The CRISP colorectal cancer risk prediction tool: an exploratory study using simulated consultations in Australian primary care

Acceptability and perceptions of personalised risk-based cancer screening among health-care professionals and the general public: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Personalised risk-based screening (PRBS) can enhance the efficiency of cancer screening programnes, but little is known about support for its implementation among the general public and health-care professionals. We aimed to summarise the acceptability and perceptions of PRBS for breast, cervical, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancer screening among these groups.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of original research studies reporting on breast, cervical, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancer screening; personalised risk assessments to guide PRBS; and the acceptability of and receptibility towards these approaches among the general public, health-care professionals, or both. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central, PsycINFO, and CINAHL Plus for articles published between Jan 1, 2010, and April 30, 2024. Studies not reporting on the outcomes of interest and with insufficient data for analysis were excluded. Six reviewers independently screened articles, and risk of bias was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Qualitative data were analysed thematically. Quantitative data were analysed with use of random-effects meta-analysis for outcomes that had at least two studies. The study protocol was registered at PROSPERO, CRD42022354287.

FINDINGS

Our search identified 4491 unique records. After screening, 63 studies were included in our analysis, of which 36 (57%) included the general public, 21 (33%) included health-care professionals, and six (11%) included both. The majority of studies focused on breast cancer screening (43 [68%] studies), and were from North America (28 [44%]) and Europe (28 [44%]). Qualitative findings were analysed thematically, and the extracted quantitative findings were synthesised under the following topics: acceptability and perceptions of personalised risk assessments among the general public; acceptability and perceptions of PRBS among the general public; acceptability and perceptions of PRBS among health-care professionals; and barriers and facilitators to PRBS implementation among health-care professionals. The general public and health-care professionals generally found PRBS acceptable, but they needed more information about how risk was calculated and the accuracy of risk scores. Additionally, both groups were cautious about reducing screening frequencies for individuals at low risk and cited barriers such as the time and resources needed to implement an effective PRBS programme. The pooled estimate for acceptability of PRBS was 78% (95% CI 66-88) among the general public and 86% (64-99) among health-care professionals.

INTERPRETATION

The general public and health-care professionals both viewed personalised risk assessments as providing valuable information and PRBS as a logical next step to increase the quality of patient care and improve cancer mortality. However, implementation barriers at the public, health-care professional, and system level need to be addressed.

FUNDING

National Cancer Institute and Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas.

Using an SMS to improve bowel cancer screening: the acceptability and feasibility of a multifaceted intervention

BACKGROUND

The Australian National Bowel Cancer Screening Program sends an immunochemical faecal occult blood test to Australians aged 50-74 years to screen for bowel cancer, but uptake is low (40.9%). The SMARTscreen trial demonstrated that sending a short messaging services (SMS) prompt from the participant's general practitioner (GP) increased the proportion of kit returns by 16.5%. This research aimed to determine the acceptability and feasibility of implementing SMARTscreen.

METHOD

SMARTscreen was a cluster randomized controlled trial set in 21 Australian general practices in regional Australia. Participants and general practice staff involved in the trial were included in this study. Acceptability and feasibility were measured quantitatively by calculating proportions of the SMS received, viewed, or opted out of, and qualitatively by interviewing people who sent and received the SMS.

RESULTS

Of 2914 SMS sent, 2645 SMS (91%) were received by participants, 1128 (43%) people opened the weblink, and 59 (2%) people opted out of receiving future SMS. Interviews with general practice staff (n = 17) and participants (n = 18) found that sending and receiving the SMS was acceptable and feasible. The SMS was considered a low-burden activity that easily integrated into the clinic's workflow without impacting clinicians' time. Participants reported an increased intention to participate in screening, but some people worried the weblink was spam, and some suggested sending it out of working hours.

CONCLUSION

The SMS-based intervention was widely accepted by GP staff and participants. Future research should test the SMS with and without the weblink, and send the SMS at a more convenient time of the day/week.

Breast and bowel cancers diagnosed in people 'too young to have cancer': A blueprint for research using family and twin studies

Young breast and bowel cancers (e.g., those diagnosed before age 40 or 50 years) have far greater morbidity and mortality in terms of years of life lost, and are increasing in incidence, but have been less studied. For breast and bowel cancers, the familial relative risks, and therefore the familial variances in age-specific log(incidence), are much greater at younger ages, but little of these familial variances has been explained. Studies of families and twins can address questions not easily answered by studies of unrelated individuals alone. We describe existing and emerging family and twin data that can provide special opportunities for discovery. We present designs and statistical analyses, including novel ideas such as the VALID (Variance in Age-specific Log Incidence Decomposition) model for causes of variation in risk, the DEPTH (DEPendency of association on the number of Top Hits) and other approaches to analyse genome-wide association study data, and the within-pair, ICE FALCON (Inference about Causation from Examining FAmiliaL CONfounding) and ICE CRISTAL (Inference about Causation from Examining Changes in Regression coefficients and Innovative STatistical AnaLysis) approaches to causation and familial confounding. Example applications to breast and colorectal cancer are presented. Motivated by the availability of the resources of the Breast and Colon Cancer Family Registries, we also present some ideas for future studies that could be applied to, and compared with, cancers diagnosed at older ages and address the challenges posed by young breast and bowel cancers.

Impact of graphical display on the intention to undergo risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy and mastectomy in individuals positive for BRCA pathogenic variant

The BRCA1/2 pathogenic variant (PV) increases the risk of breast and ovarian cancer; thus, risk-reducing salpingo-oophorectomy (RRSO) and mastectomy (RRM) are recommended. We evaluated the effects of the graphical display of cancer risk compared with those of numerical presentation on the decision-making for risk-reducing (RR) surgery. A total of 471 women representing the Korean population were recruited. The lifetime risk of breast/ovarian cancer were given numerically followed by graphically in hypothetical BRCA1/2 PV-positive cases. Subsequently, the study participants were asked for their willingness to undergo RRSO/RRM. When the ovarian cancer risk was shown as 44.0%, the percentage of study participants who chose RRSO was 41.0% after numerical presentation versus 39.9% after graphical display, of which the difference was not significant. When the breast cancer risk was presented as 72.0%, 30.4% of the participants opted for RRM under numerical presentation, whereas this increased to 38.6% under graphical display, of which the difference was significant (p < 0.0075). The average levels of the cancer risk which study participants consider RR surgery were 57.1% for ovarian cancer and 60.6% for breast cancer. This suggests that the impacts of different formats of risk communication on decision about RRSO or RRM may be different by the absolute levels of ovarian or breast cancer.

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.

Acceptability of risk-tailored cancer screening among Australian GPs: a qualitative study

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.

Acceptability and appropriateness of a risk-tailored organised melanoma screening program: Qualitative interviews with key informants

INTRODUCTION

In Australia, opportunistic screening (occurring as skin checks) for the early detection of melanoma is common, and overdiagnosis is a recognised concern. Risk-tailored cancer screening is an approach to cancer control that aims to provide personalised screening tailored to individual risk. This study aimed to explore the views of key informants in Australia on the acceptability and appropriateness of risk-tailored organised screening for melanoma, and to identify barriers, facilitators and strategies to inform potential future implementation. Acceptability and appropriateness are crucial, as successful implementation will require a change of practice for clinicians and consumers.

METHODS

This was a qualitative study using semi-structured interviews. Key informants were purposively selected to ensure expertise in melanoma early detection and screening, prioritising senior or executive perspectives. Consumers were expert representatives. Data were analysed deductively using the Tailored Implementation for Chronic Diseases (TICD) checklist.

RESULTS

Thirty-six participants were interviewed (10 policy makers; 9 consumers; 10 health professionals; 7 researchers). Key informants perceived risk-tailored screening for melanoma to be acceptable and appropriate in principle. Barriers to implementation included lack of trial data, reluctance for low-risk groups to not screen, variable skill level in general practice, differing views on who to conduct screening tests, confusing public health messaging, and competing health costs. Key facilitators included the perceived opportunity to improve health equity and the potential cost-effectiveness of a risk-tailored screening approach. A range of implementation strategies were identified including strengthening the evidence for cost-effectiveness, engaging stakeholders, developing pathways for people at low risk, evaluating different risk assessment criteria and screening delivery models and targeted public messaging.

CONCLUSION

Key informants were supportive in principle of risk-tailored melanoma screening, highlighting important next steps. Considerations around risk assessment, policy and modelling the costs of current verses future approaches will help inform possible future implementation of risk-tailored population screening for melanoma.

Development and Validation of Risk Prediction Models for Colorectal Cancer in Patients with Symptoms

We aimed to develop and validate prediction models incorporating demographics, clinical features, and a weighted genetic risk score (wGRS) for individual prediction of colorectal cancer (CRC) risk in patients with gastroenterological symptoms. Prediction models were developed with internal validation [CRC Cases: n = 1686/Controls: n = 963]. Candidate predictors included age, sex, BMI, wGRS, family history, and symptoms (changes in bowel habits, rectal bleeding, weight loss, anaemia, abdominal pain). The baseline model included all the non-genetic predictors. Models A (baseline model + wGRS) and B (baseline model) were developed based on LASSO regression to select predictors. Models C (baseline model + wGRS) and D (baseline model) were built using all variables. Models' calibration and discrimination were evaluated through the Hosmer-Lemeshow test (calibration curves were plotted) and C-statistics (corrected based on 1000 bootstrapping). The models' prediction performance was: model A (corrected C-statistic = 0.765); model B (corrected C-statistic = 0.753); model C (corrected C-statistic = 0.764); and model D (corrected C-statistic = 0.752). Models A and C, that integrated wGRS with demographic and clinical predictors, had a statistically significant improved prediction performance. Our findings suggest that future application of genetic predictors holds significant promise, which could enhance CRC risk prediction. Therefore, further investigation through model external validation and clinical impact is merited.

Workload and workflow implications associated with the use of electronic clinical decision support tools used by health professionals in general practice: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Electronic clinical decision support tools (eCDS) are increasingly available to assist General Practitioners (GP) with the diagnosis and management of a range of health conditions. It is unclear whether the use of eCDS tools has an impact on GP workload. This scoping review aimed to identify the available evidence on the use of eCDS tools by health professionals in general practice in relation to their impact on workload and workflow.

METHODS

A scoping review was carried out using the Arksey and O'Malley methodological framework. The search strategy was developed iteratively, with three main aspects: general practice/primary care contexts, risk assessment/decision support tools, and workload-related factors. Three databases were searched in 2019, and updated in 2021, covering articles published since 2009: Medline (Ovid), HMIC (Ovid) and Web of Science (TR). Double screening was completed by two reviewers, and data extracted from included articles were analysed.

RESULTS

The search resulted in 5,594 references, leading to 95 full articles, referring to 87 studies, after screening. Of these, 36 studies were based in the USA, 21 in the UK and 11 in Australia. A further 18 originated from Canada or Europe, with the remaining studies conducted in New Zealand, South Africa and Malaysia. Studies examined the use of eCDS tools and reported some findings related to their impact on workload, including on consultation duration. Most studies were qualitative and exploratory in nature, reporting health professionals' subjective perceptions of consultation duration as opposed to objectively-measured time spent using tools or consultation durations. Other workload-related findings included impacts on cognitive workload, "workflow" and dialogue with patients, and clinicians' experience of "alert fatigue".

CONCLUSIONS

The published literature on the impact of eCDS tools in general practice showed that limited efforts have focused on investigating the impact of such tools on workload and workflow. To gain an understanding of this area, further research, including quantitative measurement of consultation durations, would be useful to inform the future design and implementation of eCDS tools.

The SCRIPT trial: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial of a polygenic risk score to tailor colorectal cancer screening in primary care

Background

Polygenic risk scores (PRSs) can predict the risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) and target screening more precisely than current guidelines using age and family history alone. Primary care, as a far-reaching point of healthcare and routine provider of cancer screening and risk information, may be an ideal location for their widespread implementation.

Methods

This trial aims to determine whether the SCRIPT intervention results in more risk-appropriate CRC screening after 12 months in individuals attending general practice, compared with standard cancer risk reduction information. The SCRIPT intervention consists of a CRC PRS, tailored risk-specific screening recommendations and a risk report for participants and their GP, delivered in general practice. Patients aged between 45 and 70 inclusive, attending their GP, will be approached for participation. For those over 50, only those overdue for CRC screening will be eligible to participate. Two hundred and seventy-four participants will be randomised to the intervention or control arms, stratified by general practice, using a computer-generated allocation sequence. The primary outcome is risk-appropriate CRC screening after 12 months. For those in the intervention arm, risk-appropriate screening is defined using PRS-derived risk; for those in the control arm, it is defined using family history and national screening guidelines. Timing, type and results of the previous screening are considered in both arms. Objective health service data will capture screening behaviour. Secondary outcomes include cancer-specific worry, risk perception, predictors of CRC screening behaviour, screening intentions and health service use at 1, 6 and 12 months post-intervention delivery.

Discussion

This trial aims to determine whether a PRS-derived personalised CRC risk estimate delivered in primary care increases risk-appropriate CRC screening. A future population risk-stratified CRC screening programme could incorporate risk assessment within primary care while encouraging adherence to targeted screening recommendations.

Trial registration

Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry ACTRN12621000092897p. Registered on 1 February 2021.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-022-06734-7.

The Impact of Palliative Care and Nursing Intervention on the Psychology and Quality of Life of Elderly Patients with Colorectal Cancer

Colorectal cancer patients face physical, psychological, and social difficulties. Psychosocial therapies appear to be successful in improving cancer patients' psychological and social results. Preoperative and postoperative psychological therapies for colorectal surgery patients have not been extensively studied. During their treatment, up to 35% of cancer patients experience clinically severe psychological discomfort. As a consequence, a greater knowledge of health-related quality of life and its causes can assist oncology nurses in developing effective treatments to improve the health-related quality of life. The palliative care model and the nursing intervention model are used in this study to assess the effectiveness of an individually customized nursing intervention for lowering chemotherapy-related symptom distress in adult patients with colorectal cancer. Initially, the dataset is collected and split into the control group and the experimental group. The patient conditions are evaluated using the novel accelerated gradient boosting regression tree (AGBRT) estimation model. For improving the evaluation process, we have proposed the enriched gravitational search optimization algorithm (EGSOA). The system's success is evaluated in terms of the patients' psychological well-being and quality of life.

Exploring a novel method for optimising the implementation of a colorectal cancer risk prediction tool into primary care: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

We developed a colorectal cancer risk prediction tool ('CRISP') to provide individualised risk-based advice for colorectal cancer screening. Using known environmental, behavioural, and familial risk factors, CRISP was designed to facilitate tailored screening advice to patients aged 50 to 74 years in general practice. In parallel to a randomised controlled trial of the CRISP tool, we developed and evaluated an evidence-based implementation strategy.

METHODS

Qualitative methods were used to explore the implementation of CRISP in general practice. Using one general practice in regional Victoria, Australia, as a 'laboratory', we tested ways to embed CRISP into routine clinical practice. General practitioners, nurses, and operations manager co-designed the implementation methods with researchers, focussing on existing practice processes that would be sustainable. Researchers interviewed the staff regularly to assess the successfulness of the strategies employed, and implementation methods were adapted throughout the study period in response to feedback from qualitative interviews. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) underpinned the development of the interview guide and intervention strategy. Coding was inductive and themes were developed through consensus between the authors. Emerging themes were mapped onto the CFIR domains and a fidelity checklist was developed to ensure CRISP was being used as intended.

RESULTS

Between December 2016 and September 2019, 1 interviews were conducted, both face-to-face and via videoconferencing (Zoom). All interviews were transcribed verbatim and coded. Themes were mapped onto the following CFIR domains: (1) 'characteristics of the intervention': CRISP was valued but time consuming; (2) 'inner setting': the practice was open to changing systems; 3. 'outer setting': CRISP helped facilitate screening; (4) 'individual characteristics': the practice staff were adaptable and able to facilitate adoption of new clinical processes; and (5) 'processes': fidelity checking, and education was important.

CONCLUSIONS

These results describe a novel method for exploring implementation strategies for a colorectal cancer risk prediction tool in the context of a parallel RCT testing clinical efficacy. The study identified successful and unsuccessful implementation strategies using an adaptive methodology over time. This method emphasised the importance of co-design input to make an intervention like CRISP sustainable for use in other practices and with other risk tools.

A scoping review of risk-stratified bowel screening: current evidence, future directions

PURPOSE

In this scoping review, we examined the international literature on risk-stratified bowel screening to develop recommendations for future research, practice and policy.

METHODS

Six electronic databases were searched from inception to 18 October 2021: Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Forward and backwards citation searches were also undertaken. All relevant literature were included.

RESULTS

After de-deduplication, 3,629 records remained. 3,416 were excluded at the title/abstract screening stage. A further 111 were excluded at full-text screening stage. In total, 102 unique studies were included. Results showed that risk-stratified bowel screening programmes can potentially improve diagnostic performance, but there is a lack of information on longer-term outcomes. Risk models do appear to show promise in refining existing risk stratification guidelines but most were not externally validated and less than half achieved good discriminatory power. Risk assessment tools in primary care have the potential for high levels of acceptability and uptake, and therefore, could form an important component of future risk-stratified bowel screening programmes, but sometimes the screening recommendations were not adhered to by the patient or healthcare provider. The review identified important knowledge gaps, most notably in the area of organisation of screening services due to few pilots, and what risk stratification might mean for inequalities.

CONCLUSION

We recommend that future research focuses on what organisational challenges risk-stratified bowel screening may face and a consideration of inequalities in any changes to organised bowel screening programmes.

The classification capability of the Asia Pacific Colorectal Screening score in Korea: an analysis of the Cancer Screenee Cohort

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to validate a simple risk assessment tool for estimating the advanced colorectal neoplasia (ACN) risk at colonoscopy screenings and potential factors relevant for implementing this tool in the Korean population.

METHODS

Our study analyzed data from the Cancer Screenee Cohort Study conducted by the National Cancer Center in Korea. The risk level was assessed using the Asia Pacific Colorectal Screening (APCS) score developed by the Asia-Pacific Working Group on Colorectal Cancer. Logistic regression models were used to examine the associations between colorectal-related outcomes and the risk level by APCS score. The discriminatory performance of the APCS score for various colorectal-related outcomes was assessed using C-statistics.

RESULTS

In 12,520 individuals, 317 ACN cases and 4,528 adenoma cases were found. The APCS tool successfully classified the study population into different risk groups, and significant differences in the ACN rate and other outcomes were observed. The APCS score demonstrated acceptable discrimination capability with area under the curve values ranging from 0.62 to 0.65 for various outcomes. The results of the multivariate logistic regression model revealed that the high-risk group had a 3.1-fold higher risk of ACN (95% confidence interval, 2.08 to 4.67) than the average-risk group. Body mass index (BMI) was identified as a significant predictor of ACN in both multivariate and subgroup analyses.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study highlighted significant differences in colorectal-related screening outcomes by colorectal risk level measured using the APCS score, and BMI could be used to improve the discriminatory capability of the APCS score.

An RCT of a decision aid to support informed choices about taking aspirin to prevent colorectal cancer and other chronic diseases: a study protocol for the SITA (Should I Take Aspirin?) trial

Background

Australian guidelines recommend that all people aged 50–70 years old actively consider taking daily low-dose aspirin (100–300 mg per day) for 2.5 to 5 years to reduce their risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). Despite the change of national CRC prevention guidelines, there has been no active implementation of the guidelines into clinical practice.

We aim to test the efficacy of a health consultation and decision aid, using a novel expected frequency tree (EFT) to present the benefits and harms of low dose aspirin prior to a general practice consultation with patients aged 50–70 years, on informed decision-making and uptake of aspirin.

Methods

Approximately five to seven general practices in Victoria, Australia, will be recruited to participate. Patients 50–70 years old, attending an appointment with their general practitioner (GP) for any reason, will be invited to participate in the trial. Two hundred fifty-eight eligible participants will be randomly allocated 1:1 to intervention or active control arms using a computer-generated allocation sequence stratified by general practice, sex, and mode of trial delivery (face-to-face or teletrial).

There are two co-primary outcomes: informed decision-making at 1-month post randomisation, measured by the Multi-dimensional Measure of Informed Choice (MMIC), and self-reported daily use of aspirin at 6 months. Secondary outcomes include decisional conflict at 1-month and other behavioural changes to reduce CRC risk at both time points.

Discussion

This trial will test the efficacy of novel methods for implementing national guidelines to support informed decision-making about taking aspirin in 50–70-year-olds to reduce the risk of CRC and other chronic diseases.

Trial registration

The Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR) ACTRN12620001003965. Registered on 10 October 2020.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13063-021-05365-8.

Development and user-testing of a brief decision aid for aspirin as a preventive approach alongside colorectal cancer screening

BACKGROUND

Several epidemiological and cohort studies suggest that regular low-dose aspirin use independently reduces the long-term incidence and risk of colorectal cancer deaths by approximately 20%. However, there are also risks to aspirin use, mainly gastrointestinal bleeding and haemorrhagic stroke. Making informed decisions depends on the ability to understand and weigh up benefits and risks of available options. A decision aid to support people to consider aspirin therapy alongside participation in the NHS bowel cancer screening programme may have an additional impact on colorectal cancer prevention. This study aims to develop and user-test a brief decision aid about aspirin to enable informed decision-making for colorectal screening-eligible members of the public.

METHODS

We undertook a qualitative study to develop an aspirin decision aid leaflet to support bowel screening responders in deciding whether to take aspirin to reduce their risk of colorectal cancer. The iterative development process involved two focus groups with public members aged 60-74 years (n = 14) and interviews with clinicians (n = 10). Interviews (n = 11) were used to evaluate its utility for decision-making. Analysis was conducted using a framework approach.

RESULTS

Overall, participants found the decision aid acceptable and useful to facilitate decision-making. They expressed a need for individualised risk information, more detail about the potential risks of aspirin, and preferred risk information presented in pictograms when offered different options. Implementation pathways were discussed, including the possibility of involving different clinicians in the process such as GPs and/or community pharmacists. A range of potentially effective timepoints for sending out the decision aid were identified.

CONCLUSION

An acceptable and usable decision aid was developed to support decisions about aspirin use to prevent colorectal cancer.

A risk-stratified approach to colorectal cancer prevention and diagnosis

Population screening and endoscopic surveillance are used widely to prevent the development of and death from colorectal cancer (CRC). However, CRC remains a major cause of cancer mortality and the increasing burden of endoscopic investigations threatens to overwhelm some health services. This Perspective describes the rationale for and approach to improved risk stratification and decision-making for CRC prevention and diagnosis. Limitations of current approaches will be discussed using the UK as an example of the challenges faced by a particular health-care system, followed by discussion of novel risk biomarker utilization. We explore how risk stratification will be advantageous to current health-care providers and users, enabling more efficient use of limited colonoscopy resources. We discuss risk stratification in the setting of population screening as well as the surveillance of high-risk groups and investigation of symptomatic patients. We also address challenges in the development and validation of risk stratification tools and identify key research priorities.

Making change last? Exploring the value of sustainability approaches in healthcare: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Numerous models, tools and frameworks have been produced to improve the sustainability of evidence-based interventions. Due to the vast number available, choosing the most appropriate one is increasingly difficult for researchers and practitioners. To understand the value of such approaches, evidence warranting their use is needed. However, there is limited understanding of how sustainability approaches have been used and how they have impacted research or practice. This review aims to consolidate evidence on the application and impact of sustainability approaches in healthcare settings.

METHODS

A systematic scoping review was designed to search for peer-reviewed publications detailing the use of sustainability approaches in practice. A 5-stage framework for scoping reviews directed the search strategy, and quality assessment was performed using the Mixed Method Appraisal Tool. Searches were performed through electronic citation tracking and snowballing of references. Articles were obtained through Web of Science, PubMed and Google Scholar. Six outcome variables for sustainability were explored to ascertain impact of approaches.

RESULTS

This review includes 68 articles demonstrating the application of sustainability approaches in practice. Results show an increase in the use of sustainability approaches in peer-reviewed studies. Approaches have been applied across a range of healthcare settings, including primary, secondary, tertiary and community healthcare. Approaches are used for five main purposes, namely analysis, evaluation, guidance, assessment and planning. Results outline benefits (e.g. improved conceptualisation of sustainability constructs and improved ability to interpret sustainability data) and challenges (e.g. issues with approach constructs and difficulty in application) associated with using a sustainability approach in practice. Few articles (14/68) reported the sustainability outcome variables explored; therefore, the impact of approaches on sustainability remains unclear. Additional sustainability outcome variables reported in retrieved articles are discussed.

CONCLUSIONS

This review provides practitioners and researchers with a consolidated evidence base on sustainability approaches. Findings highlight the remaining gaps in the literature and emphasise the need for improved rigour and reporting of sustainability approaches in research studies. To guide future assessment and study of sustainability in healthcare settings an updated list of sustainability outcome variables is proposed.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This review was registered on the PROSPERO database CRD 42016040081 in June 2016.

The Impact of a Comprehensive Risk Prediction Model for Colorectal Cancer on a Population Screening Program

BACKGROUND

In many countries, population colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is based on age and family history, though more precise risk prediction could better target screening. We examined the impact of a CRC risk prediction model (incorporating age, sex, lifestyle, genomic, and family history factors) to target screening under several feasible screening scenarios.

METHODS

We estimated the model's predicted CRC risk distribution in the Australian population. Predicted CRC risks were categorized into screening recommendations under 3 proposed scenarios to compare with current recommendations: 1) highly tailored, 2) 3 risk categories, and 3) 4 sex-specific risk categories. Under each scenario, for 35- to 74-year-olds, we calculated the number of CRC screens by immunochemical fecal occult blood testing (iFOBT) and colonoscopy and the proportion of predicted CRCs over 10 years in each screening group.

RESULTS

Currently, 1.1% of 35- to 74-year-olds are recommended screening colonoscopy and 56.2% iFOBT, and 5.7% and 83.2% of CRCs over 10 years were predicted to occur in these groups, respectively. For the scenarios, 1) colonoscopy was recommended to 8.1% and iFOBT to 37.5%, with 36.1% and 50.1% of CRCs in each group; 2) colonoscopy was recommended to 2.4% and iFOBT to 56.0%, with 13.2% and 76.9% of cancers in each group; and 3) colonoscopy was recommended to 5.0% and iFOBT to 54.2%, with 24.5% and 66.5% of cancers in each group.

CONCLUSIONS

A highly tailored CRC screening scenario results in many fewer screens but more cancers in those unscreened. Category-based scenarios may provide a good balance between number of screens and cancers detected and are simpler to implement.

An Electronic Questionnaire to Survey Colorectal Cancer Screening Status and Identify High-Risk Cohorts in Large Health Care Organizations

Though improved screening practices have reduced the incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer (CRC), screening rates continue to be suboptimal. This is especially true of high-risk individuals, who are difficult for clinicians to identify during a typical health care encounter. The authors developed an electronic patient questionnaire that determined an individual's CRC screening status and identified high-risk individuals. The questionnaire was administered to employees through the Department of Human Resources. The response rate was 44.7%; 81.2% of respondents aged ≥50 years were up-to-date on CRC screening; 878 high-risk individuals were identified, 77.7% of whom were up-to-date on CRC screening. However, among high-risk individuals aged 40 to 49 years, only 45.8% reported up-to-date CRC screening. The questionnaire was effective in measuring CRC screening rates and identifying high-risk individuals. Dissemination by the Department of Human Resources was novel, effective, and was not dependent on a health care encounter to assess screening or high-risk status.

Artificial intelligence with multi-functional machine learning platform development for better healthcare and precision medicine

Precision medicine is one of the recent and powerful developments in medical care, which has the potential to improve the traditional symptom-driven practice of medicine, allowing earlier interventions using advanced diagnostics and tailoring better and economically personalized treatments. Identifying the best pathway to personalized and population medicine involves the ability to analyze comprehensive patient information together with broader aspects to monitor and distinguish between sick and relatively healthy people, which will lead to a better understanding of biological indicators that can signal shifts in health. While the complexities of disease at the individual level have made it difficult to utilize healthcare information in clinical decision-making, some of the existing constraints have been greatly minimized by technological advancements. To implement effective precision medicine with enhanced ability to positively impact patient outcomes and provide real-time decision support, it is important to harness the power of electronic health records by integrating disparate data sources and discovering patient-specific patterns of disease progression. Useful analytic tools, technologies, databases, and approaches are required to augment networking and interoperability of clinical, laboratory and public health systems, as well as addressing ethical and social issues related to the privacy and protection of healthcare data with effective balance. Developing multifunctional machine learning platforms for clinical data extraction, aggregation, management and analysis can support clinicians by efficiently stratifying subjects to understand specific scenarios and optimize decision-making. Implementation of artificial intelligence in healthcare is a compelling vision that has the potential in leading to the significant improvements for achieving the goals of providing real-time, better personalized and population medicine at lower costs. In this study, we focused on analyzing and discussing various published artificial intelligence and machine learning solutions, approaches and perspectives, aiming to advance academic solutions in paving the way for a new data-centric era of discovery in healthcare.

The CRISP-P study: feasibility of a self-completed colorectal cancer risk prediction tool in primary care

OBJECTIVE

Australia and New Zealand have the highest incidence of colorectal cancer (CRC) globally. Our research team has developed a CRC risk prediction tool for use in primary care to increase targeted screening. This study, Colorectal cancer RISk Prediction tool - patient ('CRISP-P'), aimed to determine the following to inform a future trial design: (i) the feasibility of self-reporting; (ii) the feasibility of recruitment methods; and (iii) the prevalence of CRC risk.

METHODS

Participants aged between 40 and 75 years were recruited consecutively from three primary care waiting rooms. Participants input data into CRISP on a tablet without receiving clinical advice. Feasibility was evaluated using recruitment rate, timely completion, a self-reported 'ease-of-use', score and field notes. Prevalence of CRC risk was calculated using the CRISP model.

RESULTS

Five hundred sixty-one (90%) patients agreed to use the tool and 424 (84%) rated the tool easy to use. Despite this, 41% of people were unable to complete the questions without assistance. Patients who were older, without tertiary education or with English as their second language were more likely to require assistance (P < 0.001). Thirty-nine percent of patients were low risk, 58% at slightly increased and 2.4% were at moderately increased risk of developing colorectal cancer in the next 5 years.

CONCLUSIONS

The tool was perceived as easy to use, although older, less educated people, and patients with English as their second language needed help. The data support the recruitment methods but not the use of a self-completed tool for an efficacy trial.

MAV-clic: management, analysis, and visualization of clinical data

Objectives

Develop a multifunctional analytics platform for efficient management and analysis of healthcare data.

Materials and Methods

Management, Analysis, and Visualization of Clinical Data (MAV-clic) is a Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA)-compliant framework based on the Butterfly Model. MAV-clic extracts, cleanses, and encrypts data then restructures and aggregates data in a deidentified format. A graphical user interface allows query, analysis, and visualization of clinical data.

Results

MAV-clic manages healthcare data for over 800 000 subjects at UConn Health. Three analytic capabilities of MAV-clic include: creating cohorts based on specific criteria; performing measurement analysis of subjects with a specific diagnosis and medication; and calculating measure outcomes of subjects over time.

Discussion

MAV-clic supports clinicians and healthcare analysts by efficiently stratifying subjects to understand specific scenarios and optimize decision making.

Conclusion

MAV-clic is founded on the scientific premise that to improve the quality and transition of healthcare, integrative platforms are necessary to analyze heterogeneous clinical, epidemiological, metabolomics, proteomics, and genomics data for precision medicine.

Trends in Colon and Rectal Cancer Incidence in Australia from 1982 to 2014: Analysis of Data on Over 375,000 Cases

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer is the third most commonly diagnosed cancer in Australia. Emerging evidence from several countries suggests increasing incidence in people aged <50 years.

METHODS

We assessed colon and rectal cancer incidence trends in people aged 20+ in Australia from 1982 to 2014. We used data on 375,008 incident cases (248,162 colon and 126,846 rectal). We quantified the annual percentage change (APC) in rates by age group using Joinpoint regression.

RESULTS

For people aged <50 years, colon cancer rates increased from the mid-2000s, with the increase in APCs ranging from 1.7% to 9.3% per annum (depending on specific age group); rectal cancer rates increased from the early 1990s, with APCs ranging from 0.9% to 7.1% per annum. For people aged 50 to 69 years, colon and rectal cancer rates decreased from the mid-1990s, with the decrease in APCs in specific age groups ranging from 0.8% to 4.8% per annum (except for colon cancer in those ages 65 to 69 years, where similar rate decreases were observed from 2007). An overall reduction in older persons (>70 years) was estimated at 1.9% to 4.9% per annum for colon cancer from 2010 onward and 1.1% to 1.8% per annum in rectal cancer from the early 2000s onward.

CONCLUSIONS

Colon and rectal cancer incidence has increased in people aged <50 years in Australia over the last two decades. However, colon and rectal cancer rates decreased in people aged 50+, likely due to de facto and organized bowel cancer screening.

IMPACT

Further research is needed to examine the cause of the increase and to quantify the impact of future trends on the cost-effectiveness of population-based screening for those <50 years.

The use of a risk assessment and decision support tool (CRISP) compared with usual care in general practice to increase risk-stratified colorectal cancer screening: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Australia and New Zealand have the highest incidence rates of colorectal cancer worldwide. In Australia there is significant unwarranted variation in colorectal cancer screening due to low uptake of the immunochemical faecal occult blood test, poor identification of individuals at increased risk of colorectal cancer, and over-referral of individuals at average risk for colonoscopy. Our pre-trial research has developed a novel Colorectal cancer RISk Prediction (CRISP) tool, which could be used to implement precision screening in primary care. This paper describes the protocol for a phase II multi-site individually randomised controlled trial of the CRISP tool in primary care.

METHODS

This trial aims to test whether a standardised consultation using the CRISP tool in general practice (the CRISP intervention) increases risk-appropriate colorectal cancer screening compared to control participants who receive standardised information on cancer prevention. Patients between 50 and 74 years old, attending an appointment with their general practitioner for any reason, will be invited into the trial. A total of 732 participants will be randomised to intervention or control arms using a computer-generated allocation sequence stratified by general practice. The primary outcome (risk-appropriate screening at 12 months) will be measured using baseline data for colorectal cancer risk and objective health service data to measure screening behaviour. Secondary outcomes will include participant cancer risk perception, anxiety, cancer worry, screening intentions and health service utilisation measured at 1, 6 and 12 months post randomisation.

DISCUSSION

This trial tests a systematic approach to implementing risk-stratified colorectal cancer screening in primary care, based on an individual's absolute risk, using a state-of-the-art risk assessment tool. Trial results will be reported in 2020.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry, ACTRN12616001573448p . Registered on 14 November 2016.

Using Normalization Process Theory in feasibility studies and process evaluations of complex healthcare interventions: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Normalization Process Theory (NPT) identifies, characterises and explains key mechanisms that promote and inhibit the implementation, embedding and integration of new health techniques, technologies and other complex interventions. A large body of literature that employs NPT to inform feasibility studies and process evaluations of complex healthcare interventions has now emerged. The aims of this review were to review this literature; to identify and characterise the uses and limits of NPT in research on the implementation and integration of healthcare interventions; and to explore NPT's contribution to understanding the dynamics of these processes.

METHODS

A qualitative systematic review was conducted. We searched Web of Science, Scopus and Google Scholar for articles with empirical data in peer-reviewed journals that cited either key papers presenting and developing NPT, or the NPT Online Toolkit ( www.normalizationprocess.org ). We included in the review only articles that used NPT as the primary approach to collection, analysis or reporting of data in studies of the implementation of healthcare techniques, technologies or other interventions. A structured data extraction instrument was used, and data were analysed qualitatively.

RESULTS

Searches revealed 3322 citations. We show that after eliminating 2337 duplicates and broken or junk URLs, 985 were screened as titles and abstracts. Of these, 101 were excluded because they did not fit the inclusion criteria for the review. This left 884 articles for full-text screening. Of these, 754 did not fit the inclusion criteria for the review. This left 130 papers presenting results from 108 identifiable studies to be included in the review. NPT appears to provide researchers and practitioners with a conceptual vocabulary for rigorous studies of implementation processes. It identifies, characterises and explains empirically identifiable mechanisms that motivate and shape implementation processes. Taken together, these mean that analyses using NPT can effectively assist in the explanation of the success or failure of specific implementation projects. Ten percent of papers included critiques of some aspect of NPT, with those that did mainly focusing on its terminology. However, two studies critiqued NPT emphasis on agency, and one study critiqued NPT for its normative focus.

CONCLUSIONS

This review demonstrates that researchers found NPT useful and applied it across a wide range of interventions. It has been effectively used to aid intervention development and implementation planning as well as evaluating and understanding implementation processes themselves. In particular, NPT appears to have offered a valuable set of conceptual tools to aid understanding of implementation as a dynamic process.