Melanoma risk assessment and management: a qualitative study among Australian GPs

Balakumar Anandasivam, Michael Tam, K. McGeechan, K. Price, Katrina Mclean, M. Tracy, J. Hall, Andrew Knight, K. Vuong
{"title":"Melanoma risk assessment and management: a qualitative study among Australian GPs","authors":"Balakumar Anandasivam, Michael Tam, K. McGeechan, K. Price, Katrina Mclean, M. Tracy, J. Hall, Andrew Knight, K. Vuong","doi":"10.3399/BJGP.2021.0668","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background Preventive guidelines for melanoma recommend that patients at high risk of melanoma receive targeted screening; however, this requires careful selection of those at high risk. To the authors’ knowledge, there has been no previous research into how all physicians approach the selection and management of high-risk individuals. Melanoma risk-prediction models are available to assist in the identification of high-risk patients but are not routinely used clinically. Aim To examine how GPs assessed and managed melanoma risk, and the opportunities for using melanoma risk-prediction models in primary care. Design and setting Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with 20 Australian GPs. Method GPs who had completed a cross-sectional online questionnaire study on melanoma risk were purposively sampled and recruited. Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with Australian GPs between 9 July and 10 September 2019. Interviews were audiorecorded, professionally transcribed, and analysed using grounded theory. Results Melanoma risk assessment and its management can be understood as a linear workflow consisting of five clinical process domains with patient selection as the entry point. There was variation between GPs on the identification of melanoma risk factors, melanoma risk estimation, management, and patient education because of intuitive and analytical processes guiding risk assessment, and the influence of patient factors. GPs were largely receptive towards melanoma risk-prediction models, sharing facilitators for and barriers to their potential implementation. Conclusion Further primary care interventions sensitive to existing workflow arrangements may be required to standardise melanoma risk-assessment and management processes.","PeriodicalId":22333,"journal":{"name":"The British Journal of General Practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-06-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"The British Journal of General Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3399/BJGP.2021.0668","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background Preventive guidelines for melanoma recommend that patients at high risk of melanoma receive targeted screening; however, this requires careful selection of those at high risk. To the authors’ knowledge, there has been no previous research into how all physicians approach the selection and management of high-risk individuals. Melanoma risk-prediction models are available to assist in the identification of high-risk patients but are not routinely used clinically. Aim To examine how GPs assessed and managed melanoma risk, and the opportunities for using melanoma risk-prediction models in primary care. Design and setting Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with 20 Australian GPs. Method GPs who had completed a cross-sectional online questionnaire study on melanoma risk were purposively sampled and recruited. Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with Australian GPs between 9 July and 10 September 2019. Interviews were audiorecorded, professionally transcribed, and analysed using grounded theory. Results Melanoma risk assessment and its management can be understood as a linear workflow consisting of five clinical process domains with patient selection as the entry point. There was variation between GPs on the identification of melanoma risk factors, melanoma risk estimation, management, and patient education because of intuitive and analytical processes guiding risk assessment, and the influence of patient factors. GPs were largely receptive towards melanoma risk-prediction models, sharing facilitators for and barriers to their potential implementation. Conclusion Further primary care interventions sensitive to existing workflow arrangements may be required to standardise melanoma risk-assessment and management processes.
黑色素瘤风险评估和管理:澳大利亚全科医生的定性研究
黑素瘤预防指南建议高危黑素瘤患者接受针对性筛查;然而,这需要仔细选择那些高风险的人。据作者所知,之前还没有关于所有医生如何选择和管理高危患者的研究。黑色素瘤风险预测模型可用于帮助识别高危患者,但在临床上并不常规使用。目的研究全科医生如何评估和管理黑色素瘤风险,以及在初级保健中使用黑色素瘤风险预测模型的机会。设计与设置对20名澳大利亚全科医生进行了半结构化电话访谈。方法有目的地对完成黑素瘤风险横断面在线问卷调查的全科医生进行抽样和招募。2019年7月9日至9月10日期间,对澳大利亚全科医生进行了半结构化电话采访。访谈录音,专业转录,并使用接地理论分析。结果黑色素瘤风险评估及其管理可理解为以患者选择为切入点,由五个临床过程域组成的线性工作流程。全科医生在黑素瘤危险因素的识别、黑素瘤风险评估、管理和患者教育方面存在差异,这是因为指导风险评估的直观和分析过程以及患者因素的影响。全科医生很大程度上接受黑色素瘤风险预测模型,分享其潜在实施的促进因素和障碍。结论根据现有工作流程安排,可能需要进一步的初级保健干预措施来规范黑色素瘤风险评估和管理流程。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信