What are the views of three key stakeholder groups on extending the breast screening interval for low-risk women? A secondary qualitative analysis

Attitudes towards risk-stratified breast cancer screening in Denmark - a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Today the prerequisites exist to initiate risk-stratified screening according to a woman's individual risk of breast cancer as opposed to existing one-size-fits-all age-based programmes. This presupposes that the women accept having their personal risk score estimated and their screening intervals changed accordingly. Risk-stratified screening has not yet been implemented in any country, but in the future many European countries will very likely move towards more personalized screening.

METHODS

This qualitative study among 46 women aged 50-69 years used an anthropological approach and interpretive description. Data was collected using semi-structured focus group interviews and telephone interviews. The interviews were analysed using systematic text condensation.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to explore Danish women's understanding of breast cancer risk and their attitudes towards the concept of risk-stratified breast cancer screening.

RESULTS

The women highly valued the current screening program, seeing regular mammograms as crucial for early detection. The women had good knowledge of the causes of breast cancer, but they had not given much thought to their own risk. They found a personalized screening approach more reliable than age-based screening, understanding that low risk is not the same as no risk just as high risk is not equal to ever developing breast cancer. Despite concerns about increased anxiety arising from knowing one's risk, they appreciated the possibility of more frequent screenings for high-risk individuals.

CONCLUSION

In general, the women showed acceptance of a new breast cancer screening concept estimating their personal risk score. Due to concerns about interval cancers and the prolonged screening intervals for women at low risk, offering more intensified screening for high-risk women may be less challenging than deescalating screening for low-risk women. Whether the expressed positive attitude and curious interest will translate into actual participation if implemented, remains to be investigated further in an ongoing Danish trial.

Women's experiences of risk-stratified breast cancer screening in the MyPeBS trial: a qualitative comparative study across two European countries

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.

Implementation considerations for risk-tailored cancer screening in the population: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Risk-tailored screening has emerged as a promising approach to optimise the balance of benefits and harms of existing population cancer screening programs. It tailors screening (e.g., eligibility, frequency, interval, test type) to individual risk rather than the current one-size-fits-all approach of most organised population screening programs. However, the implementation of risk-tailored cancer screening in the population is challenging as it requires a change of practice at multiple levels i.e., individual, provider, health system levels. This scoping review aims to synthesise current implementation considerations for risk-tailored cancer screening in the population, identifying barriers, facilitators, and associated implementation outcomes.

METHODS

Relevant studies were identified via database searches up to February 2023. Results were synthesised using Tierney et al. (2020) guidance for evidence synthesis of implementation outcomes and a multilevel framework.

RESULTS

Of 4138 titles identified, 74 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most studies in this review focused on the implementation outcomes of acceptability, feasibility, and appropriateness, reflecting the pre-implementation stage of most research to date. Only six studies included an implementation framework. The review identified consistent evidence that risk-tailored screening is largely acceptable across population groups, however reluctance to accept a reduction in screening frequency for low-risk informed by cultural norms, presents a major barrier. Limited studies were identified for cancer types other than breast cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation strategies will need to address alternate models of delivery, education of health professionals, communication with the public, screening options for people at low risk of cancer, and inequity in outcomes across cancer types.

Implementing systematic melanoma risk assessment and risk-tailored surveillance in a skin cancer focussed dermatology clinic: A qualitative study of feasibility and acceptability to patients and clinic staff

BACKGROUND

International bodies recommend that melanoma risk assessment should be integrated into skin cancer care provision, but evidence to support implementation is lacking.

AIM

To explore the acceptability and feasibility of implementing personalised melanoma risk assessment and tailored patient education and skin surveillance within routine clinical care.

METHODS

This prospective qualitative implementation study was informed by the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA). Personalised, systematic melanoma risk assessment was implemented in the dermatology clinic at the Melanoma Institute Australia, Sydney, Australia February-May 2021. Pre- and post-implementation observations and semi-structured interviews with patients and staff were conducted (September 2020-March 2021). Observational notes and interview transcript data were analysed thematically using the TFA as a classifying framework.

RESULTS

A total of 37 h of observations were made, and 29 patients and 12 clinic staff were interviewed. We found that the delivery of personalised melanoma risk estimates did not impact on patient flow through the clinic. Dermatologists reported that the personalised risk information enhanced their confidence in assessing patient risk and recommending tailored surveillance schedules. Most patients reported that the risk assessment and tailored information were a beneficial addition to their care. Among patients whose risk deviated from their expectations, some reported feeling worried, confused or mistrust in the risk information, including those at lower risk who were recommended to decrease surveillance frequency.

CONCLUSIONS

It is feasible and acceptable to patients and clinic staff to calculate and deliver personalised melanoma risk information and tailored surveillance as part of routine clinical care within dermatology clinics.