1
|
McWilliams L, Roux A, Hawkes R, Cholerton R, Delattre H, Bernoux A, Forzy ML, Evans DG, Balleyguier C, Keatley D, Vissac-Sabatier C, Delaloge S, de Montgolfier S, French DP. Women's experiences of risk-stratified breast cancer screening in the MyPeBS trial: a qualitative comparative study across two European countries. Psychol Health 2024:1-23. [PMID: 39221884 DOI: 10.1080/08870446.2024.2395856] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/11/2023] [Revised: 07/14/2024] [Accepted: 08/18/2024] [Indexed: 09/04/2024]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Risk-stratification should improve the benefits-to-harms ratio for breast screening, whereby higher-risk women receive additional screening and low-risk women are screened less. This study investigated the effects of healthcare context by comparing how women in England and France experienced risk-based breast screening. METHODS AND MEASURES Fifty-two women were purposively sampled from participants who underwent risk-based screening in the MyPeBS trial. Women received objectively-derived 5-year breast cancer risk estimates (low = < 1%, average = 1-1.66%, high = ≥ 1.67 to <6%, very-high-risk = ≥ 6%). This determined future trial-related screening schedules and prevention options. Semi-structured interviews were transcribed for thematic framework analysis. RESULTS Two overarching themes were produced: the importance of supported risk communication and accessibility of risk management. Overall, risk-based breast screening was viewed positively. However, trial procedures, especially in risk estimate provision, differed across sites. Women at increased risk were more reassured when appointments were with specialist healthcare professionals (HCP). When absent, this resulted in reduced satisfaction with risk communication and greater uncertainty about its personal relevance. Low-risk women's views on extended mammogram schedules seemed linked to how health services are organised differently. CONCLUSIONS Context is an important consideration regarding acceptability of healthcare innovations such as risk-stratified screening: it should not be assumed that findings from one country apply universally.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lorna McWilliams
- Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Alexandra Roux
- Inserm, IRD, SESSTIM, ISSPAM, Aix Marseille Univ, Marseille, France
| | - Rhiannon Hawkes
- Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Rachel Cholerton
- Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Hélène Delattre
- Centre Régional Dépistage des Cancers - Ile de France Hauts-de-Seine, Nanterre, France
| | - Agnès Bernoux
- Centre Régional Dépistage des Cancers - Ile de France Essonne, Fontenay Les Briis, France
| | - Marie-Laure Forzy
- Centre Régional Dépistage des Cancers - Hauts-de-France, Lille, France
| | - D Gareth Evans
- Division of Evolution, Infection and Genomic Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | | | | | | | | | | | - David P French
- Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Kohut K, Morton K, Hurley K, Turner L, Dale C, Eastbrook S, Gold R, Henwood K, Patton S, Punjabi R, White H, Young C, Young J, Bancroft E, Barnett L, Cable S, Connolly G, Coad B, Forman A, Hanson H, Kavanaugh G, Sahan K, Snape K, Torr B, Way R, Winchester E, Youngs A, Eccles D, Foster C. 'A good decision is the one that feels right for me': Codesign with patients to inform theoretical underpinning of a decision aid website. Health Expect 2024; 27:e13844. [PMID: 37705192 PMCID: PMC10768874 DOI: 10.1111/hex.13844] [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: 03/21/2023] [Revised: 07/17/2023] [Accepted: 08/01/2023] [Indexed: 09/15/2023] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Patient decision aids (PtDA) complement shared decision-making with healthcare professionals and improve decision quality. However, PtDA often lack theoretical underpinning. We are codesigning a PtDA to help people with increased genetic cancer risks manage choices. The aim of an innovative workshop described here was to engage with the people who will use the PtDA regarding the theoretical underpinning and logic model outlining our hypothesis of how the PtDA would lead to more informed decision-making. METHODS Short presentations about psychological and behavioural theories by an expert were interspersed with facilitated, small-group discussions led by patients. Patients were asked what is important to them when they make health decisions, what theoretical constructs are most meaningful and how this should be applied to codesign of a PtDA. An artist created a visual summary. Notes from patient discussions and the artwork were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS The overarching theme was: It's personal. Contextual factors important for decision-making were varied and changed over time. There was no one 'best fit' theory to target support needs in a PtDA, suggesting an inductive, flexible framework approach to programme theory would be most effective. The PtDA logic model was revised based on patient feedback. CONCLUSION Meaningful codesign of PtDA including discussions about the theoretical mechanisms through which they support decision-making has the potential to lead to improved patient care through understanding the intricately personal nature of health decisions, and tailoring content and format for holistic care. PATIENT CONTRIBUTION Patients with lived experience were involved in codesign and coproduction of this workshop and analysis as partners and coauthors. Patient discussions were the primary data source. Facilitators provided a semi-structured guide, but they did not influence the patient discussions or provide clinical advice. The premise of this workshop was to prioritise the importance of patient lived experience: to listen, learn, then reflect together to understand and propose ideas to improve patient care through codesign of a PtDA.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kelly Kohut
- School of Health Sciences, Centre for Psychosocial Research in Cancer (CentRIC)University of SouthamptonSouthamptonUK
- St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustLondonUK
| | - Kate Morton
- School of Health Sciences, Centre for Psychosocial Research in Cancer (CentRIC)University of SouthamptonSouthamptonUK
| | - Karen Hurley
- Stanford R. Weiss, MD Center for Hereditary Colorectal NeoplasiaCleveland ClinicClevelandOhioUSA
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Elizabeth Bancroft
- Cancer Genetics Unit and Academic Urology UnitThe Royal Marsden NHS Foundation TrustLondonUK
- Oncogenetics TeamThe Institute of Cancer ResearchLondonUK
| | - Lily Barnett
- St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustLondonUK
| | - Sarah Cable
- St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustLondonUK
| | - Gaya Connolly
- St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustLondonUK
| | - Beth Coad
- St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustLondonUK
| | - Andrea Forman
- St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustLondonUK
| | - Helen Hanson
- St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustLondonUK
| | - Grace Kavanaugh
- Division of Genetics and EpidemiologyThe Institute of Cancer ResearchLondonUK
| | - Katherine Sahan
- Nuffield Department of Population Health, The Ethox CentreUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK
| | - Katie Snape
- St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustLondonUK
| | - Bethany Torr
- Division of Genetics and EpidemiologyThe Institute of Cancer ResearchLondonUK
| | - Rosalind Way
- Division of Genetics and EpidemiologyThe Institute of Cancer ResearchLondonUK
| | | | - Alice Youngs
- St George's University Hospitals NHS Foundation TrustLondonUK
| | | | - Diana Eccles
- Faculty of MedicineUniversity of SouthamptonSouthamptonUK
| | - Claire Foster
- School of Health Sciences, Centre for Psychosocial Research in Cancer (CentRIC)University of SouthamptonSouthamptonUK
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Woof VG, McWilliams L, Howell A, Evans DG, French DP. How do women at increased risk of breast cancer make sense of their risk? An interpretative phenomenological analysis. Br J Health Psychol 2023; 28:1169-1184. [PMID: 37395149 PMCID: PMC10947456 DOI: 10.1111/bjhp.12678] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/20/2023] [Revised: 06/08/2023] [Accepted: 06/16/2023] [Indexed: 07/04/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Offering breast cancer risk prediction for all women of screening age is being considered globally. For women who have received a clinically derived estimate, risk appraisals are often inaccurate. This study aimed to gain an in-depth understanding of women's lived experiences of receiving an increased breast cancer risk. DESIGN One-to-one semi-structured telephone interviews. METHODS Eight women informed that they were at a 10-year above-average (moderate) or high risk in a breast cancer risk study (BC-Predict) were interviewed about their views on breast cancer, personal breast cancer risk and risk prevention. Interviews lasted between 40 and 70 min. Data were analysed using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis. RESULTS Four themes were generated: (i) encounters with breast cancer and perceived personal significance, where the nature of women's lived experiences of others with breast cancer impacted their views on the significance of the disease, (ii) 'It's random really': difficulty in seeking causal attributions, where women encountered contradictions and confusion in attributing causes to breast cancer, (iii) believing versus identifying with a clinically-derived breast cancer risk, where personal risk appraisals and expectations influenced women's ability to internalize their clinically derived risk and pursue preventative action and (iv) perceived utility of breast cancer risk notification, where women reflected on the usefulness of knowing their risk. CONCLUSIONS Providing (numerical) risk estimates appear to have little impact on stable yet internally contradictory beliefs about breast cancer risk. Given this, discussions with healthcare professionals are needed to help women form more accurate appraisals and make informed decisions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Anthony Howell
- University of ManchesterManchesterUK
- The Nightingale Centre, Wythenshawe HospitalManchester University NHS Foundation TrustManchesterUK
| | - D. Gareth Evans
- University of ManchesterManchesterUK
- The Nightingale Centre, Wythenshawe HospitalManchester University NHS Foundation TrustManchesterUK
| | | |
Collapse
|
4
|
McWilliams L, Ruane H, Ulph F, Woof VG, Harrison F, Evans DG, French DP. What do women think about having received their breast cancer risk as part of a risk-stratified NHS Breast Screening Programme? A qualitative study. Br J Cancer 2023; 129:356-365. [PMID: 37225893 PMCID: PMC10206350 DOI: 10.1038/s41416-023-02268-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/02/2022] [Revised: 03/30/2023] [Accepted: 04/03/2023] [Indexed: 05/26/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Risk-stratified screening is being considered for national breast screening programmes. It is unclear how women experience risk-stratified screening and receipt of breast cancer risk information in real time. This study aimed to explore the psychological impact of undergoing risk-stratified screening within England's NHS Breast Screening Programme. METHODS Individual telephone interviews were conducted with 40 women who participated in the BC-Predict study and received a letter indicating their estimated breast cancer risk as one of four risk categories: low (<2% 10-year risk), average (2-4.99%), above average (moderate; 5-7.99%) or high (≥8%). Audio-recorded interview transcriptions were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS Two themes were produced: 'From risk expectations to what's my future health story?' highlights that women overall valued the opportunity to receive risk estimates; however, when these were discordant with perceived risk, this causes temporary distress or rejection of the information. 'Being a good (woman) citizen' where women felt positive contributing to society but may feel judged if they then cannot exert agency over the management of their risk or access follow-up support CONCLUSIONS: Risk-stratified breast screening was generally accepted without causing long-lasting distress; however, issues related to risk communication and access to care pathways need to be considered for implementation.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lorna McWilliams
- Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, Division of Psychology & Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, MAHSC, Oxford Road, M13 9PL, Manchester, UK.
- NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, England.
| | - Helen Ruane
- Nightingale & Prevent Breast Cancer Research Unit, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust (MFT), Southmoor Road, Wythenshawe, M23 9LT, Manchester, UK
| | - Fiona Ulph
- Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, Division of Psychology & Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, MAHSC, Oxford Road, M13 9PL, Manchester, UK
| | - Victoria G Woof
- Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, Division of Psychology & Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, MAHSC, Oxford Road, M13 9PL, Manchester, UK
| | | | - D Gareth Evans
- NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, England
- Nightingale & Prevent Breast Cancer Research Unit, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust (MFT), Southmoor Road, Wythenshawe, M23 9LT, Manchester, UK
- Genomic Medicine, Division of Evolution and Genomic Sciences, The University of Manchester, St Mary's Hospital, Manchester University NHS Foundation Trust, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9WL, England
- Manchester Breast Centre, Manchester Cancer Research Centre, University of Manchester, 555 Wilmslow Rd, Manchester, M20 4GJ, England
| | - David P French
- Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, Division of Psychology & Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, MAHSC, Oxford Road, M13 9PL, Manchester, UK
- NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Central Manchester University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, Manchester, England
- Manchester Breast Centre, Manchester Cancer Research Centre, University of Manchester, 555 Wilmslow Rd, Manchester, M20 4GJ, England
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Hindmarch S, Gorman L, Hawkes RE, Howell SJ, French DP. "I don't know what I'm feeling for": young women's beliefs about breast cancer risk and experiences of breast awareness. BMC Womens Health 2023; 23:312. [PMID: 37328760 PMCID: PMC10276361 DOI: 10.1186/s12905-023-02441-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/25/2023] [Accepted: 05/17/2023] [Indexed: 06/18/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Younger women are often diagnosed with advanced breast cancer. Beliefs about risk are instrumental in motivating many health protective behaviours, but there may be confusion around which behaviour is appropriate to detect breast cancer earlier. Breast awareness, defined as an understanding of how the breasts look and feel so changes can be identified early, is widely recommended. In contrast, breast self-examination involves palpation using a specified method. We aimed to investigate young women's beliefs about their risk and experiences of breast awareness. METHODS Thirty-seven women aged 30-39 years residing in a North West region of England with no family or personal history of breast cancer participated in seven focus groups (n = 29) and eight individual interviews. Data were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS Three themes were generated. "Future me's problem" describes why women perceive breast cancer as an older woman's disease. Uncertainty regarding checking behaviours highlights how confusion about self-checking behaviour advice has resulted in women infrequently performing breast checks. Campaigns as a missed opportunity highlights the potential negative effects of current breast cancer fundraising campaigns and the perceived absence of educational campaigning about breast cancer for this demographic. CONCLUSIONS Young women expressed low perceived susceptibility to developing breast cancer in the near future. Women did not know what breast self-checking behaviours they should be performing and expressed a lack of confidence in how to perform a breast check appropriately due to limited knowledge about what to look and feel for. Consequently, women reported disengagement with breast awareness. Defining and clearly communicating the best strategy for breast awareness and establishing whether it is beneficial or not are essential next steps.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sarah Hindmarch
- Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, Division of Psychology and Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
| | - Louise Gorman
- NIHR Greater Manchester Patient Safety Translational Research Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
| | - Rhiannon E Hawkes
- Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, Division of Psychology and Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Sacha J Howell
- Division of Cancer Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester, UK
| | - David P French
- Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, Division of Psychology and Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Usher-Smith JA, Hindmarch S, French DP, Tischkowitz M, Moorthie S, Walter FM, Dennison RA, Stutzin Donoso F, Archer S, Taylor L, Emery J, Morris S, Easton DF, Antoniou AC. Proactive breast cancer risk assessment in primary care: a review based on the principles of screening. Br J Cancer 2023; 128:1636-1646. [PMID: 36737659 PMCID: PMC9897164 DOI: 10.1038/s41416-023-02145-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/07/2022] [Revised: 01/05/2023] [Accepted: 01/06/2023] [Indexed: 02/05/2023] Open
Abstract
In the UK, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) recommends that women at moderate or high risk of breast cancer be offered risk-reducing medication and enhanced breast screening/surveillance. In June 2022, NICE withdrew a statement recommending assessment of risk in primary care only when women present with concerns. This shift to the proactive assessment of risk substantially changes the role of primary care, in effect paving the way for a primary care-based screening programme to identify those at moderate or high risk of breast cancer. In this article, we review the literature surrounding proactive breast cancer risk assessment within primary care against the consolidated framework for screening. We find that risk assessment for women under 50 years currently satisfies many of the standard principles for screening. Most notably, there are large numbers of women at moderate or high risk currently unidentified, risk models exist that can identify those women with reasonable accuracy, and management options offer the opportunity to reduce breast cancer incidence and mortality in that group. However, there remain a number of uncertainties and research gaps, particularly around the programme/system requirements, that need to be addressed before these benefits can be realised.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Juliet A. Usher-Smith
- grid.5335.00000000121885934The Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Sarah Hindmarch
- grid.5379.80000000121662407Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, Division of Psychology and Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - David P. French
- grid.5379.80000000121662407Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, Division of Psychology and Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Marc Tischkowitz
- grid.5335.00000000121885934Department of Medical Genetics, National Institute for Health Research Cambridge Biomedical Research Centre, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Sowmiya Moorthie
- grid.5335.00000000121885934PHG Foundation, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Fiona M. Walter
- grid.5335.00000000121885934The Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK ,grid.4868.20000 0001 2171 1133Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Rebecca A. Dennison
- grid.5335.00000000121885934The Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Francisca Stutzin Donoso
- grid.5335.00000000121885934The Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Stephanie Archer
- grid.5335.00000000121885934The Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK ,grid.5335.00000000121885934Department of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Lily Taylor
- grid.5335.00000000121885934The Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Jon Emery
- grid.1008.90000 0001 2179 088XCentre for Cancer Research and Department of General Practice, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC Australia
| | - Stephen Morris
- grid.5335.00000000121885934The Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Douglas F. Easton
- grid.5335.00000000121885934Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Antonis C. Antoniou
- grid.5335.00000000121885934Centre for Cancer Genetic Epidemiology, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| |
Collapse
|