1
|
Smit AK, Allen M, Beswick B, Butow P, Dawkins H, Dobbinson SJ, Dunlop KL, Espinoza D, Fenton G, Kanetsky PA, Keogh L, Kimlin MG, Kirk J, Law MH, Lo S, Low C, Mann GJ, Reyes-Marcelino G, Morton RL, Newson AJ, Savard J, Trevena L, Wordsworth S, Cust AE. Impact of personal genomic risk information on melanoma prevention behaviors and psychological outcomes: a randomized controlled trial. Genet Med 2021; 23:2394-2403. [PMID: 34385669 PMCID: PMC8629758 DOI: 10.1038/s41436-021-01292-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/13/2021] [Revised: 07/16/2021] [Accepted: 07/19/2021] [Indexed: 02/07/2023] Open
Abstract
Purpose We evaluated the impact of personal melanoma genomic risk information on sun-related behaviors and psychological outcomes. Methods In this parallel group, open, randomized controlled trial, 1,025 Australians of European ancestry without melanoma and aged 18–69 years were recruited via the Medicare database (3% consent). Participants were randomized to the intervention (n = 513; saliva sample for genetic testing, personalized melanoma risk booklet based on a 40-variant polygenic risk score, telephone-based genetic counseling, educational booklet) or control (n = 512; educational booklet). Wrist-worn ultraviolet (UV) radiation dosimeters (10-day wear) and questionnaires were administered at baseline, 1 month postintervention, and 12 months postbaseline. Results At 12 months, 948 (92%) participants completed dosimetry and 973 (95%) the questionnaire. For the primary outcome, there was no effect of the genomic risk intervention on objectively measured UV exposure at 12 months, irrespective of traditional risk factors. For secondary outcomes at 12 months, the intervention reduced sunburns (risk ratio: 0.72, 95% confidence interval: 0.54–0.96), and increased skin examinations among women. Melanoma-related worry was reduced. There was no overall impact on general psychological distress. Conclusion Personalized genomic risk information did not influence sun exposure patterns but did improve some skin cancer prevention and early detection behaviors, suggesting it may be useful for precision prevention. There was no evidence of psychological harm.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Amelia K Smit
- The Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW, NSW, Sydney, Australia.,Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Martin Allen
- Electrical and Computer Engineering, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand
| | - Brooke Beswick
- The Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW, NSW, Sydney, Australia
| | - Phyllis Butow
- Centre for Medical Psychology and Evidence-based Decision-making, School of Psychology, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Hugh Dawkins
- Division of Genetics, School of Biomedical Sciences, University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia.,School of Medicine, The University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, NSW, Australia
| | | | - Kate L Dunlop
- The Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW, NSW, Sydney, Australia
| | - David Espinoza
- NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Georgina Fenton
- The Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW, NSW, Sydney, Australia
| | - Peter A Kanetsky
- H. Lee Moffitt Cancer Center and Research Institute, Tampa, FL, USA
| | - Louise Keogh
- Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia
| | - Michael G Kimlin
- Queensland University of Technology, School of Biomedical Sciences, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
| | - Judy Kirk
- Westmead Clinical School and Westmead Institute for Medical Research, Sydney Medical School, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Matthew H Law
- Statistical Genetics, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.,Queensland University of Technology (QUT), Brisbane, QLD, Australia
| | - Serigne Lo
- Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Cynthia Low
- Consumer representative, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
| | - Graham J Mann
- Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.,The John Curtin School of Medical Research, ANU College of Health and Medicine, ANU, ACT, Canberra, Australia
| | - Gillian Reyes-Marcelino
- The Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW, NSW, Sydney, Australia
| | - Rachael L Morton
- Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.,NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Ainsley J Newson
- Sydney Health Ethics, Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Jacqueline Savard
- School of Medicine, Faculty of Health, Deakin University, Geelong, VIC, Australia
| | - Lyndal Trevena
- Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Sarah Wordsworth
- Health Economics Research Centre, The University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Anne E Cust
- The Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW, NSW, Sydney, Australia. .,Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Modi RN, Kelly S, Hoare S, Powell A, Kuhn I, Usher-Smith J, Mant J, Burt J. Delivering screening programmes in primary care: protocol for a scoping and systematic mixed studies review. BMJ Open 2021; 11:e046331. [PMID: 33858873 PMCID: PMC8055151 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-046331] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/04/2022] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Screening programmes represent a considerable amount of healthcare activity. As complex interventions, they require careful delivery to generate net benefit. Much screening work occurs in primary care. Despite intensive study of intervention delivery in primary care, there is currently no synthesis of the delivery of screening programmes in this setting. The purpose of this review is to describe and critically evaluate the delivery of screening programmes in general practice and community services. METHODS AND ANALYSIS We will use scoping review methods to explore which components of screening programmes are delivered in primary care and systematic review methods to locate and synthesise evidence on how screening programmes can be delivered in primary care, including barriers, facilitators and strategies. We will include empirical studies of any design which consider screening programmes in high-income countries, based in part or whole in primary care. We will search 20 information sources from 1 January 2000, including those relating to health (eg, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL), management (eg, Rx for change database) and grey literature (eg, OpenGrey, screening committee websites). Two reviewers will screen citations and full texts of potentially eligible studies and assess these against inclusion criteria. Qualitative and quantitative data will be extracted in duplicate and synthesised using a best fit framework approach. Within the systematic review, the mixed methods appraisal tool will be used to assess risk of bias. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION No ethics approval is required. We will disseminate findings to academics through publication and presentation, to decision-makers through national screening bodies, to practitioners through professional bodies, and to the public through social media. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER CRD42020215420.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Sarah Kelly
- he Healthcare Improvement Studies Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Sarah Hoare
- he Healthcare Improvement Studies Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Alison Powell
- he Healthcare Improvement Studies Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Isla Kuhn
- Medical Library, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | | | - Jonathan Mant
- Primary Care Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Jenni Burt
- he Healthcare Improvement Studies Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Armstrong RE, Frith L, Ulph FM, Southern KW. Constructing a Bioethical Framework to Evaluate and Optimise Newborn Bloodspot Screening for Cystic Fibrosis. Int J Neonatal Screen 2020; 6:40. [PMID: 33073032 PMCID: PMC7422997 DOI: 10.3390/ijns6020040] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/13/2020] [Accepted: 05/04/2020] [Indexed: 12/15/2022] Open
Abstract
Newborn bloodspot screening for cystic fibrosis is a valid public health strategy for populations with a high incidence of this inherited condition. There are a wide variety of approaches to screening and in this paper, we propose that a bioethical framework is required to determine the most appropriate screening protocol for a population. This framework depends on the detailed evaluation of the ethical consequences of all screening outcomes and placing these in the context of the genetic profile of the population screened, the geography of the region and the healthcare resources available.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rachael E Armstrong
- Department of Women's and Children's Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool L12 2AP, UK;
| | - Lucy Frith
- Institute of Population Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool L69 3GL, UK;
| | - Fiona M Ulph
- Division of Psychology & Mental Health, School of Health Sciences, Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, Manchester M13 9PL, UK;
| | - Kevin W Southern
- Department of Women's and Children's Health, University of Liverpool, Liverpool L12 2AP, UK;
| |
Collapse
|