Views of the Australian public on the delivery of risk-stratified cancer screening in the population: a qualitative study.

IF 2.5 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Kate LA Dunlop, Nicole M Rankin, Amelia K Smit, Ainsley J Newson, Louise A Keogh, Anne E Cust
{"title":"Views of the Australian public on the delivery of risk-stratified cancer screening in the population: a qualitative study.","authors":"Kate LA Dunlop,&nbsp;Nicole M Rankin,&nbsp;Amelia K Smit,&nbsp;Ainsley J Newson,&nbsp;Louise A Keogh,&nbsp;Anne E Cust","doi":"10.17061/phrp32232213","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Objective and importance of study:</b> Risk-stratified approaches to cancer screening aim to provide tailored risk advice to individuals, rather than the mostly one-size-fits-all approach designed for the average person that is currently used in Australia. Stratified cancer screening has the potential to increase the benefits and reduce the harms of screening. Initial risk assessment is a crucial first step for screening programs that use risk stratification. We report findings from a qualitative study exploring the views of the Australian public on how to best deliver risk-stratified cancer screening in the population to help inform future implementation.</p><p><strong>Study type: </strong>Qualitative interview study.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted semistructured interviews with participants from a previous study, half of whom had received personal genomic risk information and half of whom had not. We asked how and where they would like to see risk-stratified screening delivered and how they felt about different health professionals assessing their cancer risk. Data were analysed thematically.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Forty interviews were conducted. The age range of participants was 21-68 years; 58% were female. Themes included: 1) Convenience is a priority; 2) General practice is a good fit for some; 3) Web-based technology is part of the process; and 4) \"I would want to know why [I was being stratified]\". Similar views were expressed by both groups. Our findings suggest that although health professionals were identified as having an important role, there were mixed preferences for delivery by general practitioners, medical specialists or nurses. Participants were less concerned about who undertook the risk assessment than whether the health professional had the appropriate skill set and availability. Clear communication and evidence of the need for change in screening eligibility and frequency were key factors in the successful delivery of risk-stratified screening.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We identified that convenience and good communication, including clear explanations to the public with convincing evidence for change, will enable the successful delivery of risk-stratified cancer screening in the population, including organised and opportunistic screening approaches. Health professional education and upskilling across disciplines will be key facilitators. Engagement and further consultation with primary care and other key stakeholders will be central.</p>","PeriodicalId":45898,"journal":{"name":"Public Health Research & Practice","volume":"33 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2023-07-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Health Research & Practice","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17061/phrp32232213","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective and importance of study: Risk-stratified approaches to cancer screening aim to provide tailored risk advice to individuals, rather than the mostly one-size-fits-all approach designed for the average person that is currently used in Australia. Stratified cancer screening has the potential to increase the benefits and reduce the harms of screening. Initial risk assessment is a crucial first step for screening programs that use risk stratification. We report findings from a qualitative study exploring the views of the Australian public on how to best deliver risk-stratified cancer screening in the population to help inform future implementation.

Study type: Qualitative interview study.

Methods: We conducted semistructured interviews with participants from a previous study, half of whom had received personal genomic risk information and half of whom had not. We asked how and where they would like to see risk-stratified screening delivered and how they felt about different health professionals assessing their cancer risk. Data were analysed thematically.

Results: Forty interviews were conducted. The age range of participants was 21-68 years; 58% were female. Themes included: 1) Convenience is a priority; 2) General practice is a good fit for some; 3) Web-based technology is part of the process; and 4) "I would want to know why [I was being stratified]". Similar views were expressed by both groups. Our findings suggest that although health professionals were identified as having an important role, there were mixed preferences for delivery by general practitioners, medical specialists or nurses. Participants were less concerned about who undertook the risk assessment than whether the health professional had the appropriate skill set and availability. Clear communication and evidence of the need for change in screening eligibility and frequency were key factors in the successful delivery of risk-stratified screening.

Conclusion: We identified that convenience and good communication, including clear explanations to the public with convincing evidence for change, will enable the successful delivery of risk-stratified cancer screening in the population, including organised and opportunistic screening approaches. Health professional education and upskilling across disciplines will be key facilitators. Engagement and further consultation with primary care and other key stakeholders will be central.

澳大利亚公众对在人群中提供风险分层癌症筛查的看法:一项定性研究。
研究的目的和重要性:癌症筛查的风险分层方法旨在为个人提供量身定制的风险建议,而不是目前在澳大利亚使用的针对普通人设计的一刀切的方法。分层癌症筛查有可能增加筛查的益处并减少筛查的危害。初始风险评估是采用风险分层筛查方案的关键第一步。我们报告了一项定性研究的结果,该研究探讨了澳大利亚公众对如何在人群中最好地提供风险分层癌症筛查的看法,以帮助为未来的实施提供信息。研究类型:定性访谈研究。方法:我们对先前研究的参与者进行了半结构化访谈,其中一半人获得了个人基因组风险信息,另一半人没有。我们询问了他们希望如何以及在哪里看到风险分层筛查,以及他们对不同的健康专业人员评估他们的癌症风险有何看法。数据按主题进行分析。结果:共进行了40次访谈。参与者的年龄范围为21-68岁;58%是女性。主题包括:1)方便是优先事项;2)一般做法适合一些人;3)网络技术是这个过程的一部分;和4)“我想知道为什么(我被分层了)”。两组人都表达了类似的观点。我们的研究结果表明,尽管卫生专业人员被确定为具有重要作用,但全科医生、医学专家或护士对分娩的偏好不一。参与者关心的不是由谁进行风险评估,而是卫生专业人员是否具备适当的技能和可用性。明确沟通和证据需要改变筛查资格和频率是成功提供风险分层筛查的关键因素。结论:我们确定了便利性和良好的沟通,包括向公众提供明确的解释和令人信服的改变证据,将能够在人群中成功地提供风险分层的癌症筛查,包括有组织的和机会性的筛查方法。卫生专业教育和跨学科技能提升将是关键的促进因素。与初级保健和其他主要利益攸关方的接触和进一步协商将是核心。
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
Public Health Research & Practice
Public Health Research & Practice PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
6.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
51
审稿时长
20 weeks
期刊介绍: Public Health Research & Practice is an open-access, quarterly, online journal with a strong focus on the connection between research, policy and practice. It publishes innovative, high-quality papers that inform public health policy and practice, paying particular attention to innovations, data and perspectives from policy and practice. The journal is published by the Sax Institute, a national leader in promoting the use of research evidence in health policy. Formerly known as The NSW Public Health Bulletin, the journal has a long history. It was published by the NSW Ministry of Health for nearly a quarter of a century. Responsibility for its publication transferred to the Sax Institute in 2014, and the journal receives guidance from an expert editorial board.
×
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