Hannah Miles, Una Macleod, David Weller, Joanne Cairns
{"title":"公众和医疗专业人员对风险分层肠筛查的态度:一项使用信息漫画书的定性研究","authors":"Hannah Miles, Una Macleod, David Weller, Joanne Cairns","doi":"10.1111/hex.70315","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Screening for bowel cancer (colorectal cancer, CRC) is well established in many high-income countries. There has been considerable interest in moving towards risk-based bowel screening to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of screening. This UK-based qualitative study explored public and healthcare professionals (HCPs)' attitudes towards risk-based bowel screening.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Five virtual focus groups were held with members of the public of bowel screening age (60–74 in England; 50–74 in Scotland) and HCPs to explore attitudes towards risk-based bowel screening. Public participants (<i>n</i> = 12) were invited through our existing patient and public involvement (PPI) networks. HCPs (<i>n</i> = 11) were recruited through existing networks and with the support of screening hubs.</p>\n \n <p>A co-created info-comic book was used to facilitate discussion on bowel cancer risk factors. Following transcription, qualitative data were analysed thematically.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>There was consensus that more intense screening for those of higher risk is acceptable, but this should not imply less screening for those of lower risk. There was some agreement between the public and HCPs over concerns with undue focus on risk factors, which could disadvantage those with minimal risk factors. There was also a desire to streamline existing bowel screening across the UK nations. It was felt that the current screening programme, by treating people with all risk levels in the same way, is equitable—so clear communication is needed if this is to be changed.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Findings indicate a preference that any changes to the bowel screening programme should enhance the current screening offer, and not compromise screening offered to individuals deemed to be low risk. Changes need to be acceptable to the public and HCPs—if unacceptable, there is a risk of lowering bowel screening uptake, which could potentially exacerbate health inequities in screening outcomes.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Patient and Public Contribution</h3>\n \n <p>The info-comic book was co-created with two PPI networks, INVOLVE Hull and People and Research Together, Bowel Research UK, supported by Humber All Nations Alliance. The PPI network provided invaluable feedback on the development of the info-comic book, to ensure inclusivity and avoid the reproduction of dominant stereotypes associated with bowel cancer.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":55070,"journal":{"name":"Health Expectations","volume":"28 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-07-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/hex.70315","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Public and Healthcare Professional Attitudes Towards Risk-Stratified Bowel Screening: A Qualitative Study Using an Info-Comic Book\",\"authors\":\"Hannah Miles, Una Macleod, David Weller, Joanne Cairns\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/hex.70315\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background</h3>\\n \\n <p>Screening for bowel cancer (colorectal cancer, CRC) is well established in many high-income countries. There has been considerable interest in moving towards risk-based bowel screening to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of screening. This UK-based qualitative study explored public and healthcare professionals (HCPs)' attitudes towards risk-based bowel screening.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods</h3>\\n \\n <p>Five virtual focus groups were held with members of the public of bowel screening age (60–74 in England; 50–74 in Scotland) and HCPs to explore attitudes towards risk-based bowel screening. Public participants (<i>n</i> = 12) were invited through our existing patient and public involvement (PPI) networks. HCPs (<i>n</i> = 11) were recruited through existing networks and with the support of screening hubs.</p>\\n \\n <p>A co-created info-comic book was used to facilitate discussion on bowel cancer risk factors. Following transcription, qualitative data were analysed thematically.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>There was consensus that more intense screening for those of higher risk is acceptable, but this should not imply less screening for those of lower risk. There was some agreement between the public and HCPs over concerns with undue focus on risk factors, which could disadvantage those with minimal risk factors. There was also a desire to streamline existing bowel screening across the UK nations. It was felt that the current screening programme, by treating people with all risk levels in the same way, is equitable—so clear communication is needed if this is to be changed.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\\n \\n <p>Findings indicate a preference that any changes to the bowel screening programme should enhance the current screening offer, and not compromise screening offered to individuals deemed to be low risk. Changes need to be acceptable to the public and HCPs—if unacceptable, there is a risk of lowering bowel screening uptake, which could potentially exacerbate health inequities in screening outcomes.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Patient and Public Contribution</h3>\\n \\n <p>The info-comic book was co-created with two PPI networks, INVOLVE Hull and People and Research Together, Bowel Research UK, supported by Humber All Nations Alliance. The PPI network provided invaluable feedback on the development of the info-comic book, to ensure inclusivity and avoid the reproduction of dominant stereotypes associated with bowel cancer.</p>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":55070,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health Expectations\",\"volume\":\"28 4\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-07-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/hex.70315\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health Expectations\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hex.70315\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Expectations","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hex.70315","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
Public and Healthcare Professional Attitudes Towards Risk-Stratified Bowel Screening: A Qualitative Study Using an Info-Comic Book
Background
Screening for bowel cancer (colorectal cancer, CRC) is well established in many high-income countries. There has been considerable interest in moving towards risk-based bowel screening to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of screening. This UK-based qualitative study explored public and healthcare professionals (HCPs)' attitudes towards risk-based bowel screening.
Methods
Five virtual focus groups were held with members of the public of bowel screening age (60–74 in England; 50–74 in Scotland) and HCPs to explore attitudes towards risk-based bowel screening. Public participants (n = 12) were invited through our existing patient and public involvement (PPI) networks. HCPs (n = 11) were recruited through existing networks and with the support of screening hubs.
A co-created info-comic book was used to facilitate discussion on bowel cancer risk factors. Following transcription, qualitative data were analysed thematically.
Results
There was consensus that more intense screening for those of higher risk is acceptable, but this should not imply less screening for those of lower risk. There was some agreement between the public and HCPs over concerns with undue focus on risk factors, which could disadvantage those with minimal risk factors. There was also a desire to streamline existing bowel screening across the UK nations. It was felt that the current screening programme, by treating people with all risk levels in the same way, is equitable—so clear communication is needed if this is to be changed.
Conclusion
Findings indicate a preference that any changes to the bowel screening programme should enhance the current screening offer, and not compromise screening offered to individuals deemed to be low risk. Changes need to be acceptable to the public and HCPs—if unacceptable, there is a risk of lowering bowel screening uptake, which could potentially exacerbate health inequities in screening outcomes.
Patient and Public Contribution
The info-comic book was co-created with two PPI networks, INVOLVE Hull and People and Research Together, Bowel Research UK, supported by Humber All Nations Alliance. The PPI network provided invaluable feedback on the development of the info-comic book, to ensure inclusivity and avoid the reproduction of dominant stereotypes associated with bowel cancer.
期刊介绍:
Health Expectations promotes critical thinking and informed debate about all aspects of patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in health and social care, health policy and health services research including:
• Person-centred care and quality improvement
• Patients'' participation in decisions about disease prevention and management
• Public perceptions of health services
• Citizen involvement in health care policy making and priority-setting
• Methods for monitoring and evaluating participation
• Empowerment and consumerism
• Patients'' role in safety and quality
• Patient and public role in health services research
• Co-production (researchers working with patients and the public) of research, health care and policy
Health Expectations is a quarterly, peer-reviewed journal publishing original research, review articles and critical commentaries. It includes papers which clarify concepts, develop theories, and critically analyse and evaluate specific policies and practices. The Journal provides an inter-disciplinary and international forum in which researchers (including PPIE researchers) from a range of backgrounds and expertise can present their work to other researchers, policy-makers, health care professionals, managers, patients and consumer advocates.