Dataset Information

Patient, primary care provider, and stakeholder perspectives on mammography screening frequency: lessons learned from a qualitative study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

U.S. professional organizations have provided conflicting recommendations on annual vs. biennial mammography screening. Potential harms of more frequent screening include increased anxiety and costs of false positive results, including unnecessary breast biopsies and overdiagnosis.

Objective

To characterize current practices and beliefs surrounding mammography screening frequency and perspectives on using risk-based screening to inform screening intervals.

Design

Semi-structured interviews informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR).

Participants

Patients, primary care providers (PCPs), third-party stakeholders (breast radiologists, radiology administrators, patient advocates).

Main measures

Qualitative data, with a codebook developed based upon prespecified implementation science constructs.

Key results

We interviewed 25 patients, 11 PCPs, and eight key stakeholders, including three radiologists, two radiology administrators, and three patient advocates. Most patients reported having annual mammograms, however, half believed having mammograms every two years was acceptable. Some women were worried early breast cancer would be missed if undergoing biennial screening. PCPs were equally split between recommending annual and biennial mammograms. Although PCPs were interested in using breast cancer risk models to inform screening decisions, concerns raised include time burden and lack of familiarity with breast cancer risk assessment tools. All breast radiologists believed patients should receive annual mammograms, while patient advocates and radiology administrators were split between annual vs. biennial. Radiologists were worried about missing breast cancer diagnoses when mammograms are not performed yearly. Patient advocates and radiology administrators were more open to biennial mammograms and utilizing risk-based screening.

Conclusions

Uncertainty remains across stakeholder groups regarding appropriate mammogram screening intervals. Radiologists recommend annual mammography, whereas patients and PCPs were evenly split between annual vs. biennial screening, although both favored annual screening among higher-risk women. Breast cancer risk assessment tools may help facilitate decisions about screening intervals, but face barriers to widespread implementation in the primary care setting. These results will inform future implementation strategies to adopt risk-stratified breast cancer screening.

SUBMITTER: Ro V

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9326136 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveEmbedding researchers within health systems results in more socially relevant research and more effective uptake of evidence into policy and practice. However, the practice of embedded health service research remains poorly understood. We explored and assessed the development of embedded participatory approaches to health service research by a health research team in Kenya highlighting the different ways multiple stakeholders were engaged in a neonatal research study.MethodsWe conducted semistructured qualitative interviews with key stakeholders. Data were analysed thematically using both inductive and deductive approaches.SettingOver recent years, the Health Services Unit within the Kenya Medical Research Institute (KEMRI)-Wellcome Trust Research Programme in Nairobi Kenya, has been working closely with organisations and technical stakeholders including, but not limited to, medical and nursing schools, frontline health workers, senior paediatricians, policymakers and county officials, in developing and conducting embedded health research. This involves researchers embedding themselves in the contexts in which they carry out their research (mainly in county hospitals, local universities and other training institutions), creating and sustaining social networks. Researchers collaboratively worked with stakeholders to identify clinical, operational and behavioural issues related to routine service delivery, formulating and exploring research questions to bring change in practice PARTICIPANTS: We purposively selected 14 relevant stakeholders spanning policy, training institutions, healthcare workers, regulatory councils and professional associations.ResultsThe value of embeddedness is highlighted through the description of a recently completed project, Health Services that Deliver for Newborns (HSD-N). We describe how the HSD-N research process contributed to and further strengthened a collaborative research platform and illustrating this project's role in identifying and generating ideas about how to tackle health service delivery problems CONCLUSIONS: We conclude with a discussion about the experiences, challenges and lessons learned regarding engaging stakeholders in the coproduction of research.

Project description:BackgroundPatients and healthcare stakeholders are increasingly becoming engaged in the planning and conduct of biomedical research. However, limited research characterizes this process or its impact.ObjectiveWe aimed to characterize patient and stakeholder engagement in the 50 Pilot Projects funded by the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), and identify early contributions and lessons learned.DesignA self-report instrument was completed by researchers between 6 and 12 months following project initiation.ParticipantsForty-seven principal investigators or their designees (94 % response rate) participated in the study. MAIN MEASURES Self-report of types of stakeholders engaged, stages and levels of engagement, facilitators and barriers to engagement, lessons learned, and contributions from engagement were measured.Key resultsMost (83 %) reported engaging more than one stakeholder in their project. Among those, the most commonly reported groups were patients (90 %), clinicians (87 %), health system representatives (44 %), caregivers (41 %), and advocacy organizations (41 %). Stakeholders were commonly involved in topic solicitation, question development, study design, and data collection. Many projects engaged stakeholders in data analysis, results interpretation, and dissemination. Commonly reported contributions included changes to project methods, outcomes or goals; improvement of measurement tools; and interpretation of qualitative data. Investigators often identified communication and shared leadership strategies as "critically important" facilitators (53 and 44 % respectively); lack of stakeholder time was the most commonly reported challenge (46 %). Most challenges were only partially resolved. Early lessons learned included the importance of continuous and genuine partnerships, strategic selection of stakeholders, and accommodation of stakeholders' practical needs.ConclusionsPCORI Pilot Projects investigators report engaging a variety of stakeholders across many stages of research, with specific changes to their research attributed to engagement. This study identifies early lessons and barriers that should be addressed to facilitate engagement. While this research suggests potential impact of stakeholder engagement, systematic characterization and evaluation of engagement at multiple stages of research is needed to build the evidence base.

Project description:BackgroundTanzania is among the countries with the highest malaria cases and deaths worldwide, where vulnerable populations have been severely affected due to poverty and weakness in health system and infrastructure. The China-Tanzania Malaria Control Project (the Project) was a two-phase global health intervention project implemented between 2015 and 2021 that aimed to transfer project-designated intervention experience in malaria elimination to the Tanzanian health system. This study aims to identify the barriers and facilitators encountered during the Project and to improve our understanding of the emerging phenomenon of South-South global health collaboration.MethodsWe conducted thematic analysis of qualitative data collected from a purposive sample of 14 participants from multiple stakeholders including project management office, project implementation agency, funding partners and external evaluators of the Project. A conceptual framework was developed to construct the interviews guides. The interviews were transcribed verbatim, crossover checked, translated into English, and analyzed with NVivo 12.0. We conducted the open coding followed by the axial coding based on the Grounded Theory to generate themes and subthemes, and identified key influencing factors that aided or hindered the malaria control in Tanzania.ResultsThe findings suggested that malaria control strategies should largely be tailored due to varied socioeconomic contexts. The perceived enablers in practice include project-designated intervention experiences and technologies, professional and self-learning capabilities of the implementation team, sustainable financial assistance, and support from the international partners. The barriers include the shortage of global health talents, existing gaps to meet international standards, defects in internal communication mechanisms, inadequacy of intergovernmental dialogue, and limitations in logistical arrangements. A checklist and policy implications for China's future engagement in malaria control in resource-limited settings have been proposed.ConclusionsThe initiative of Health Silk Road has generated strong global interest in promoting development assistance in health. In the hope of generalizing the evidence-based interventions to high malaria-endemic countries in Africa, the need for China to carefully face the challenges of funding gaps and the lack of support from recipient governments remains ongoing. It is recommended that China should form an institutionalized scheme and sustainable funding pool to ensure the steady progress of development assistance in health.

Project description:Given that patient safety measures are increasingly used for public reporting and pay-for performance, it is important for stakeholders to understand how to use these measures for improvement. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Patient Safety Indicators (PSIs) are one particularly visible set of measures that are now used primarily for public reporting and pay-for-performance among both private sector and Veterans Health Administration (VA) hospitals. This trend generates a strong need for stakeholders to understand how to interpret and use the PSIs for quality improvement (QI). The goal of this study was to develop an educational program and tailor it to stakeholders' needs. In this paper, we share what we learned from this program development process.Our study population included key VA stakeholders involved in reviewing performance reports and prioritizing and initiating quality/safety initiatives. A pre-program formative evaluation through telephone interviews and web-based surveys assessed stakeholders' educational needs/interests. Findings from the formative evaluation led to development and implementation of a cyberseminar-based program, which we tailored to stakeholders' needs/interests. A post-program survey evaluated program participants' perceptions about the PSI educational program.Interview data confirmed that the concepts we had developed for the interviews could be used for the survey. Survey results informed us on what program delivery mode and content topics were of high interest. Six cyberseminars were developed-three of which focused on two content areas that were noted of greatest interest: learning how to use PSIs for monitoring trends and understanding how to interpret PSIs. We also used snapshots of VA PSI reports so that participants could directly apply learnings. Although initial interest in the program was high, actual attendance was low. However, post-program survey results indicated that perceptions about the program were positive.Conducting a formative evaluation was a highly important process in program development. The useful information that we collected through the interviews and surveys allowed us to tailor the program to stakeholders' needs and interests. Our experiences, particularly with the formative evaluation process, yielded valuable lessons that can guide others when developing and implementing similar educational programs.

Project description:Background. A culture of stringent drug policy, one-size-fits-all treatment approaches, and drug-related stigma has clouded clinical HIV practice in the United States. The result is a series of missed opportunities in the HIV care environment. An approach which may address the broken relationship between patient and provider is harm reduction-which removes judgment and operates at the patient's stage of readiness. Harm reduction is not a routine part of care; rather, it exists outside clinic walls, exacerbating the divide between compassionate, stigma-free services and the medical system. Methods. Qualitative, phenomenological, semi-structured, individual interviews with patients and providers were conducted in three publicly-funded clinics in Chicago, located in areas of high HIV prevalence and drug use and serving African-American patients (N = 38). A deductive thematic analysis guided the process, including: the creation of an index code list, transcription and verification of interviews, manual coding, notation of emerging themes and refinement of code definitions, two more rounds of coding within AtlasTi, calculation of Cohen's Kappa for interrater reliability, queries of major codes and analysis of additional common themes. Results. Thematic analysis of findings indicated that the majority of patients felt receptive to harm reduction interventions (safer injection counseling, safer stimulant use counseling, overdose prevention information, supply provision) from their provider, and expressed anticipated gratitude for harm reduction information and/or supplies within the HIV care visit, although some were reluctant to talk openly about their drug use. Provider results were mixed, with more receptivity reported by advanced practice nurses, and more barriers cited by physicians. Notable barriers included: role-perceptions, limited time, inadequate training, and the patients themselves. Discussion. Patients are willing to receive harm reduction interventions from their HIV care providers, while provider receptiveness is mixed. The findings reveal critical implications for diffusion of harm reduction into HIV care, including the need to address cited barriers for both patients and providers to ensure feasibility of implementation. Strategies to address these barriers are discussed, and recommendations for further research are also shared.