Dataset Information

UK Women's Views of the Concepts of Personalised Breast Cancer Risk Assessment and Risk-Stratified Breast Screening: A Qualitative Interview Study.

ABSTRACT: Any introduction of risk-stratification within the NHS Breast Screening Programme needs to be considered acceptable by women. We conducted interviews to explore women's attitudes to personalised risk assessment and risk-stratified breast screening. Twenty-five UK women were purposively sampled by screening experience and socioeconomic background. Interview transcripts were qualitatively analysed using Framework Analysis. Women expressed positive intentions for personal risk assessment and willingness to receive risk feedback to provide reassurance and certainty. Women responded to risk-stratified screening scenarios in three ways: 'Overall acceptors' considered both high- and low-risk options acceptable as a reasonable allocation of resources to clinical need, yet acceptability was subject to specified conditions including accuracy of risk estimates and availability of support throughout the screening pathway. Others who thought 'more is better' only supported high-risk scenarios where increased screening was proposed. 'Screening sceptics' found low-risk scenarios more aligned to their screening values than high-risk screening options. Consideration of screening recommendations for other risk groups had more influence on women's responses than screening-related harms. These findings demonstrate high, but not universal, acceptability. Support and guidance, tailored to screening values and preferences, may be required by women at all levels of risk.

SUBMITTER: Kelley-Jones C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8616436 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo elicit women's responses to information about the nature and extent of overdiagnosis in mammography screening (detecting disease that would not present clinically during the woman's lifetime) and explore how awareness of overdiagnosis might influence attitudes and intentions about screening.DesignQualitative study using focus groups that included a presentation explaining overdiagnosis, incorporating different published estimates of its rate (1-10%, 30%, 50%) and information on the mortality benefit of screening, with guided group discussionsSettingSydney, AustraliaParticipantsFifty women aged 40-79 years with no personal history of breast cancer and with varying levels of education and participation in screening.ResultsPrior awareness of breast cancer overdiagnosis was minimal. Women generally reacted with surprise, but most came to understand the issue. Responses to overdiagnosis and the different estimates of its magnitude were diverse. The highest estimate (50%) made some women perceive a need for more careful personal decision making about screening. In contrast, the lower and intermediate estimates (1-10% and 30%) had limited impact on attitudes and intentions, with many women remaining committed to screening. For some women, the information raised concerns, not about whether to screen but whether to treat a screen detected cancer or consider alternative approaches (such as watchful waiting). Information preferences varied: many women considered it important to take overdiagnosis into account and make informed choices about whether to have screening, but many wanted to be encouraged to be screened.ConclusionsWomen from a range of socioeconomic backgrounds could comprehend the issue of overdiagnosis in mammography screening, and they generally valued information about it. Effects on screening intentions may depend heavily on the rate of overdiagnosis. Overdiagnosis will be new and counterintuitive for many people and may influence screening and treatment decisions in unintended ways, underscoring the need for careful communication.

Project description:BackgroundIdentifying women aged 30-39 years at increased risk of developing breast cancer could allow them to consider screening and preventive strategies. Research is underway to determine the feasibility of offering breast cancer risk assessment to this age group. However, it is unclear how best to deliver and communicate risk estimates to these women, in order to avoid potential harms such as undue anxiety and increase benefits such as informed decision-making.ObjectivesThis study aimed to investigate women's views on, and requirements for, this proposed novel approach to risk assessment.DesignA cross-sectional qualitative design was used.MethodsThirty-seven women aged 30-39 years with no family history or personal history of breast cancer participated in seven focus groups (n = 29) and eight individual interviews. Data were analysed thematically using a framework approach.ResultsFour themes were developed. Acceptability of risk assessment service concerns the positive views women have towards the prospect of participating in breast cancer risk assessment. Promoting engagement with the service describes the difficulties women in this age group experience in relation to healthcare access, including mental load and a lack of cultural awareness, and the implications of this for service design and delivery. Impact of receiving risk results focuses on the anticipated impacts of receiving different risk outcomes, namely, complacency towards breast awareness behaviours following low-risk results, an absence of reassurance following average-risk results and anxiety for high-risk results. Women's information requirements highlights women's desire to be fully informed at invite including understanding why the service is needed. In addition, women wanted risk feedback to focus on plans for management.ConclusionThe idea of breast cancer risk assessment was received favourably among this age group, providing that a risk management plan and support from healthcare professionals is available. Determinants of acceptability of a new service included minimising effort required to engage with service, co-development of invitation and risk feedback materials and the importance of educational campaigning about the potential benefits of participation in risk assessment.

Project description:BackgroundGene drive technologies (GDTs) promote the rapid spread of a particular genetic element within a population of non-human organisms. Potential applications of GDTs include the control of insect vectors, invasive species and agricultural pests. Whether, and if so, under what conditions, GDTs should be deployed is hotly debated. Although broad stances in this debate have been described, the convictions that inform the moral views of the experts shaping these technologies and related policies have not been examined in depth in the academic literature.MethodsIn this qualitative study, we interviewed GDT experts (n = 33) from different disciplines to identify and better understand their moral views regarding these technologies. The pseudonymized transcripts were analyzed thematically.ResultsThe respondents' moral views were principally influenced by their attitudes towards (1) the uncertainty related to GDTs; (2) the alternatives to which they should be compared; and (3) the role humans should have in nature. Respondents agreed there is epistemic uncertainty related to GDTs, identified similar knowledge gaps, and stressed the importance of realistic expectations in discussions on GDTs. They disagreed about whether uncertainty provides a rationale to refrain from field trials ('risks of intervention' stance) or to proceed with phased testing to obtain more knowledge given the harms of the status quo ('risks of non-intervention' stance). With regards to alternatives to tackle vector-borne diseases, invasive species and agricultural pests, respondents disagreed about which alternatives should be considered (un)feasible and (in)sufficiently explored: conventional strategies ('downstream solutions' stance) or systematic changes to health care, political and agricultural systems ('upstream solutions' stance). Finally, respondents held different views on nature and whether the use of GDTs is compatible with humans' role in nature ('interference' stance) or not ('non-interference stance').ConclusionsThis interview study helps to disentangle the debate on GDTs by providing a better understanding of the moral views of GDT experts. The obtained insights provide valuable stepping-stones for a constructive debate about underlying value conflicts and call attention to topics that deserve further (normative) reflection. Further evaluation of these issues can facilitate the debate on and responsible development of GDTs.

Project description:As breast screening services move towards use of healthcare AI (HCAI) for screen reading, research on public views of HCAI can inform more person-centered implementation. We synthesise reviews of public views of HCAI in general, and review primary studies of women's views of AI in breast screening. People generally appear open to HCAI and its potential benefits, despite a wide range of concerns; similarly, women are open towards AI in breast screening because of the potential benefits, but are concerned about a wide range of risks. Women want radiologists to remain central; oversight, evaluation and performance, care, equity and bias, transparency, and accountability are key issues; women may be less tolerant of AI error than of human error. Using our recent Australian primary study, we illustrate both the value of informing participants before collecting data, and women's views. The 40 screening-age women in this study stipulated four main conditions on breast screening AI implementation: 1) maintaining human control; 2) strong evidence of performance; 3) supporting familiarisation with AI; and 4) providing adequate reasons for introducing AI. Three solutions were offered to support familiarisation: transparency and information; slow and staged implementation; and allowing women to opt-out of AI reading. We provide recommendations to guide both implementation of AI in healthcare and research on public views of HCAI. Breast screening services should be transparent about AI use and share information about breast screening AI with women. Implementation should be slow and staged, providing opt-out options if possible. Screening services should demonstrate strong governance to maintain clinician control, demonstrate excellent AI system performance, assure data protection and bias mitigation, and give good reasons to justify implementation. When these measures are put in place, women are more likely to see HCAI use in breast screening as legitimate and acceptable.

Dataset Information

UK Women's Views of the Concepts of Personalised Breast Cancer Risk Assessment and Risk-Stratified Breast Screening: A Qualitative Interview Study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets