主要利益相关者对在澳大利亚实施基于风险的人群乳腺癌筛查的看法-“我们要么上车,要么下车”。

IF 3.2 3区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Jocelyn Lippey, Louise Keogh, Stephanie Best, Rebecca Purvis, Gregory Bruce Mann, Laura Forrest
{"title":"主要利益相关者对在澳大利亚实施基于风险的人群乳腺癌筛查的看法-“我们要么上车,要么下车”。","authors":"Jocelyn Lippey, Louise Keogh, Stephanie Best, Rebecca Purvis, Gregory Bruce Mann, Laura Forrest","doi":"10.1186/s13690-025-01690-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Risk-based breast cancer screening would be a dramatic shift from the current one-size-fits-all model to a tailored approach where screening modality and frequency is directed by individual risk. This project assesses what key stakeholders, defined as those holding managerial and decision-making roles within BreastScreen, consider the issues are with implementing a risk-based approach to screening.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A qualitative approach was undertaken, recruiting participants through professional networks with interviews guided by the Consolidated Framework of Implementation Research (CFIR). Participants were key stakeholders defined as those managing, overseeing and influencing Breast Screen throughout Australia. Data were deductively coded against a CFIR-informed codebook, followed by content analysis per CFIR domain.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty interviews were conducted with 21 participants. 144 initial codes consolidated into 17 final themes. Key stakeholders are supportive and optimistic about risk-based screening in principle; however several issues exist, including knowledge gaps precluding support of evidence-based implementation. Concerns about worsening inequities within screening, cost and communication with clients are major issues key stakeholders consider important to address in the planning and implementing a change to the program.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Key stakeholders in Australia were overwhelmingly enthusiastic about the benefits of a risk-based approach however there are concerns about risk assessment utility, cost and the potential risk to equity in the program. Systematic assessment of these concerns will be required to facilitate successful change to the well-established breast screening program in Australia should risk-stratification be undertaken.</p>","PeriodicalId":48578,"journal":{"name":"Archives of Public Health","volume":"83 1","pages":"223"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12400751/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Key stakeholders' perspectives on implementation of risk-based population breast cancer screening in Australia - \\\"We can either get on the bus or get under it\\\".\",\"authors\":\"Jocelyn Lippey, Louise Keogh, Stephanie Best, Rebecca Purvis, Gregory Bruce Mann, Laura Forrest\",\"doi\":\"10.1186/s13690-025-01690-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Risk-based breast cancer screening would be a dramatic shift from the current one-size-fits-all model to a tailored approach where screening modality and frequency is directed by individual risk. This project assesses what key stakeholders, defined as those holding managerial and decision-making roles within BreastScreen, consider the issues are with implementing a risk-based approach to screening.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A qualitative approach was undertaken, recruiting participants through professional networks with interviews guided by the Consolidated Framework of Implementation Research (CFIR). Participants were key stakeholders defined as those managing, overseeing and influencing Breast Screen throughout Australia. Data were deductively coded against a CFIR-informed codebook, followed by content analysis per CFIR domain.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty interviews were conducted with 21 participants. 144 initial codes consolidated into 17 final themes. Key stakeholders are supportive and optimistic about risk-based screening in principle; however several issues exist, including knowledge gaps precluding support of evidence-based implementation. Concerns about worsening inequities within screening, cost and communication with clients are major issues key stakeholders consider important to address in the planning and implementing a change to the program.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Key stakeholders in Australia were overwhelmingly enthusiastic about the benefits of a risk-based approach however there are concerns about risk assessment utility, cost and the potential risk to equity in the program. Systematic assessment of these concerns will be required to facilitate successful change to the well-established breast screening program in Australia should risk-stratification be undertaken.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48578,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Archives of Public Health\",\"volume\":\"83 1\",\"pages\":\"223\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12400751/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Archives of Public Health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13690-025-01690-5\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Archives of Public Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s13690-025-01690-5","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","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

摘要

背景:基于风险的乳腺癌筛查将是一个巨大的转变,从目前的一刀切模式到量身定制的方法,筛查方式和频率由个体风险指导。本项目评估了在乳房筛查中担任管理和决策角色的关键利益相关者对实施基于风险的筛查方法的问题的看法。方法:采用定性方法,在实施研究综合框架(CFIR)的指导下,通过专业网络与访谈招募参与者。参与者是关键的利益相关者,被定义为在澳大利亚管理、监督和影响乳房筛查的人。根据CFIR通知的代码本对数据进行演绎编码,然后对每个CFIR域进行内容分析。结果:共进行了20次访谈,涉及21名参与者。144个初始代码合并为17个最终主题。主要利益攸关方原则上对基于风险的筛查持支持和乐观态度;然而,存在一些问题,包括知识差距妨碍了对基于证据的实施的支持。对筛查、成本和与客户沟通中日益加剧的不平等的担忧是关键利益相关者认为在计划和实施项目变更时必须解决的主要问题。结论:澳大利亚的主要利益相关者对基于风险的方法的好处非常热情,但对该计划的风险评估效用、成本和潜在的公平风险存在担忧。如果进行风险分层,需要对这些问题进行系统评估,以促进成功改变澳大利亚已建立的乳房筛查项目。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Key stakeholders' perspectives on implementation of risk-based population breast cancer screening in Australia - "We can either get on the bus or get under it".

Key stakeholders' perspectives on implementation of risk-based population breast cancer screening in Australia - "We can either get on the bus or get under it".

Background: Risk-based breast cancer screening would be a dramatic shift from the current one-size-fits-all model to a tailored approach where screening modality and frequency is directed by individual risk. This project assesses what key stakeholders, defined as those holding managerial and decision-making roles within BreastScreen, consider the issues are with implementing a risk-based approach to screening.

Methods: A qualitative approach was undertaken, recruiting participants through professional networks with interviews guided by the Consolidated Framework of Implementation Research (CFIR). Participants were key stakeholders defined as those managing, overseeing and influencing Breast Screen throughout Australia. Data were deductively coded against a CFIR-informed codebook, followed by content analysis per CFIR domain.

Results: Twenty interviews were conducted with 21 participants. 144 initial codes consolidated into 17 final themes. Key stakeholders are supportive and optimistic about risk-based screening in principle; however several issues exist, including knowledge gaps precluding support of evidence-based implementation. Concerns about worsening inequities within screening, cost and communication with clients are major issues key stakeholders consider important to address in the planning and implementing a change to the program.

Conclusions: Key stakeholders in Australia were overwhelmingly enthusiastic about the benefits of a risk-based approach however there are concerns about risk assessment utility, cost and the potential risk to equity in the program. Systematic assessment of these concerns will be required to facilitate successful change to the well-established breast screening program in Australia should risk-stratification be undertaken.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Archives of Public Health
Archives of Public Health Medicine-Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
3.00%
发文量
244
审稿时长
16 weeks
期刊介绍: rchives of Public Health is a broad scope public health journal, dedicated to publishing all sound science in the field of public health. The journal aims to better the understanding of the health of populations. The journal contributes to public health knowledge, enhances the interaction between research, policy and practice and stimulates public health monitoring and indicator development. The journal considers submissions on health outcomes and their determinants, with clear statements about the public health and policy implications. Archives of Public Health welcomes methodological papers (e.g., on study design and bias), papers on health services research, health economics, community interventions, and epidemiological studies dealing with international comparisons, the determinants of inequality in health, and the environmental, behavioural, social, demographic and occupational correlates of health and diseases.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信