Acceptability of risk stratification within population-based cancer screening from the perspective of the general public: A mixed-methods systematic review

被引:17
|
作者
Taylor, Lily C. [1 ]
Hutchinson, Alison [2 ]
Law, Katie [2 ]
Shah, Veeraj [1 ]
Usher-Smith, Juliet A. [1 ]
Dennison, Rebecca A. [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Cambridge, Sch Clin Med, Dept Publ Hlth & Primary Care, Primary Care Unit, Cambridge, England
[2] Univ Cambridge, Sch Clin Med, Cambridge, England
基金
美国国家卫生研究院;
关键词
acceptability; cancer; mixed methods; risk stratification; screening; systematic review; PREDICTION MODELS; PERCEPTIONS; BREAST; WOMEN;
D O I
10.1111/hex.13739
中图分类号
R19 [保健组织与事业(卫生事业管理)];
学科分类号
摘要
IntroductionRisk-stratified cancer screening has the potential to improve resource allocation and the balance of harms and benefits by targeting those most likely to benefit. Public acceptability has implications for engagement, uptake and the success of such a programme. Therefore, this review seeks to understand whether risk stratification of population-based cancer screening programmes is acceptable to the general public and in what context. MethodsFour electronic databases were searched from January 2010 to November 2021. Qualitative, quantitative and mixed-methods papers were eligible for inclusion. The Joanna Briggs Institute convergent integrated approach was used to synthesize the findings and the quality of included literature was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. The Theoretical Framework of Acceptability was used as a coding frame for thematic analysis. PROSPERO record 2021 CRD42021286667. ResultsThe search returned 12,039 citations, 22 of which were eligible for inclusion. The majority of studies related to breast cancer screening; other cancer types included ovarian, kidney, colorectal and prostate cancer. Risk stratification was generally acceptable to the public, who considered it to be logical and of wider benefit than existing screening practices. We identified 10 priorities for implementation across four key areas: addressing public information needs; understanding communication preferences for risk estimates; mitigating barriers to accessibility to avoid exacerbating inequalities; and the role of healthcare professionals in relation to supporting reduced screening for low-risk individuals. ConclusionThe public generally find risk stratification of population-based cancer screening programmes to be acceptable; however, we have identified areas that would improve implementation and require further consideration. Patient or Public ContributionThis paper is a systematic review and did not formally involve patients or the public; however, three patient and public involvement members were consulted on the topic and scope before the review commenced.
引用
收藏
页码:989 / 1008
页数:20
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Acceptability of risk stratification within population-based cancer screening from the perspective of healthcare professionals: A mixed methods systematic review and recommendations to support implementation
    Taylor, Lily C.
    Law, Katie
    Hutchinson, Alison
    Dennison, Rebecca A.
    Usher-Smith, Juliet A.
    PLOS ONE, 2023, 18 (02):
  • [2] HIV testing within general practices in Europe: a mixed-methods systematic review
    Deblonde, Jessika
    Van Beckhoven, Dominique
    Loos, Jasna
    Boffin, Nicole
    Sasse, Andre
    Noestlinger, Christiana
    Supervie, Virginie
    BMC PUBLIC HEALTH, 2018, 18
  • [3] HIV testing within general practices in Europe: a mixed-methods systematic review
    Jessika Deblonde
    Dominique Van Beckhoven
    Jasna Loos
    Nicole Boffin
    André Sasse
    Christiana Nöstlinger
    Virginie Supervie
    BMC Public Health, 18
  • [4] Veteran Perspectives on Population-Based Suicide Risk Screening in VHA Primary Care: Mixed-Methods Study
    Denneson, Lauren M.
    Newell, Summer
    Elliott, Victoria
    Rynerson, Annabelle
    Niederhausen, Meike
    Salvi, Apoorva
    Handley, Robert
    Bahraini, Nazanin
    Post, Edward P.
    Carlson, Kathleen F.
    Dobscha, Steven K.
    JOURNAL OF GENERAL INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2023, 38 (11) : 2537 - 2545
  • [5] Veteran Perspectives on Population-Based Suicide Risk Screening in VHA Primary Care: Mixed-Methods Study
    Lauren M. Denneson
    Summer Newell
    Victoria Elliott
    Annabelle Rynerson
    Meike Niederhausen
    Apoorva Salvi
    Robert Handley
    Nazanin Bahraini
    Edward P. Post
    Kathleen F. Carlson
    Steven K. Dobscha
    Journal of General Internal Medicine, 2023, 38 : 2537 - 2545
  • [6] Public acceptance and uptake of oesophageal adenocarcinoma screening strategies: A mixed-methods systematic review
    Sijben, Jasmijn
    Peters, Yonne
    van der Velden, Kim
    Rainey, Linda
    Siersema, Peter D.
    Broeders, Mireille J. M.
    ECLINICALMEDICINE, 2022, 46
  • [7] Factors associated with initial participation in a population-based screening for colorectal cancer in Catalonia, Spain: A mixed-methods study
    Garcia, M.
    Borras, J. M.
    Mila, N.
    Espinas, J. A.
    Binefa, G.
    Fernandez, E.
    Farre, A.
    Pla, M.
    Cardona, A.
    Moreno, V.
    PREVENTIVE MEDICINE, 2011, 52 (3-4) : 265 - 267
  • [8] Mixed-methods systematic review of shared decision-making tools for cancer screening
    Herrera, D. J.
    van de Veerdonk, W.
    Berhe, N. M.
    Talboom, S.
    van Loo, M.
    Ruiz-Alejos, A.
    Ferrari, A.
    Van Hal, G.
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH, 2024, 34
  • [9] IMPLEMENTATION OF INTERVENTIONS FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES FROM THE STAFF PERSPECTIVE: A MIXED-METHODS SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
    Granberg, A.
    Materne, M.
    Lundqvist, L. -O.
    Duberg, A.
    JOURNAL OF INTELLECTUAL DISABILITY RESEARCH, 2024, 68 (07) : 860 - 860
  • [10] A socioecological taxonomy of determinants to colorectal cancer screening in black men: Insights from a mixed-methods systematic review
    Zaire, P. J.
    Miller, E.
    Ewing, A. P.
    Hefner, J.
    Wright, K.
    Smith, L. H.
    PREVENTIVE MEDICINE REPORTS, 2025, 49