on macroscopic view. In details, the risk of public opinion decreases slowly with time, but the emergence of important events may still increase the risk of public opinion. The analysis results are in line with the actual situation and verify the effectiveness of the method. Comparative analysis indicates the improved method is proved to be superior and effective, sensitivity analysis confirms its stability. Finally, management suggestions was provided, this study contributes to the literature on public opinion risk assessment and provides implications for practice.
Collapse
|
4
|
Zhao Z, Du L, Wang L, Wang Y, Yang Y, Dong H. Preferred Lung Cancer Screening Modalities in China: A Discrete Choice Experiment. Cancers (Basel) 2021; 13:6110. [PMID: 34885217 PMCID: PMC8656503 DOI: 10.3390/cancers13236110] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/22/2021] [Revised: 11/22/2021] [Accepted: 11/29/2021] [Indexed: 11/17/2022] Open
Abstract
This study aimed to identify preferred lung cancer screening modalities in a Chinese population and predict uptake rates of different modalities. A discrete choice experiment questionnaire was administered to 392 Chinese individuals aged 50-74 years who were at high risk for lung cancer. Each choice set had two lung screening options and an option to opt-out, and respondents were asked to choose the most preferred one. Both mixed logit analysis and stepwise logistic analysis were conducted to explore whether preferences were related to respondent characteristics and identify which kinds of respondents were more likely to opt out of any screening. On mixed logit analysis, attributes that were predictive of choice at 1% level of statistical significance included the screening interval, screening venue, and out-of-pocket costs. The preferred screening modality seemed to be screening by low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) + blood test once a year in a general hospital at a cost of RMB 50; this could increase the uptake rate by 0.40 compared to the baseline setting. On stepwise logistic regression, those with no endowment insurance were more likely to opt out; those who were older and housewives/househusbands, and those with a health check habit and with commercial endowment insurance were less likely to opt out from a screening programme. There was considerable variance between real risk and self-perceived risk of lung cancer among respondents. Lung cancer screening uptake can be increased by offering various screening modalities, so as to help policymakers further design the screening modality.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Zixuan Zhao
- Center for Health Policy Studies, School of Public Health, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou 310058, China; (Z.Z.); (Y.Y.)
| | - Lingbin Du
- Department of Cancer Prevention, Institute of Cancer and Basic Medicine, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Cancer Hospital of the University of Chinese Academy of Sciences (Zhejiang Cancer Hospital), Hangzhou 310022, China; (L.D.); (L.W.); (Y.W.)
| | - Le Wang
- Department of Cancer Prevention, Institute of Cancer and Basic Medicine, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Cancer Hospital of the University of Chinese Academy of Sciences (Zhejiang Cancer Hospital), Hangzhou 310022, China; (L.D.); (L.W.); (Y.W.)
| | - Youqing Wang
- Department of Cancer Prevention, Institute of Cancer and Basic Medicine, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Cancer Hospital of the University of Chinese Academy of Sciences (Zhejiang Cancer Hospital), Hangzhou 310022, China; (L.D.); (L.W.); (Y.W.)
| | - Yi Yang
- Center for Health Policy Studies, School of Public Health, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou 310058, China; (Z.Z.); (Y.Y.)
| | - Hengjin Dong
- Center for Health Policy Studies, School of Public Health, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Hangzhou 310058, China; (Z.Z.); (Y.Y.)
- The Fourth Affiliated Hospital, Zhejiang University School of Medicine, Yiwu 322000, China
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Heterogeneity in how women value risk-stratified breast screening. Genet Med 2021; 24:146-156. [PMID: 34906505 DOI: 10.1016/j.gim.2021.09.002] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/09/2020] [Revised: 07/04/2021] [Accepted: 09/10/2021] [Indexed: 12/28/2022] Open
Abstract
PURPOSE Risk-stratified screening has potential to improve the cost effectiveness of national breast cancer screening programs. This study aimed to inform a socially acceptable and equitable implementation framework by determining what influences a woman's decision to accept a personalized breast cancer risk assessment and what the relative impact of these key determinants is. METHODS Multicriteria decision analysis was used to elicit the relative weights for 8 criteria that women reported influenced their decision. Preference heterogeneity was explored through cluster analysis. RESULTS The 2 criteria valued most by the 347 participants related to program access, "Mode of invitation" and "Testing process". Both criteria significantly influenced participation (P < .001). A total of 73% preferred communication by letter/online. Almost all women preferred a multidisease risk assessment with potential for a familial high-risk result. Four preference-based subgroups were identified. Membership to the largest subgroup was predicted by lower educational attainment, and women in this subgroup were concerned with program access. Higher relative perceived breast cancer risk predicted membership to the smallest subgroup that was focused on test parameters, namely "Scope of test" and "Test specificity". CONCLUSION Overall, Australian women would accept a personalized multidisease risk assessment, but when aligning with their preferences, it will necessitate a focus on program access and the development of online communication frameworks.
Collapse
|
6
|
Kauczor HU, Baird AM, Blum TG, Bonomo L, Bostantzoglou C, Burghuber O, Čepická B, Comanescu A, Couraud S, Devaraj A, Jespersen V, Morozov S, Nardi Agmon I, Peled N, Powell P, Prosch H, Ravara S, Rawlinson J, Revel MP, Silva M, Snoeckx A, van Ginneken B, van Meerbeeck JP, Vardavas C, von Stackelberg O, Gaga M. ESR/ERS statement paper on lung cancer screening. Eur Respir J 2020; 55:13993003.00506-2019. [PMID: 32051182 DOI: 10.1183/13993003.00506-2019] [Citation(s) in RCA: 54] [Impact Index Per Article: 13.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/11/2019] [Accepted: 08/16/2019] [Indexed: 12/18/2022]
Abstract
In Europe, lung cancer ranks third among the most common cancers, remaining the biggest killer. Since the publication of the first European Society of Radiology and European Respiratory Society joint white paper on lung cancer screening (LCS) in 2015, many new findings have been published and discussions have increased considerably. Thus, this updated expert opinion represents a narrative, non-systematic review of the evidence from LCS trials and description of the current practice of LCS as well as aspects that have not received adequate attention until now. Reaching out to the potential participants (persons at high risk), optimal communication and shared decision-making will be key starting points. Furthermore, standards for infrastructure, pathways and quality assurance are pivotal, including promoting tobacco cessation, benefits and harms, overdiagnosis, quality, minimum radiation exposure, definition of management of positive screen results and incidental findings linked to respective actions as well as cost-effectiveness. This requires a multidisciplinary team with experts from pulmonology and radiology as well as thoracic oncologists, thoracic surgeons, pathologists, family doctors, patient representatives and others. The ESR and ERS agree that Europe's health systems need to adapt to allow citizens to benefit from organised pathways, rather than unsupervised initiatives, to allow early diagnosis of lung cancer and reduce the mortality rate. Now is the time to set up and conduct demonstration programmes focusing, among other points, on methodology, standardisation, tobacco cessation, education on healthy lifestyle, cost-effectiveness and a central registry.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hans-Ulrich Kauczor
- Dept of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Heidelberg, German Center of Lung Research, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Anne-Marie Baird
- Central Pathology Laboratory, Trinity College Dublin, St. James's Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
| | | | - Lorenzo Bonomo
- Dept of Radiology, Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli, Rome, Italy
| | | | | | | | | | - Sébastien Couraud
- Service de Pneumologie et Oncologie Thoracique, Hospices Civils de Lyon, CH Lyon Sud, Pierre Bénite, France.,Faculté de Médecine et de Maïeutique Lyon Sud - Charles Mérieux, Université Claude Bernard Lyon I, Oullins, France
| | | | | | - Sergey Morozov
- Dept of Health Care of Moscow, Research and Practical Clinical Center of Diagnostics and Telemedicine Technologies, Moscow, Russian Federation
| | | | - Nir Peled
- Thoracic Cancer Unit, Rabin Medical Center, Petach Tiqwa, Israel
| | | | - Helmut Prosch
- Dept of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Sofia Ravara
- Medical Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Beira Interior, Covilha, Portugal.,Tobacco Cessation Unit, CHCB University Hospital, Covilha, Portugal
| | | | | | - Mario Silva
- Section of Radiology, Dept of Medicine and Surgery (DiMeC), University of Parma, Parma, Italy
| | | | - Bram van Ginneken
- Image Sciences Institute, University Medical Centre, Utrecht, The Netherlands.,Dept of Radiology, Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | | | - Constantine Vardavas
- Clinic of Social and Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Crete, Heraklion, Greece.,Center for Global Tobacco Control, Department of Society, Human Development and Health, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Oyunbileg von Stackelberg
- Dept of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Heidelberg, German Center of Lung Research, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Mina Gaga
- 7th Respiratory Medicine Dept, Athens Chest Hospital Sotiria, Athens, Greece
| | | |
Collapse
|
7
|
Kauczor HU, Baird AM, Blum TG, Bonomo L, Bostantzoglou C, Burghuber O, Čepická B, Comanescu A, Couraud S, Devaraj A, Jespersen V, Morozov S, Agmon IN, Peled N, Powell P, Prosch H, Ravara S, Rawlinson J, Revel MP, Silva M, Snoeckx A, van Ginneken B, van Meerbeeck JP, Vardavas C, von Stackelberg O, Gaga M. ESR/ERS statement paper on lung cancer screening. Eur Radiol 2020; 30:3277-3294. [PMID: 32052170 DOI: 10.1007/s00330-020-06727-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 66] [Impact Index Per Article: 16.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/11/2019] [Accepted: 08/16/2019] [Indexed: 12/17/2022]
Abstract
In Europe, lung cancer ranks third among the most common cancers, remaining the biggest killer. Since the publication of the first European Society of Radiology and European Respiratory Society joint white paper on lung cancer screening (LCS) in 2015, many new findings have been published and discussions have increased considerably. Thus, this updated expert opinion represents a narrative, non-systematic review of the evidence from LCS trials and description of the current practice of LCS as well as aspects that have not received adequate attention until now. Reaching out to the potential participants (persons at high risk), optimal communication and shared decision-making will be key starting points. Furthermore, standards for infrastructure, pathways and quality assurance are pivotal, including promoting tobacco cessation, benefits and harms, overdiagnosis, quality, minimum radiation exposure, definition of management of positive screen results and incidental findings linked to respective actions as well as cost-effectiveness. This requires a multidisciplinary team with experts from pulmonology and radiology as well as thoracic oncologists, thoracic surgeons, pathologists, family doctors, patient representatives and others. The ESR and ERS agree that Europe's health systems need to adapt to allow citizens to benefit from organised pathways, rather than unsupervised initiatives, to allow early diagnosis of lung cancer and reduce the mortality rate. Now is the time to set up and conduct demonstration programmes focusing, among other points, on methodology, standardisation, tobacco cessation, education on healthy lifestyle, cost-effectiveness and a central registry.Key Points• Pulmonologists and radiologists both have key roles in the set up of multidisciplinary LCS teams with experts from many other fields.• Pulmonologists identify people eligible for LCS, reach out to family doctors, share the decision-making process and promote tobacco cessation.• Radiologists ensure appropriate image quality, minimum dose and a standardised reading/reporting algorithm, together with a clear definition of a "positive screen".• Strict algorithms define the exact management of screen-detected nodules and incidental findings.• For LCS to be (cost-)effective, it has to target a population defined by risk prediction models.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hans-Ulrich Kauczor
- Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Heidelberg, German Center of Lung Research, INF 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
| | - Anne-Marie Baird
- Central Pathology Laboratory, Trinity College Dublin, St. James's Hospital, Dublin, Ireland
| | | | - Lorenzo Bonomo
- Department of Radiology, Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli, Rome, Italy
| | | | | | | | | | - Sébastien Couraud
- Service de Pneumologie et Oncologie Thoracique, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Sud, Pierre Bénite, Lyon, CH, France.,Faculté de Médecine et de Maïeutique Lyon Sud - Charles Mérieux, Université Claude Bernard Lyon I, Oullins, France
| | | | | | - Sergey Morozov
- Department of Health Care of Moscow, Research and Practical Clinical Center of Diagnostics and Telemedicine Technologies, Moscow, Russian Federation
| | | | - Nir Peled
- Thoracic Cancer Unit, Rabin Medical Center, Petach Tiqwa, Israel
| | | | - Helmut Prosch
- Department of Biomedical Imaging and Image-guided Therapy, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
| | - Sofia Ravara
- Medical Sciences, Faculty of Health Sciences, University of Beira Interior, Covilha, Portugal.,Tobacco Cessation Unit, CHCB University Hospital, Covilha, Portugal
| | | | | | - Mario Silva
- Section of Radiology, Department of Medicine and Surgery (DiMeC), University of Parma, Parma, Italy
| | | | - Bram van Ginneken
- Image Sciences Institute, University Medical Centre, Utrecht, The Netherlands.,Department of Radiology, Nijmegen Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | | | - Constantine Vardavas
- Clinic of Social and Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Crete, Heraklion, Greece.,Center for Global Tobacco Control, Department of Society, Human Development and Health, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
| | - Oyunbileg von Stackelberg
- Department of Diagnostic and Interventional Radiology, University Hospital Heidelberg, German Center of Lung Research, INF 110, 69120, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Mina Gaga
- 7th Respiratory Medicine Department, Athens Chest Hospital Sotiria, Athens, Greece
| | | |
Collapse
|
8
|
Broekhuizen H, Groothuis-Oudshoorn CGM, Vliegenthart R, Groen HJM, IJzerman MJ. Assessing Lung Cancer Screening Programs under Uncertainty in a Heterogeneous Population. VALUE IN HEALTH : THE JOURNAL OF THE INTERNATIONAL SOCIETY FOR PHARMACOECONOMICS AND OUTCOMES RESEARCH 2018; 21:1269-1277. [PMID: 30442273 DOI: 10.1016/j.jval.2018.01.021] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/11/2017] [Revised: 12/22/2017] [Accepted: 01/03/2018] [Indexed: 06/09/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Lung cancer screening can reduce cancer mortality. Most implementation studies focus only on low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) and clinical attributes of screening and do not include preferences of potential participants. In this study we evaluated the perceived value of screening programs based on LDCT, breath analysis (BA), or blood biomarkers (BB) according to the perspective of the target population. METHODS A multi-criteria decision analysis framework was adopted. The weights of seven attributes of screening (sensitivity, specificity, radiation burden, duration of screening process, waiting time until results are communicated, location of screening, and mode of screening) were obtained from an earlier study that included a broad sample from the Netherlands. Performance data for the screening modalities was obtained from clinical trials and expert opinion. Parameter uncertainty about clinical performances was incorporated probabilistically, while heterogeneity in preferences was analyzed through subgroup analyses. RESULTS The mean overall values were 0.58 (CI: 0.57 to 0.59), 0.57 (CI: 0.56 to 0.59), and 0.44 (CI: 0.43 to 0.45) for BB, BA, and LDCT, respectively. Seventy-seven per cent of respondents preferred BB or BA. For most subgroups, the overall values were similar to those of the entire sample. BA had the highest value for respondents who would have been eligible for earlier screening trials. DISCUSSION BB and BA seem valuable to participants because they can be applied in a primary care setting. Although LDCT still seems preferable given its strong and positive evidence base, it is important to take non-clinical attributes into account to maximize attendance.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Henk Broekhuizen
- Radboud University Medical Center, Department of Health Evidence, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.
| | - Catharina G M Groothuis-Oudshoorn
- University of Twente, Faculty of Behavioural Management and Social Sciences, Technical Medical Centre, Department of Health Technology and Services Research, Enschede, The Netherlands
| | - Rozemarijn Vliegenthart
- University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Radiology, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Harry J M Groen
- University of Groningen, University Medical Center Groningen, Department of Pulmonary Diseases, Groningen, The Netherlands
| | - Maarten J IJzerman
- Radboud University Medical Center, Department of Health Evidence, Nijmegen, The Netherlands; University of Melbourne, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences and Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Stol YH, Asscher ECA, Schermer MHN. Good health checks according to the general public; expectations and criteria: a focus group study. BMC Med Ethics 2018; 19:64. [PMID: 29929500 PMCID: PMC6013874 DOI: 10.1186/s12910-018-0301-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/06/2017] [Accepted: 05/28/2018] [Indexed: 11/25/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Health checks or health screenings identify (risk factors for) disease in people without a specific medical indication. So far, the perspective of (potential) health check users has remained underexposed in discussions about the ethics and regulation of health checks. Methods In 2017, we conducted a qualitative study with lay people from the Netherlands (four focus groups). We asked what participants consider characteristics of good and bad health checks, and whether they saw a role for the Dutch government. Results Participants consider a good predictive value the most important characteristic of a good health check. Information before, during and after the test, knowledgeable and reliable providers, tests for treatable (risk factors for) disease, respect for privacy, no unnecessary health risks and accessibility are also mentioned as criteria for good health checks. Participants make many assumptions about health check offers. They assume health checks provide certainty about the presence or absence of disease, that health checks offer opportunities for health benefits and that the privacy of health check data is guaranteed. In their choice for provider and test they tend to rely more on heuristics than information. Participants trust physicians to put the interest of potential health check users first and expect the Dutch government to intervene if providers other than physicians failed to do so by offering tests with a low predictive value, or tests that may harm people, or by infringing the privacy of users. Conclusions Assumptions of participants are not always justified, but they may influence the choice to participate. This is problematic because choices for checks with a low predictive value that do not provide health benefits may create uncertainty and may cause harm to health; an outcome diametrically opposite to the one intended. Also, this may impair the relationship of trust with physicians and the Dutch government. To further and protect autonomous choice and to maintain trust, we recommend the following measures to timely adjust false expectations: advertisements that give an accurate impression of health check offers, and the installation of a quality mark. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12910-018-0301-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Yrrah H Stol
- ErasmusMC: Department of Medical Ethics and Philosophy of Medicine, Na building, room Na 24.16 Postbus, 2040 3000, CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Eva C A Asscher
- ErasmusMC: Department of Medical Ethics and Philosophy of Medicine, Na building, room Na 24.16 Postbus, 2040 3000, CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Maartje H N Schermer
- ErasmusMC: Department of Medical Ethics and Philosophy of Medicine, Na building, room Na 24.16 Postbus, 2040 3000, CA, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
| |
Collapse
|