1
|
Dunlop KLA, Singh N, Robbins HA, Zahed H, Johansson M, Rankin NM, Cust AE. Implementation considerations for risk-tailored cancer screening in the population: A scoping review. Prev Med 2024; 181:107897. [PMID: 38378124 PMCID: PMC11106520 DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2024.107897] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/28/2023] [Revised: 02/10/2024] [Accepted: 02/14/2024] [Indexed: 02/22/2024]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kate L A Dunlop
- The Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.
| | - Nehal Singh
- The Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Hilary A Robbins
- International Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health Organization, Lyon, France
| | - Hana Zahed
- International Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health Organization, Lyon, France
| | - Mattias Johansson
- International Agency for Research on Cancer, World Health Organization, Lyon, France
| | - Nicole M Rankin
- Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia; Sydney School of Public Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| | - Anne E Cust
- The Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW, Sydney, NSW, Australia; Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Laza C, Niño de Guzmán E, Gea M, Plazas M, Posso M, Rué M, Castells X, Román M. "For and against" factors influencing participation in personalized breast cancer screening programs: a qualitative systematic review until March 2022. Arch Public Health 2024; 82:23. [PMID: 38389068 PMCID: PMC10882761 DOI: 10.1186/s13690-024-01248-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/09/2023] [Accepted: 02/05/2024] [Indexed: 02/24/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Personalized breast cancer screening is a novel strategy that estimates individual risk based on age, breast density, family history of breast cancer, personal history of benign breast lesions, and polygenic risk. Its goal is to propose personalized early detection recommendations for women in the target population based on their individual risk. Our aim was to synthesize the factors that influence women's decision to participate in personalized breast cancer screening, from the perspective of women and health care professionals. METHODS Systematic review of qualitative evidence on factors influencing participation in personalized Breast Cancer Screening. We searched in Medline, Web of science, Scopus, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO for qualitative and mixed methods studies published up to March 2022. Two reviewers conducted study selection and extracted main findings. We applied the best-fit framework synthesis and adopted the Multilevel influences on the cancer care continuum model for analysis. After organizing initial codes into the seven levels of the selected model, we followed thematic analysis and developed descriptive and analytical themes. We assessed the methodological quality with the Critical Appraisal Skills Program tool. RESULTS We identified 18 studies published between 2017 and 2022, conducted in developed countries. Nine studies were focused on women (n = 478) and in four studies women had participated in a personalized screening program. Nine studies focused in health care professionals (n = 162) and were conducted in primary care and breast cancer screening program settings. Factors influencing women's decision to participate relate to the women themselves, the type of program (personalized breast cancer screening) and perspective of health care professionals. Factors that determined women participation included persistent beliefs and insufficient knowledge about breast cancer and personalized screening, variable psychological reactions, and negative attitudes towards breast cancer risk estimates. Other factors against participation were insufficient health care professionals knowledge on genetics related to breast cancer and personalized screening process. The factors that were favourable included the women's perceived benefits for themselves and the positive impact on health systems. CONCLUSION We identified the main factors influencing women's decisions to participate in personalized breast cancer screening. Factors related to women, were the most relevant negative factors. A future implementation requires improving health literacy for women and health care professionals, as well as raising awareness of the strategy in society.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Celmira Laza
- Department of Nursing and Physiotherapy, University of Lleida, Lleida, Spain
- Biomedical Research Institute of Lleida Fundació Dr. Pifarré (IRBLleida), Lleida, Spain
| | - Ena Niño de Guzmán
- Cancer Prevention and Control Program, Institut Català d' Oncologia, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Montserrat Gea
- Department of Nursing and Physiotherapy, University of Lleida, Lleida, Spain
- Biomedical Research Institute of Lleida Fundació Dr. Pifarré (IRBLleida), Lleida, Spain
| | - Merideidy Plazas
- Cochrane Associated Center- University Foundation of Health Sciences, Bogotá, Colombia
| | - Margarita Posso
- Department of Epidemiology and Evaluation, Hospital del Mar Research Institute, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Montserrat Rué
- Biomedical Research Institute of Lleida Fundació Dr. Pifarré (IRBLleida), Lleida, Spain
- Basic Medical Sciences, University of Lleida, Lleida, Spain
| | - Xavier Castells
- Department of Epidemiology and Evaluation, Hospital del Mar Research Institute, Barcelona, Spain
| | - Marta Román
- Department of Epidemiology and Evaluation, Hospital del Mar Research Institute, Barcelona, Spain.
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
LA Dunlop K, Smit AK, Keogh LA, Newson AJ, Rankin NM, Cust AE. Acceptability of risk-tailored cancer screening among Australian GPs: a qualitative study. Br J Gen Pract 2024; 74:BJGP.2023.0117. [PMID: 38373853 PMCID: PMC10904141 DOI: 10.3399/bjgp.2023.0117] [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: 03/05/2023] [Accepted: 05/22/2023] [Indexed: 02/21/2024] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Cancer screening that is tailored to individual risk has the potential to improve health outcomes and reduce screening-related harms, if implemented well. However, successful implementation depends on acceptability, particularly as this approach will require GPs to change their practice. AIM To explore Australian GPs' views about the acceptability of risk-tailored screening across cancer types and to identify barriers to and facilitators of implementation. DESIGN AND SETTING A qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with Australian GPs. METHOD Interviews were carried out with GPs and audio-recorded and transcribed. Data were first analysed inductively then deductively using an implementation framework. RESULTS Participants (n = 20) found risk-tailored screening to be acceptable in principle, recognising potential benefits in offering enhanced screening to those at highest risk. However, they had significant concerns that changes in screening advice could potentially cause confusion. They also reported that a reduced screening frequency or exclusion from a screening programme for those deemed low risk may not initially be acceptable, especially for common cancers with minimally invasive screening. Other reservations about implementing risk-tailored screening in general practice included a lack of high-quality evidence of benefit, fear of missing the signs or symptoms of a patient's cancer, and inadequate time with patients. While no single preferred approach to professional education was identified, education around communicating screening results and risk stratification was considered important. CONCLUSION GPs may not currently be convinced of the net benefits of risk-tailored screening. Development of accessible evidence-based guidelines, professional education, risk calculators, and targeted public messages will increase its feasibility in general practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kate LA Dunlop
- The Daffodil Centre, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW and Melanoma Institute Australia, University of Sydney, Sydney
| | - Amelia K Smit
- The Daffodil Centre, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW and Melanoma Institute Australia, University of Sydney, Sydney
| | - Louise A Keogh
- Centre for Health Equity, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne
| | - Ainsley J Newson
- Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney School of Public Health, Sydney Health Ethics, University of Sydney, Sydney
| | - Nicole M Rankin
- Evaluation and Implementation Science Unit, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne
| | - Anne E Cust
- The Daffodil Centre, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW and Melanoma Institute Australia, University of Sydney, Sydney
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Toes-Zoutendijk E, de Jonge L, Breekveldt EC, Korfage IJ, Usher-Smith JA, Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, Dennison RA. Personalised colorectal cancer screening strategies: Information needs of the target population. Prev Med Rep 2023; 35:102325. [PMID: 37601828 PMCID: PMC10433032 DOI: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2023.102325] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/13/2023] [Revised: 07/11/2023] [Accepted: 07/12/2023] [Indexed: 08/22/2023] Open
Abstract
Prior faecal Hemoglobin (f-Hb) concentrations of a negative fecal immunochemical test (FIT) can be used for risk stratification in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Individuals with higher f-Hb concentrations may benefit from a shorter screening interval (1 year), whereas individuals with undetectable f-Hb concentrations could benefit from a longer screening interval (3 year). Individuals' views on personalised CRC screening and information needed to make a well-informed decision is unknown. We conducted three semi-structured focus groups among individuals eligible for CRC screening (i.e. men and women aged 55 to 75) in the Netherlands. Thematic analysis was used to analyse participants' information need on personalised CRC screening strategies. Fourteen individuals took part. The majority were positive about CRC screening and indicated that they would participate in personalised CRC screening. The rationale for a longer interval among those at lowest risk was, however, unclear for many. The preferred information on individual risk was variable: ranging from full information to only information on the personalised strategy without mentioning the risk. It was not possible to address everyone's need with a single approach. Additional communications, e.g. public media campaigns, billboards, videos on social media, were also suggested as necessary. This study showed that preferences on receiving information on individual CRC risk varied substantially and no consensus was reached. Introducing a personalised screening programme will require careful communication, particularly around the rationale for the strategy, and a layered approach to deliver information.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Esther Toes-Zoutendijk
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Lucie de Jonge
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Emilie C.H. Breekveldt
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Netherlands Cancer Institute-Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Ida J. Korfage
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Juliet A. Usher-Smith
- Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Rebecca A. Dennison
- Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Taylor LC, Dennison RA, Griffin SJ, John SD, Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, Thomas CV, Thomas R, Usher-Smith JA. Implementation of risk stratification within bowel cancer screening: a community jury study exploring public acceptability and communication needs. BMC Public Health 2023; 23:1798. [PMID: 37715213 PMCID: PMC10503141 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-023-16704-6] [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: 01/24/2023] [Accepted: 09/05/2023] [Indexed: 09/17/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Population-based cancer screening programmes are shifting away from age and/or sex-based screening criteria towards a risk-stratified approach. Any such changes must be acceptable to the public and communicated effectively. We aimed to explore the social and ethical considerations of implementing risk stratification at three different stages of the bowel cancer screening programme and to understand public requirements for communication. METHODS We conducted two pairs of community juries, addressing risk stratification for screening eligibility or thresholds for referral to colonoscopy and screening interval. Using screening test results (where applicable), and lifestyle and genetic risk scores were suggested as potential stratification strategies. After being informed about the topic through a series of presentations and discussions including screening principles, ethical considerations and how risk stratification could be incorporated, participants deliberated over the research questions. They then reported their final verdicts on the acceptability of risk-stratified screening and what information should be shared about their preferred screening strategy. Transcripts were analysed using codebook thematic analysis. RESULTS Risk stratification of bowel cancer screening was acceptable to the informed public. Using data within the current system (age, sex and screening results) was considered an obvious next step and collecting additional data for lifestyle and/or genetic risk assessment was also preferable to age-based screening. Participants acknowledged benefits to individuals and health services, as well as articulating concerns for people with low cancer risk, potential public misconceptions and additional complexity for the system. The need for clear and effective communication about changes to the screening programme and individual risk feedback was highlighted, including making a distinction between information that should be shared with everyone by default and additional details that are available elsewhere. CONCLUSIONS From the perspective of public acceptability, risk stratification using current data could be implemented immediately, ahead of more complex strategies. Collecting additional data for lifestyle and/or genetic risk assessment was also considered acceptable but the practicalities of collecting such data and how the programme would be communicated require careful consideration.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lily C Taylor
- Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
| | - Rebecca A Dennison
- Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Simon J Griffin
- Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
- MRC Epidemiology Unit, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Stephen D John
- Department of History and Philosophy of Science, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus University Medical Centre, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Chloe V Thomas
- School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK
| | - Rae Thomas
- Department of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, James Cook University, Queensland, Australia
| | - Juliet A Usher-Smith
- Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Bas S, Sijben J, Bischoff EWMA, Bekkers RLM, de Kok IMCM, Melchers WJG, Siebers AG, van der Waal D, Broeders MJM. Acceptability of risk-based triage in cervical cancer screening: A focus group study. PLoS One 2023; 18:e0289647. [PMID: 37585441 PMCID: PMC10431661 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0289647] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/25/2023] [Accepted: 07/22/2023] [Indexed: 08/18/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Compared to the previous cytology-based program, the introduction of primary high-risk human papillomavirus (hrHPV) based screening in 2017 has led to an increased number of referrals. To counter this, triage of hrHPV-positive women in cervical cancer screening can potentially be optimized by taking sociodemographic and lifestyle risk factors for cervical abnormalities into account. Therefore, it is essential to gain knowledge of the views of women (30-60 years) eligible for cervical cancer screening. OBJECTIVE The main goal of this qualitative study was to gain insight in the aspects that influence acceptability of risk-based triage in cervical cancer screening. DESIGN A focus group study in which participants were recruited via four general medical practices, and purposive sampling was used to maximize heterogeneity with regards to age, education level, and cervical cancer screening experiences. APPROACH The focus group discussions were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using reflexive thematic analysis. PARTICIPANTS A total of 28 women (average age: 45.2 years) eligible for cervical cancer screening in The Netherlands participated in seven online focus group discussions. Half of the participants was higher educated, and the participants differed in previous cervical cancer screening participation and screening result. KEY RESULTS In total, 5 main themes and 17 subthemes were identified that determine the acceptability of risk-stratified triage. The main themes are: 1) adequacy of the screening program: an evidence-based program that is able to minimize cancer incidence and reduce unnecessary referrals; 2) personal information (e.g., sensitive topics and stigma); 3) emotional impact: fear and reassurance; 4) communication (e.g., transparency); and 5) autonomy (e.g., prevention). CONCLUSION The current study highlights several challenges regarding the development and implementation of risk-based triage that need attention in order to be accepted by the target group. These challenges include dealing with sensitive topics and a transparent communication strategy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sharell Bas
- Radboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Jasmijn Sijben
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Erik W. M. A. Bischoff
- Department of Primary and Community Care, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, Netherlands
| | - Ruud L. M. Bekkers
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, GROW School for Oncology and Reproduction, Maastricht University Medical Center, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - Inge M. C. M. de Kok
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC University Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Willem J. G. Melchers
- Department of Medical Microbiology, Radboud University Medical Centre, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Albert G. Siebers
- The Nationwide Network and Registry of Histo-and Cytopathology in the Netherlands (PALGA Foundation), Houten, The Netherlands
| | - Daniëlle van der Waal
- Radboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
- Dutch Expert Centre for Screening, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Mireille J. M. Broeders
- Radboud University Medical Center, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
- Dutch Expert Centre for Screening, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Lippey J, Keogh L, Campbell I, Mann GB, Forrest LE. Impact of a risk based breast screening decision aid on understanding, acceptance and decision making. NPJ Breast Cancer 2023; 9:65. [PMID: 37553371 PMCID: PMC10409718 DOI: 10.1038/s41523-023-00569-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/10/2022] [Accepted: 07/21/2023] [Indexed: 08/10/2023] Open
Abstract
Internationally, population breast cancer screening is moving towards a risk-stratified approach and requires engagement and acceptance from current and future screening clients. A decision aid ( www.defineau.org ) was developed based on women's views, values, and knowledge regarding risk-stratified breast cancer screening. This study aims to evaluate the impact of the decision aid on women's knowledge, risk perception, acceptance of risk assessment and change of screening frequency, and decision-making. Here we report the results of a pre and post-survey in which women who are clients of BreastScreen Victoria were invited to complete an online questionnaire before and after viewing the decision aid. 3200 potential participants were invited, 242 responded with 127 participants completing both surveys. After reviewing the decision aid there was a significant change in knowledge, acceptance of risk-stratified breast cancer screening and of decreased frequency screening for lower risk. High levels of acceptance of risk stratification, genetic testing and broad support for tailored screening persisted pre and post review. The DEFINE decision aid has a positive impact on acceptance of lower frequency screening, a major barrier to the success of a risk-stratified program and may contribute to facilitating change to the population breast screening program in Australia.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jocelyn Lippey
- Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, Melbourne, Australia
- University of Melbourne, Department of Surgery, Melbourne, Australia
- St. Vincent's Hospital, Department of Surgery, Fitzroy, Australia
| | - Louise Keogh
- University of Melbourne, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Ian Campbell
- Cancer Genetics Laboratory, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Gregory Bruce Mann
- Department of Surgery, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia
- Breast Service, The Royal Melbourne Hospital, Melbourne, Australia
| | - Laura Elenor Forrest
- Parkville Familial Cancer Centre, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia.
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Taylor LC, Law K, Hutchinson A, Dennison RA, Usher-Smith JA. Acceptability of risk stratification within population-based cancer screening from the perspective of healthcare professionals: A mixed methods systematic review and recommendations to support implementation. PLoS One 2023; 18:e0279201. [PMID: 36827432 PMCID: PMC9956883 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0279201] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/15/2022] [Accepted: 12/01/2022] [Indexed: 02/26/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Introduction of risk stratification within population-based cancer screening programmes has the potential to optimise resource allocation by targeting screening towards members of the population who will benefit from it most. Endorsement from healthcare professionals is necessary to facilitate successful development and implementation of risk-stratified interventions. Therefore, this review aims to explore whether using risk stratification within population-based cancer screening programmes is acceptable to healthcare professionals and to identify any requirements for successful implementation. METHODS We searched four electronic databases from January 2010 to October 2021 for quantitative, qualitative, or primary mixed methods studies reporting healthcare professional and/or other stakeholder opinions on acceptability of risk-stratified population-based cancer screening. Quality of the included studies was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Data were analysed using the Joanna Briggs Institute convergent integrated approach to mixed methods analysis and mapped onto the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research using a 'best fit' approach. PROSPERO record CRD42021286667. RESULTS A total of 12,039 papers were identified through the literature search and seven papers were included in the review, six in the context of breast cancer screening and one considering screening for ovarian cancer. Risk stratification was broadly considered acceptable, with the findings covering all five domains of the framework: intervention characteristics, outer setting, inner setting, characteristics of individuals, and process. Across these five domains, key areas that were identified as needing further consideration to support implementation were: a need for greater evidence, particularly for de-intensifying screening; resource limitations; need for staff training and clear communication; and the importance of public involvement. CONCLUSIONS Risk stratification of population-based cancer screening programmes is largely acceptable to healthcare professionals, but support and training will be required to successfully facilitate implementation. Future research should focus on strengthening the evidence base for risk stratification, particularly in relation to reducing screening frequency among low-risk cohorts and the acceptability of this approach across different cancer types.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lily C. Taylor
- The Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Katie Law
- School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Alison Hutchinson
- School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Rebecca A. Dennison
- The Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Juliet A. Usher-Smith
- The Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Use a web-app to improve breast cancer risk factors and symptoms knowledge and adherence to healthy diet and physical activity in women without breast cancer diagnosis (Precam project). Cancer Causes Control 2023; 34:113-122. [PMID: 36348211 PMCID: PMC9877062 DOI: 10.1007/s10552-022-01647-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/14/2022] [Accepted: 10/20/2022] [Indexed: 11/09/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE This study aimed to evaluate the preliminary effectiveness of an educational intervention using a web-app to improve knowledge of breast cancer risk factors and symptoms and adherence to healthy eating and physical activity among women without breast cancer diagnosis in Asturias (Spain). METHODS A pragmatic randomized pilot trial was conducted to evaluate the impact of a web-app-based intervention for women without breast cancer diagnosis. Women in the intervention group participated in a 6-month intervention web-app based on the Behaviour Change Wheel Model. The web-app includes information about breast cancer risk factors, early detection, physical activity and diet. RESULTS Two hundred and eighty-fifth women aged 25-50 were invited to join the study. Two hundred and twenty-four were randomly assigned to either the intervention group (IG = 134) or control group (CG = 90) according to their place of residence. Adherence among women in the IG increased significantly from pre- to post-intervention for eight of the 12 healthy behaviors and for the identification of six risk factors and six symptoms compared to women in the CG and, among whom adherence only increased for two behaviors, the identification of one risk factor and 0 symptoms. The intervention significantly improved the mean number of risk factors + 1.06 (p < 0.001) and symptoms + 1.18 (p < 0.001) identified by women in the IG. CONCLUSIONS The preliminary results of this study suggest that an educational intervention using a web-app and based on the Behaviour Change Wheel model could be useful to improve knowledge of breast cancer risk factors and symptoms and to improve adherence to a healthy diet and physical activity in women without a previous breast cancer diagnosis.
Collapse
|
10
|
Lemmo D, Martino ML, Donizzetti AR, Freda MF, Caso D. The Relationship between Healthcare Providers and Preventive Practices: Narratives on Access to Cancer Screening. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH AND PUBLIC HEALTH 2022; 19:ijerph191710942. [PMID: 36078658 PMCID: PMC9517751 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph191710942] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/03/2022] [Revised: 08/26/2022] [Accepted: 08/27/2022] [Indexed: 05/06/2023]
Abstract
Cancer screening programs are public health interventions beneficial to early diagnoses and timely treatments. Despite the investment of health policies in this area, many people in the recommended age groups do not participate. While the literature is mainly focused on obstacles and factors enabling access to health services, a gap from the point of view of the target population concerns healthcare providers. Within the "Miriade" research-action project, this study aims to explore the dimensions that mediate the relationship between healthcare providers and preventive practices through the narrations of 52 referents and healthcare providers involved in breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening. We conducted ad hoc narrative interviews and used theory-driven analysis based on Penchansky and Thomas' conceptualization and Saurman's integration of six dimensions of healthcare access: affordability, availability, accessibility, accommodation, acceptability and awareness. The results show that 21 thematic categories were representative of the access dimensions, and 5 thematic categories were not; thus, we have classified the latter as the dimension of affection. The results suggest trajectories through which psychological clinical intervention might be constructed concerning health, shared health decisions and access to cancer screening.
Collapse
|
11
|
Female Healthcare Workers' Knowledge, Attitude towards Breast Cancer, and Perceived Barriers towards Mammogram Screening: A Multicenter Study in North Saudi Arabia. Curr Oncol 2022; 29:4300-4314. [PMID: 35735453 PMCID: PMC9222040 DOI: 10.3390/curroncol29060344] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/15/2022] [Revised: 06/02/2022] [Accepted: 06/14/2022] [Indexed: 12/03/2022] Open
Abstract
Breast cancer is the most commonly diagnosed cancer among women in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and other Middle East countries. This analytical cross-sectional study assessed knowledge, attitude towards breast cancer, and barriers to mammogram screening among 414 randomly selected female healthcare workers from multiple healthcare facilities in northern Saudi Arabia. Of the studied population, 48.6% had low knowledge, and 16.1% had a low attitude towards breast cancer risk factors and symptoms. The common barriers to mammogram screening were fear to discover cancer (57.2%) and apprehension regarding radiation exposure (57%). Logistic regression analysis found that lack of awareness regarding mammogram was significantly associated with age (p = 0.030) and healthcare workers category (ref: physicians: p = 0.016). In addition, we found a significant negative correlation between knowledge and barrier scores (Spearman’s rho: −0.315, p < 0.001). It is recommended to develop target-oriented educational programs for the healthcare workers, which would empower them to educate the community regarding the risk factors and the importance of mammogram screening. Furthermore, a prospective study is warranted in other regions of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia to understand the region-specific training needs for the healthcare workers.
Collapse
|
12
|
Clift AK, Dodwell D, Lord S, Petrou S, Brady SM, Collins GS, Hippisley-Cox J. The current status of risk-stratified breast screening. Br J Cancer 2022; 126:533-550. [PMID: 34703006 PMCID: PMC8854575 DOI: 10.1038/s41416-021-01550-3] [Citation(s) in RCA: 42] [Impact Index Per Article: 21.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/22/2021] [Revised: 08/25/2021] [Accepted: 09/14/2021] [Indexed: 12/23/2022] Open
Abstract
Apart from high-risk scenarios such as the presence of highly penetrant genetic mutations, breast screening typically comprises mammography or tomosynthesis strategies defined by age. However, age-based screening ignores the range of breast cancer risks that individual women may possess and is antithetical to the ambitions of personalised early detection. Whilst screening mammography reduces breast cancer mortality, this is at the risk of potentially significant harms including overdiagnosis with overtreatment, and psychological morbidity associated with false positives. In risk-stratified screening, individualised risk assessment may inform screening intensity/interval, starting age, imaging modality used, or even decisions not to screen. However, clear evidence for its benefits and harms needs to be established. In this scoping review, the authors summarise the established and emerging evidence regarding several critical dependencies for successful risk-stratified breast screening: risk prediction model performance, epidemiological studies, retrospective clinical evaluations, health economic evaluations and qualitative research on feasibility and acceptability. Family history, breast density or reproductive factors are not on their own suitable for precisely estimating risk and risk prediction models increasingly incorporate combinations of demographic, clinical, genetic and imaging-related parameters. Clinical evaluations of risk-stratified screening are currently limited. Epidemiological evidence is sparse, and randomised trials only began in recent years.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ash Kieran Clift
- Cancer Research UK Oxford Centre, Department of Oncology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
| | - David Dodwell
- Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Simon Lord
- Department of Oncology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Stavros Petrou
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | | | - Gary S Collins
- Centre for Statistics in Medicine, Nuffield Department of Orthopaedics, Rheumatology & Musculoskeletal Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
- NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, UK
| | - Julia Hippisley-Cox
- Nuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Lippey J, Keogh L, Campbell I, Mann GB, Forrest L. Development and pilot testing of an online decision aid for women considering risk-stratified breast screening. J Community Genet 2022; 13:137-141. [DOI: 10.1007/s12687-021-00571-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/23/2021] [Accepted: 12/11/2021] [Indexed: 11/27/2022] Open
|
14
|
UK Women's Views of the Concepts of Personalised Breast Cancer Risk Assessment and Risk-Stratified Breast Screening: A Qualitative Interview Study. Cancers (Basel) 2021; 13:cancers13225813. [PMID: 34830965 PMCID: PMC8616436 DOI: 10.3390/cancers13225813] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/29/2021] [Revised: 11/12/2021] [Accepted: 11/16/2021] [Indexed: 11/30/2022] Open
Abstract
Simple Summary Risk-based breast screening will involve tailoring the amount of screening to women’s level of risk. Therefore, women at high-risk may be offered more frequent screening and over a longer period of time than those at low risk for whom less screening may be recommended. As this will involve considerable changes to the NHS Breast Screening Programme, it is important to explore what women in the UK think and feel about this approach. Analysis of in-depth interviews revealed that some women would find both high and low-risk screening options acceptable whereas others were resistant to the prospect of reduced screening if they were assessed as low-risk. We also found that the idea of risk-based screening had little influence on the attitudes of women who were already sceptical about breast screening. These findings highlight the communication challenges that will be faced by those introducing risk-based screening and suggest a need for tailored support and advice. Abstract Any introduction of risk-stratification within the NHS Breast Screening Programme needs to be considered acceptable by women. We conducted interviews to explore women’s attitudes to personalised risk assessment and risk-stratified breast screening. Twenty-five UK women were purposively sampled by screening experience and socioeconomic background. Interview transcripts were qualitatively analysed using Framework Analysis. Women expressed positive intentions for personal risk assessment and willingness to receive risk feedback to provide reassurance and certainty. Women responded to risk-stratified screening scenarios in three ways: ‘Overall acceptors’ considered both high- and low-risk options acceptable as a reasonable allocation of resources to clinical need, yet acceptability was subject to specified conditions including accuracy of risk estimates and availability of support throughout the screening pathway. Others who thought ‘more is better’ only supported high-risk scenarios where increased screening was proposed. ‘Screening sceptics’ found low-risk scenarios more aligned to their screening values than high-risk screening options. Consideration of screening recommendations for other risk groups had more influence on women’s responses than screening-related harms. These findings demonstrate high, but not universal, acceptability. Support and guidance, tailored to screening values and preferences, may be required by women at all levels of risk.
Collapse
|
15
|
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
|
16
|
Exploring Implementation of Personal Breast Cancer Risk Assessments. J Pers Med 2021; 11:jpm11100992. [PMID: 34683136 PMCID: PMC8541275 DOI: 10.3390/jpm11100992] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/23/2021] [Revised: 09/21/2021] [Accepted: 09/25/2021] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
Personal Breast Cancer (BC) Risk Assessments (PBCRA) have potential to stratify women into clinically-actionable BC risk categories. As this could involve population-wide genomic testing, women's attitudes to PBCRA and views on acceptable implementation platforms must be considered to ensure optimal population participation. We explored these issues with 31 women with different BC risk profiles through semi-structured focus group discussions or interviews. Inductive thematic coding of transcripts was performed. Subsequently, women listed factors that would impact on their decision to participate. Participants' attitudes to PBCRA were positive. Identified themes included that PBCRA acceptance hinges on result actionability. Women value the ability to inform decision-making. Participants reported anxiety, stress, and genetic discrimination as potential barriers. The age at which PBCRA was offered, ease of access, and how results are returned held importance. Most women value the opportunity for PBCRA to inform increased surveillance, while highlighting hesitance to accept reduced surveillance as they find reassurance in regular screening. Women with BRCA pathogenic variants value the potential for PBCRA to identify a lower cancer risk and potentially inform delayed prophylactic surgery. This study highlights complexities in adopting advances in BC early detection, especially for current users who value existing processes as a social good.
Collapse
|
17
|
Dunlop K, Rankin NM, Smit AK, Salgado Z, Newson AJ, Keogh L, Cust AE. Acceptability of risk-stratified population screening across cancer types: Qualitative interviews with the Australian public. Health Expect 2021; 24:1326-1336. [PMID: 33974726 PMCID: PMC8369084 DOI: 10.1111/hex.13267] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/12/2021] [Revised: 03/12/2021] [Accepted: 04/10/2021] [Indexed: 01/05/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND There is mounting evidence of the benefit of risk-stratified (risk-tailored) cancer population screening, when compared to standard approaches. However, shifting towards this approach involves changes to practice that may give rise to implementation challenges. OBJECTIVES To explore the public's potential acceptance of risk-stratified screening across different cancer types, including reducing screening frequency if at low risk and the use of personal risk information, to inform implementation strategies. METHOD Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 40 public participants; half had received personal genomic risk information and half had not. Participants were prompted to consider different cancers. Data were analysed thematically as one dataset. RESULTS Themes included the following: (a) a sense of security; (b) tailored screening is common sense; (c) risk and the need to take action; (d) not every cancer is the same; and (e) trust and belief in health messages. Both groups expressed similar views. Participants were broadly supportive of risk-stratified screening across different cancer types, with strong support for increased screening frequency for high-risk groups. They were less supportive of reduced screening frequency or no screening for low-risk groups. Findings suggest the public will be amenable to reducing screening when the test is invasive and uncomfortable; be less opposed to forgo screening if offered the opportunity to screen at some stage; and view visible cancers such as melanoma differently. CONCLUSIONS Approaching distinct cancer types differently, tailoring messages for different audiences and understanding reasons for participating in screening may assist with designing future implementation strategies for risk-stratified cancer screening.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kate Dunlop
- Daffodil CentreThe University of Sydney, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSWSydneyNSWAustralia
- Melanoma Institute AustraliaThe University of SydneySydneyNSWAustralia
| | - Nicole M. Rankin
- Sydney School of Public Health, The Faculty of Medicine and HealthThe University of SydneySydneyNSWAustralia
| | - Amelia K. Smit
- Daffodil CentreThe University of Sydney, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSWSydneyNSWAustralia
- Melanoma Institute AustraliaThe University of SydneySydneyNSWAustralia
| | - Zofia Salgado
- Daffodil CentreThe University of Sydney, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSWSydneyNSWAustralia
| | - Ainsley J. Newson
- Sydney Health Ethics, Sydney School of Public Health, The Faculty of Medicine and HealthThe University of SydneySydneyNSWAustralia
| | - Louise Keogh
- Melbourne School of Population and Global HealthThe University of MelbourneMelbourneVICAustralia
| | - Anne E. Cust
- Daffodil CentreThe University of Sydney, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSWSydneyNSWAustralia
- Melanoma Institute AustraliaThe University of SydneySydneyNSWAustralia
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Martínez-Urquijo A, Postigo Á, Cuesta M, Fernández-Álvarez MDM, Martín-Payo R. Development and validation of the MARA scale in Spanish to assess knowledge and perceived risks and barriers relating to breast cancer prevention. Cancer Causes Control 2021; 32:1237-1245. [PMID: 34236574 PMCID: PMC8492559 DOI: 10.1007/s10552-021-01473-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/28/2021] [Accepted: 06/24/2021] [Indexed: 11/23/2022]
Abstract
Objective The aim of this study was to develop a measurement instrument for assessing knowledge of breast cancer and perceived risk of developing the disease (MARA). Methods 641 women with a mean age of 36.19 years (SD = 7.49) participated in the study. Data collection took place during 2019 and included sociodemographic data, data on history of cancer and breast cancer, perceived risk, and feelings of concern about developing breast cancer. Internal consistency, test–retest reliability, convergent validity, and structural validity were tested. Results The questionnaire items comprise 4 subscales: risk factors (9 items), signs and symptoms (9 items), perceived risk (6 items), barriers (7 items). A factor analysis revealed that the first two subscales had two dimensions each, whereas the other two subscales had one dimension each. Each subscale was shown to have adequate reliability (α = 0.74–0.92) and temporal stability (r = 0.201–0.906), as well as strong evidence of validity in relation to a questionnaire on breast cancer knowledge (r = 0.131–0.434). In addition, the subscales were shown to have high discriminatory power in terms of the presence or absence of a history of cancer or breast cancer, perceived risk, and feelings of concern. Conclusion The MARA questionnaire represents a valid, reliable tool for assessing Spanish women’s knowledge, risks, perceptions, and barriers regarding breast cancer.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Andrea Martínez-Urquijo
- Hospital Cruz Roja Gijón, Gijón, Spain.,Equipo de Investigación Precam, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria del Principado de Asturias, Oviedo, Spain
| | - Álvaro Postigo
- Facultad de Psicología, Universidad de Oviedo, Oviedo, Spain
| | | | - María Del Mar Fernández-Álvarez
- Facultad de Medicina y Ciencias de La Salud, Universidad de Oviedo, Oviedo, Spain. .,Equipo de Investigación Precam, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria del Principado de Asturias, Oviedo, Spain.
| | - Rubén Martín-Payo
- Facultad de Medicina y Ciencias de La Salud, Universidad de Oviedo, Oviedo, Spain.,Equipo de Investigación Precam, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria del Principado de Asturias, Oviedo, Spain
| |
Collapse
|
19
|
Mbuya-Bienge C, Pashayan N, Brooks JD, Dorval M, Chiquette J, Eloy L, Turgeon A, Lambert-Côté L, Paquette JS, Lévesque E, Hagan J, Walker MJ, Lapointe J, Dalpé G, Granados Moreno P, Blackmore K, Wolfson M, Joly Y, Broeders M, Knoppers BM, Chiarelli AM, Simard J, Nabi H. Women's Views on Multifactorial Breast Cancer Risk Assessment and Risk-Stratified Screening: A Population-Based Survey from Four Provinces in Canada. J Pers Med 2021; 11:jpm11020095. [PMID: 33540785 PMCID: PMC7912955 DOI: 10.3390/jpm11020095] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/19/2021] [Revised: 01/27/2021] [Accepted: 01/30/2021] [Indexed: 12/03/2022] Open
Abstract
Risk-stratified screening for breast cancer (BC) is increasingly considered as a promising approach. However, its implementation is challenging and needs to be acceptable to women. We examined Canadian women’s attitudes towards, comfort level about, and willingness to take part in BC risk-stratified screening. We conducted an online survey in women aged 30 to 69 years in four Canadian provinces. In total, 4293 women completed the questionnaire (response rate of 63%). The majority of women (63.5% to 72.8%) expressed favorable attitudes towards BC risk-stratified screening. Most women reported that they would be comfortable providing personal and genetic information for BC risk assessment (61.5% to 67.4%) and showed a willingness to have their BC risk assessed if offered (74.8%). Most women (85.9%) would also accept an increase in screening frequency if they were at higher risk, but fewer (49.3%) would accept a reduction in screening frequency if they were at lower risk. There were few differences by province; however, outcomes varied by age, education level, marital status, income, perceived risk, history of BC, prior mammography, and history of genetic test for BC (all p ≤ 0.01). Risk-based BC screening using multifactorial risk assessment appears to be acceptable to most women. This suggests that the implementation of this approach is likely to be well-supported by Canadian women.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Cynthia Mbuya-Bienge
- CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Center, Quebec City, QC G1V 4G2, Canada; (C.M.-B.); (M.D.); (J.C.); (A.T.); (L.L.-C.); (J.L.); (J.S.)
- Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC G1V 0A6, Canada
| | - Nora Pashayan
- Department of Applied Health Research, Institute of Epidemiology and Healthcare, University College, London WC1E 6BT, UK;
| | - Jennifer D. Brooks
- Dalla Lana School of Public Health Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 1A1, Canada; (J.D.B.); (M.J.W.); (A.M.C.)
| | - Michel Dorval
- CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Center, Quebec City, QC G1V 4G2, Canada; (C.M.-B.); (M.D.); (J.C.); (A.T.); (L.L.-C.); (J.L.); (J.S.)
- Faculty of Pharmacy, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC G1V 4G2, Canada
- CISSS de Chaudière-Appalaches Research Center, Lévis, QC G6V 3Z1, Canada
| | - Jocelyne Chiquette
- CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Center, Quebec City, QC G1V 4G2, Canada; (C.M.-B.); (M.D.); (J.C.); (A.T.); (L.L.-C.); (J.L.); (J.S.)
- CHU de Québec—Université Laval, Quebec City, QC G1S 4L8, Canada
- Département de Médecine Familiale et de Médecine d’Urgence, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC G1V 4G2, Canada;
| | - Laurence Eloy
- Québec Cancer Program, Ministère de la Santé et des Services Sociaux, Quebec City, QC G1S 2M1, Canada;
| | - Annie Turgeon
- CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Center, Quebec City, QC G1V 4G2, Canada; (C.M.-B.); (M.D.); (J.C.); (A.T.); (L.L.-C.); (J.L.); (J.S.)
| | - Laurence Lambert-Côté
- CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Center, Quebec City, QC G1V 4G2, Canada; (C.M.-B.); (M.D.); (J.C.); (A.T.); (L.L.-C.); (J.L.); (J.S.)
| | - Jean-Sébastien Paquette
- Département de Médecine Familiale et de Médecine d’Urgence, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC G1V 4G2, Canada;
| | - Emmanuelle Lévesque
- Centre of Genomics and Policy, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3A 0G1, Canada; (E.L.); (J.H.); (G.D.); (P.G.M.); (Y.J.); (B.M.K.)
| | - Julie Hagan
- Centre of Genomics and Policy, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3A 0G1, Canada; (E.L.); (J.H.); (G.D.); (P.G.M.); (Y.J.); (B.M.K.)
| | - Meghan J. Walker
- Dalla Lana School of Public Health Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 1A1, Canada; (J.D.B.); (M.J.W.); (A.M.C.)
- Ontario Health, Cancer Care Ontario, Toronto, ON M5G 2L3, Canada;
| | - Julie Lapointe
- CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Center, Quebec City, QC G1V 4G2, Canada; (C.M.-B.); (M.D.); (J.C.); (A.T.); (L.L.-C.); (J.L.); (J.S.)
| | - Gratien Dalpé
- Centre of Genomics and Policy, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3A 0G1, Canada; (E.L.); (J.H.); (G.D.); (P.G.M.); (Y.J.); (B.M.K.)
| | - Palmira Granados Moreno
- Centre of Genomics and Policy, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3A 0G1, Canada; (E.L.); (J.H.); (G.D.); (P.G.M.); (Y.J.); (B.M.K.)
| | | | - Michael Wolfson
- School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON K1G 5Z3, Canada;
| | - Yann Joly
- Centre of Genomics and Policy, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3A 0G1, Canada; (E.L.); (J.H.); (G.D.); (P.G.M.); (Y.J.); (B.M.K.)
| | - Mireille Broeders
- Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Radboud University Medical Center, 525 EZ Nijmegen, The Netherlands;
- Dutch Expert Centre for Screening, 6538 SW Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Bartha M. Knoppers
- Centre of Genomics and Policy, McGill University, Montreal, QC H3A 0G1, Canada; (E.L.); (J.H.); (G.D.); (P.G.M.); (Y.J.); (B.M.K.)
| | - Anna M. Chiarelli
- Dalla Lana School of Public Health Science, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON M5S 1A1, Canada; (J.D.B.); (M.J.W.); (A.M.C.)
- Ontario Health, Cancer Care Ontario, Toronto, ON M5G 2L3, Canada;
| | - Jacques Simard
- CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Center, Quebec City, QC G1V 4G2, Canada; (C.M.-B.); (M.D.); (J.C.); (A.T.); (L.L.-C.); (J.L.); (J.S.)
- Department of Molecular Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC G1V 4G2, Canada
| | - Hermann Nabi
- CHU de Québec-Université Laval Research Center, Quebec City, QC G1V 4G2, Canada; (C.M.-B.); (M.D.); (J.C.); (A.T.); (L.L.-C.); (J.L.); (J.S.)
- Department of Social and Preventive Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Université Laval, Quebec City, QC G1V 0A6, Canada
- Université Laval Cancer Research Center, Quebec City, QC G1R 3S3, Canada
- Correspondence: ; Tel.: +1-418-682-7511 (ext. 82800)
| | | |
Collapse
|
20
|
Yanes T, McInerney-Leo AM, Law MH, Cummings S. The emerging field of polygenic risk scores and perspective for use in clinical care. Hum Mol Genet 2020; 29:R165-R176. [DOI: 10.1093/hmg/ddaa136] [Citation(s) in RCA: 27] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/02/2020] [Revised: 06/30/2020] [Accepted: 07/01/2020] [Indexed: 02/06/2023] Open
Abstract
Abstract
Genetic testing is used widely for diagnostic, carrier and predictive testing in monogenic diseases. Until recently, there were no genetic testing options available for multifactorial complex diseases like heart disease, diabetes and cancer. Genome-wide association studies (GWAS) have been invaluable in identifying single-nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) associated with increased or decreased risk for hundreds of complex disorders. For a given disease, SNPs can be combined to generate a cumulative estimation of risk known as a polygenic risk score (PRS). After years of research, PRSs are increasingly used in clinical settings. In this article, we will review the literature on how both genome-wide and restricted PRSs are developed and the relative merit of each. The validation and evaluation of PRSs will also be discussed, including the recognition that PRS validity is intrinsically linked to the methodological and analytical approach of the foundation GWAS together with the ethnic characteristics of that cohort. Specifically, population differences may affect imputation accuracy, risk magnitude and direction. Even as PRSs are being introduced into clinical practice, there is a push to combine them with clinical and demographic risk factors to develop a holistic disease risk. The existing evidence regarding the clinical utility of PRSs is considered across four different domains: informing population screening programs, guiding therapeutic interventions, refining risk for families at high risk, and facilitating diagnosis and predicting prognostic outcomes. The evidence for clinical utility in relation to five well-studied disorders is summarized. The potential ethical, legal and social implications are also highlighted.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tatiane Yanes
- Dermatology Research Centre, The University of Queensland Diamantina Institute, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4102, Australia
| | - Aideen M McInerney-Leo
- Dermatology Research Centre, The University of Queensland Diamantina Institute, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD 4102, Australia
| | - Matthew H Law
- Statistical Genetics Lab, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Herston QLD 4006, Australia
- Faculty of Health, School of Biomedical Sciences, and Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, Kelvin Grove QLD 4059, Australia
| | | |
Collapse
|
21
|
Smit AK, Reyes-Marcelino G, Keogh L, Dunlop K, Newson AJ, Cust AE. Implementation considerations for offering personal genomic risk information to the public: a qualitative study. BMC Public Health 2020; 20:1028. [PMID: 32600382 PMCID: PMC7325160 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-020-09143-0] [Citation(s) in RCA: 8] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/25/2020] [Accepted: 06/18/2020] [Indexed: 12/17/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Genomic risk information, based on common genomic susceptibility variants associated with risk of complex diseases such as cancer, may be incorporated into personalised prevention and screening strategies. We aimed to engage with members of the public, who are important stakeholders in this process, to further inform program development and other implementation outcomes such as acceptability and appropriateness. Methods Semi-structured interviews were undertaken with 30 participants (aged 24–69 years, 50% female) recruited from a pilot trial in which they received personalised genomic risk information for melanoma. We explored participants’ views and attitudes towards offering general personal genomic risk information to the broader population. The data were analysed thematically. Results Two overarching themes relevant to implementation considerations were identified. Firstly, participants’ preferences for accepting an offer of genomic risk information were based on family history, disease incidence and the possibility of prevention. Secondly, participants felt that the processes for offering risk information should be based on individual preferences, triaged according to risk and be supported by a health professional trained in genomics. Conclusions Participants felt that offering personal genomic risk information to the general population to inform prevention and early detection recommendations is acceptable, particularly for common, complex conditions such as cancer. Understanding participants’ preferences for receiving genomic risk information will assist with communication strategies and health workforce planning. We anticipate that these findings will contribute to the development of implementation strategies for incorporating genomic risk information into routine clinical practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Amelia K Smit
- Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney School of Public Health, Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention Research, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. .,Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney School of Public Health, Sydney Health Ethics, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. .,Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
| | - Gillian Reyes-Marcelino
- Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney School of Public Health, Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention Research, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | - Louise Keogh
- Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, Australia
| | - Kate Dunlop
- Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney School of Public Health, Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention Research, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | - Ainsley J Newson
- Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney School of Public Health, Sydney Health Ethics, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| | - Anne E Cust
- Faculty of Medicine and Health, Sydney School of Public Health, Cancer Epidemiology and Prevention Research, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.,Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
22
|
Ghanouni A, Sanderson SC, Pashayan N, Renzi C, von Wagner C, Waller J. Attitudes towards risk-stratified breast cancer screening among women in England: A cross-sectional survey. J Med Screen 2019; 27:138-145. [PMID: 31701797 DOI: 10.1177/0969141319883662] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/20/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Risk stratification may improve the benefit/harm ratio of breast screening. Research on acceptability among potential invitees is necessary to guide implementation. We assessed women's attitudes towards and willingness to undergo risk assessment and stratified screening. METHODS Women in England aged 40-70 received summary information about the topic, and completed face-to-face computer-assisted interviews. Questions assessed willingness to undergo multifactorial breast cancer risk assessment, more frequent breast screening (if at very high risk), or less frequent or no screening (if at very low risk), and preferences for delivery of assessment results. RESULTS Among 933 women, 85% considered breast cancer risk assessment a good idea, and 74% were willing to have it. Among 125 women unwilling to have risk assessment, reasons commonly related to 'worry' (14%) and 'preferring not to know' (14%). Among those willing to have risk assessment (n = 689), letters/emails were generally preferred (42%) for results about very low-risk status. Face-to-face communication was most commonly preferred for results of very high-risk status (78%). General practitioners were most commonly preferred sources of assessment results (≈40%). Breast cancer specialists were often preferred for results of very high-risk status (38%). Risk-stratified breast screening was considered a good idea by 70% and 89% were willing to have more frequent screening. Fewer would accept less (51%) or no screening (37%) if at very low risk. CONCLUSIONS Women were generally in favour of multifactorial breast cancer risk assessment and risk-stratified screening. Some were unwilling to accept less or no screening if at very low risk.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alex Ghanouni
- Research Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK
| | | | - Nora Pashayan
- Department of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, UK
| | - Cristina Renzi
- Research Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK
| | - Christian von Wagner
- Research Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK
| | - Jo Waller
- Research Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
23
|
Ghanouni A, Waller J, Stoffel ST, Vlaev I, von Wagner C. Acceptability of risk-stratified breast screening: Effect of the order of presenting risk and benefit information. J Med Screen 2019; 27:52-56. [PMID: 31575328 DOI: 10.1177/0969141319877669] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/17/2022]
Abstract
Objective To test whether reduced-frequency risk-stratified breast screening would be perceived more favourably by transposing the order of information on benefits and risks. Methods After reading vignettes describing non-stratified three-yearly screening and a risk-stratified alternative with five-yearly invitations for women at low risk, 698 women completed an online survey. Participants were allocated at random to information on screening benefits followed by risks, or vice versa, and asked to state preferences for either screening system. Participants also rated perceived magnitude of screening benefits and risks, and breast cancer susceptibility. Results Binomial logistic regression did not find order effects on preferences (p = 0.533) or perceived benefits of screening (p = 0.780). Perceived screening risks were greater when risks were presented first (p < 0.0005). Greater perceived susceptibility was associated with lower proportions preferring risk-stratified screening (15% vs. 39% in highest and lowest groups; p = 0.002), as were greater perceived screening benefits (e.g. 13% vs. 45% in highest and lowest groups; p < 0.0005). Conclusions No information order effect on preferences was observed. Information order did affect screening risk perceptions. Efforts to improve perceptions may need to be more intensive than those tested. Women perceiving themselves as high risk or perceiving greater benefits of screening may be particularly averse to less frequent screening.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alex Ghanouni
- Research Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK
| | - Jo Waller
- Research Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK
| | - Sandro T Stoffel
- Research Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK
| | - Ivo Vlaev
- Warwick Business School, University of Warwick, Coventry, UK
| | - Christian von Wagner
- Research Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|