Lay and general practitioner attitudes towards endometrial cancer prevention: a cross-sectional study.

IF 2.4 4区 医学 Q1 MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL
Sarah J Kitson, Urwaa Khan, Emma J Crosbie
{"title":"Lay and general practitioner attitudes towards endometrial cancer prevention: a cross-sectional study.","authors":"Sarah J Kitson, Urwaa Khan, Emma J Crosbie","doi":"10.1093/fampra/cmad076","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Effective and targeted endometrial cancer prevention strategies could reduce diagnoses by 60%. Whether this approach is acceptable to individuals and general practitioners (GPs) is currently unknown. This study sought to determine attitudes towards the provision of personalised endometrial cancer risk assessments and the acceptability of potential prevention strategies.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Specific online questionnaires were developed for individuals aged 45-60 years with a uterus and UK-practising GPs, with social media, charity websites, and email used to advertise the study. Individuals completed the questionnaires between February and April 2022.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 660 lay questionnaire respondents, 90.3% (n = 596) thought that undergoing an endometrial cancer risk assessment was a good or very good idea and 95.6% (n = 631) would be willing to undergo such an assessment. The commonest reasons for wanting to participate were \"to try and reduce my risk\" (n = 442, 67.0%), \"to be informed\" (n = 354, 53.6%), and \"it could save my life' (n = 315, 47.7%). Over 80% of respondents would make lifestyle changes to reduce their endometrial cancer risk (n = 550), with half accepting a pill, Mirena, or hysterectomy for primary prevention. GPs were similarly engaged, with 93.0% (n = 106) willing to offer an endometrial cancer risk assessment if a tool were available, potentially during a Well Woman screen.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Personalised endometrial cancer risk assessments are acceptable to potentially eligible individuals and GPs and could be accommodated within routine practice. Clinical trials to determine the effectiveness of lifestyle modification and Mirena for endometrial protection are urgently required and should be targeted at those at greatest disease risk.</p>","PeriodicalId":12209,"journal":{"name":"Family practice","volume":" ","pages":"949-955"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-12-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11636559/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Family practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/fampra/cmad076","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MEDICINE, GENERAL & INTERNAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Effective and targeted endometrial cancer prevention strategies could reduce diagnoses by 60%. Whether this approach is acceptable to individuals and general practitioners (GPs) is currently unknown. This study sought to determine attitudes towards the provision of personalised endometrial cancer risk assessments and the acceptability of potential prevention strategies.

Methods: Specific online questionnaires were developed for individuals aged 45-60 years with a uterus and UK-practising GPs, with social media, charity websites, and email used to advertise the study. Individuals completed the questionnaires between February and April 2022.

Results: Of 660 lay questionnaire respondents, 90.3% (n = 596) thought that undergoing an endometrial cancer risk assessment was a good or very good idea and 95.6% (n = 631) would be willing to undergo such an assessment. The commonest reasons for wanting to participate were "to try and reduce my risk" (n = 442, 67.0%), "to be informed" (n = 354, 53.6%), and "it could save my life' (n = 315, 47.7%). Over 80% of respondents would make lifestyle changes to reduce their endometrial cancer risk (n = 550), with half accepting a pill, Mirena, or hysterectomy for primary prevention. GPs were similarly engaged, with 93.0% (n = 106) willing to offer an endometrial cancer risk assessment if a tool were available, potentially during a Well Woman screen.

Conclusion: Personalised endometrial cancer risk assessments are acceptable to potentially eligible individuals and GPs and could be accommodated within routine practice. Clinical trials to determine the effectiveness of lifestyle modification and Mirena for endometrial protection are urgently required and should be targeted at those at greatest disease risk.

非专业医生和全科医生对子宫内膜癌预防的态度:一项横断面研究。
背景:有效和有针对性的子宫内膜癌预防策略可以减少60%的诊断。目前尚不清楚这种方法是否可以被个人和全科医生接受。本研究旨在确定对提供个性化子宫内膜癌风险评估的态度以及潜在预防策略的可接受性。方法:针对45-60岁有子宫和英国执业全科医生的个体开发了特定的在线问卷,并使用社交媒体、慈善网站和电子邮件来宣传该研究。个人在2022年2月至4月期间完成了调查问卷。结果:660名非专业受访者中,90.3% (n = 596)的人认为进行子宫内膜癌风险评估是一个好主意或非常好的主意,95.6% (n = 631)的人愿意接受这样的评估。想要参加的最常见原因是“试图降低我的风险”(n = 442, 67.0%),“了解情况”(n = 354,53.6%)和“它可以挽救我的生命”(n = 315, 47.7%)。超过80%的受访者会通过改变生活方式来降低患子宫内膜癌的风险(n = 550),其中一半的人接受服用避孕药、服用月乐或子宫切除术来进行一级预防。全科医生的参与程度相似,如果有工具可用,93.0% (n = 106)的全科医生愿意提供子宫内膜癌风险评估,可能是在Well Woman筛查期间。结论:个性化子宫内膜癌风险评估对于潜在的合格个体和全科医生是可以接受的,并且可以纳入常规实践。迫切需要进行临床试验,以确定改变生活方式和使用月经膜保护子宫内膜的有效性,并应针对那些疾病风险最高的人群。
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
Family practice
Family practice 医学-医学:内科
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
9.10%
发文量
144
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Family Practice is an international journal aimed at practitioners, teachers, and researchers in the fields of family medicine, general practice, and primary care in both developed and developing countries. Family Practice offers its readership an international view of the problems and preoccupations in the field, while providing a medium of instruction and exploration. The journal''s range and content covers such areas as health care delivery, epidemiology, public health, and clinical case studies. The journal aims to be interdisciplinary and contributions from other disciplines of medicine and social science are always welcomed.
×
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