Acceptability of risk‐stratified population screening across cancer types

Qualitative interviews with the Australian public

Bibliographic Data

ID19505881
AuthorsKate Dunlop (0000-0001-9544-9764, Daffodil Centre The University of Sydney, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW Sydney NSW Australia, corresponding author), Nicole Rankin (0000-0002-0715-1405, Sydney School of Public Health, The Faculty of Medicine and Health The University of Sydney Sydney NSW Australia), Amelia K Smit (0000-0001-5712-220X, Daffodil Centre The University of Sydney, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW Sydney NSW Australia), Zofia Salgado (Daffodil Centre The University of Sydney, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW Sydney NSW Australia), Ainsley J Newson (0000-0002-3460-772X, Sydney Health Ethics, Sydney School of Public Health, The Faculty of Medicine and Health The University of Sydney Sydney NSW Australia), Louise Keogh (0000-0003-2963-6451, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health The University of Melbourne Melbourne VIC Australia), Anne E Cust (0000-0002-5331-6370, Daffodil Centre The University of Sydney, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW Sydney NSW Australia)
Year2021
Volume24
Issue4
Pages1326-1336
Publication date2021-08-01
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueHealth Expectations (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1369-6513 • E-ISSN: 1369-7625
PublisherWiley (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1111/hex.13267
PMID33974726
OpenAlexW3162174462
LanguageEN
Citations received8
References cited44

BACKGROUND: There is mounting evidence of the benefit of risk-stratified (risk-tailored) cancer population screening, when compared to standard approaches. However, shifting towards this approach involves changes to practice that may give rise to implementation challenges. OBJECTIVES: To explore the public's potential acceptance of risk-stratified screening across different cancer types, including reducing screening frequency if at low risk and the use of personal risk information, to inform implementation strategies. METHOD: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 40 public participants; half had received personal genomic risk information and half had not. Participants were prompted to consider different cancers. Data were analysed thematically as one dataset. RESULTS: Themes included the following: (a) a sense of security; (b) tailored screening is common sense; (c) risk and the need to take action; (d) not every cancer is the same; and (e) trust and belief in health messages. Both groups expressed similar views. Participants were broadly supportive of risk-stratified screening across different cancer types, with strong support for increased screening frequency for high-risk groups. They were less supportive of reduced screening frequency or no screening for low-risk groups. Findings suggest the public will be amenable to reducing screening when the test is invasive and uncomfortable; be less opposed to forgo screening if offered the opportunity to screen at some stage; and view visible cancers such as melanoma differently. CONCLUSIONS: Approaching distinct cancer types differently, tailoring messages for different audiences and understanding reasons for participating in screening may assist with designing future implementation strategies for risk-stratified cancer screening

Cancer · Environmental health · Family medicine · Population · Qualitative research · Sociology · BRCA gene mutations in cancer · Colorectal Cancer Screening and Detection · Global Cancer Incidence and Screening · Medicine

Tools

Open DOIOpen Access