Views of health professionals on risk-based breast cancer screening and its implementation in the Spanish National Health System: A qualitative discussion group study

Primary care providers' experience and satisfaction with personalised breast cancer screening risk communication: a descriptive cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVE

To describe primary care providers' (PCPs) experience and satisfaction with receiving risk communication documents on their patient's breast cancer (BC) risk assessment and proposed screening action plan.

DESIGN

Descriptive cross-sectional study.

SETTING

A survey was distributed to all 763 PCPs linked to 1642 women participating in the Personalized Risk Assessment for Prevention and Early Detection of Breast Cancer: Integration and Implementation (PERSPECTIVE I&I) research project in Quebec, approximately 1-4 months after the delivery of the risk communication documents. The recruitment phase took place from July 2021 to July 2022.

PARTICIPANTS

PCPs.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Descriptive analyses were conducted to report participants' experiences and satisfaction with receiving risk communication. Responses to two open-ended questions were subjected to content analysis.

RESULTS

A total of 168 PCPs answered the survey, from which 73% reported being women and 74% having more than 15 years of practice. Only 38% were familiar with the risk-based BC screening approach prior to receiving their patient risk category. A majority (86%) agreed with the screening approach and would recommend it to their patients if implemented at the population level. A majority of PCPs also reported understanding the information provided (92%) and expressed agreement with the proposed BC screening action plan (89%). Some PCPs recommended simplifying the materials, acknowledging the potential increase in workload and emphasising the need for careful planning of professional training efforts.

CONCLUSION

PCPs expressed positive attitudes towards a risk-based BC screening approach and were generally satisfied with the information provided. This study suggests that, if introduced in Canada in a manner similar to the PERSPECTIVE I&I project, risk-based BC screening would likely be supported by most PCPs. However, they emphasised the importance of addressing concerns such as professional training and the potential impact on workload if the approach were to be implemented at the population level. Future qualitative studies are needed to further explore the training needs of PCPs and to develop strategies for integrating this approach with the high workloads faced by PCPs.

Do women with a history of breast cancer recommend risk-based breast cancer screening? An in-depth interview study

Objectives

Personalizing screening recommendations could enhance efficiency, support timely detection, and optimize resource use. This study explores women's perceptions of the facilitators and barriers to current screening guidelines and the implementation of risk-based screening (RBS) for breast cancer in Singapore.

Methods

Individual semi-structured interviews were conducted with 11 women aged 21 and above with a history of breast cancer. Data coding and thematic analysis were guided by the Health Belief Model (HBM).

Results

Five themes were identified and mapped to the Health Belief Model (HBM): (1) Knowledge and beliefs, (2) Access to mammography screening, (3) Social influences, (4) Healthcare delivery, and (5) Needs and preferences for RBS implementation. Key barriers to screening adherence included low perceived susceptibility, cost concerns, and accessibility issues. Factors that could improve adherence included social influences promoting breast health awareness, reminders from trusted healthcare professionals (HCP), and confidence in affording screening and treatment. Participants were generally receptive to RBS and valued personalized recommendations, but concerns were raised about risk prediction accuracy, insurance implications, and potential negative reactions to risk results.

Conclusion

This study identifies challenges and enablers for enhancing breast screening in Singapore, based on the experiences of breast cancer survivors. Participants supported RBS for routine screening. Successful RBS implementation requires improved health literacy, HCP engagement, and accessible healthcare. Women's acceptance will rely on research to refine prediction accuracy and communication of risk results.

Navigating the risks: Stakeholder views on risk-based cervical cancer screening

BACKGROUND

The development of risk-based cancer screening programs requires a paradigm shift in existing practices and healthcare policies. Therefore, it is crucial to not only assess the effectiveness of new technologies and risk prediction models but also to analyze the acceptability of such programs among healthcare stakeholders. This study aims to assess the acceptability of risk-based cervical cancer screening (RB CCS) in Estonia from the perspectives of relevant stakeholders.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

This qualitative study employed semi-structured interviews with healthcare policy and service level stakeholders in Estonia. The Theoretical Framework of Acceptability guided the interview design, and the findings were charted using framework analysis based on the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research.

RESULTS

17 interviews were conducted with stakeholders, including healthcare professionals, cancer registry representatives, technology specialists, policymakers, and health insurance providers. While stakeholders generally supported the concept and potential benefits of RB CCS, recognizing its capacity to improve screening outcomes and resource allocation, they raised significant concerns about feasibility, complexity, and ethical challenges. Doubts were expressed about the readiness of the healthcare system and population, particularly the current health information system's capacity to support risk-based approaches. The need for evidence-based and internationally validated screening models, comprehensive public communication, provider training, and collaborative discussions involving all relevant parties, including the public, was emphasized.

CONCLUSION

The favorable attitude towards RB CCS among stakeholders provides a strong foundation for advancing its development. However, a comprehensive strategy emphasizing the generation of robust evidence, strengthening healthcare infrastructure, prioritizing patient empowerment, and cultivating a collaborative environment built on trust is crucial.

Acceptability and perceptions of personalised risk-based cancer screening among health-care professionals and the general public: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Personalised risk-based screening (PRBS) can enhance the efficiency of cancer screening programnes, but little is known about support for its implementation among the general public and health-care professionals. We aimed to summarise the acceptability and perceptions of PRBS for breast, cervical, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancer screening among these groups.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of original research studies reporting on breast, cervical, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancer screening; personalised risk assessments to guide PRBS; and the acceptability of and receptibility towards these approaches among the general public, health-care professionals, or both. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Central, PsycINFO, and CINAHL Plus for articles published between Jan 1, 2010, and April 30, 2024. Studies not reporting on the outcomes of interest and with insufficient data for analysis were excluded. Six reviewers independently screened articles, and risk of bias was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Qualitative data were analysed thematically. Quantitative data were analysed with use of random-effects meta-analysis for outcomes that had at least two studies. The study protocol was registered at PROSPERO, CRD42022354287.

FINDINGS

Our search identified 4491 unique records. After screening, 63 studies were included in our analysis, of which 36 (57%) included the general public, 21 (33%) included health-care professionals, and six (11%) included both. The majority of studies focused on breast cancer screening (43 [68%] studies), and were from North America (28 [44%]) and Europe (28 [44%]). Qualitative findings were analysed thematically, and the extracted quantitative findings were synthesised under the following topics: acceptability and perceptions of personalised risk assessments among the general public; acceptability and perceptions of PRBS among the general public; acceptability and perceptions of PRBS among health-care professionals; and barriers and facilitators to PRBS implementation among health-care professionals. The general public and health-care professionals generally found PRBS acceptable, but they needed more information about how risk was calculated and the accuracy of risk scores. Additionally, both groups were cautious about reducing screening frequencies for individuals at low risk and cited barriers such as the time and resources needed to implement an effective PRBS programme. The pooled estimate for acceptability of PRBS was 78% (95% CI 66-88) among the general public and 86% (64-99) among health-care professionals.

INTERPRETATION

The general public and health-care professionals both viewed personalised risk assessments as providing valuable information and PRBS as a logical next step to increase the quality of patient care and improve cancer mortality. However, implementation barriers at the public, health-care professional, and system level need to be addressed.

FUNDING

National Cancer Institute and Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas.

Implementation considerations for risk-tailored cancer screening in the population: A scoping review

BACKGROUND

Risk-tailored screening has emerged as a promising approach to optimise the balance of benefits and harms of existing population cancer screening programs. It tailors screening (e.g., eligibility, frequency, interval, test type) to individual risk rather than the current one-size-fits-all approach of most organised population screening programs. However, the implementation of risk-tailored cancer screening in the population is challenging as it requires a change of practice at multiple levels i.e., individual, provider, health system levels. This scoping review aims to synthesise current implementation considerations for risk-tailored cancer screening in the population, identifying barriers, facilitators, and associated implementation outcomes.

METHODS

Relevant studies were identified via database searches up to February 2023. Results were synthesised using Tierney et al. (2020) guidance for evidence synthesis of implementation outcomes and a multilevel framework.

RESULTS

Of 4138 titles identified, 74 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most studies in this review focused on the implementation outcomes of acceptability, feasibility, and appropriateness, reflecting the pre-implementation stage of most research to date. Only six studies included an implementation framework. The review identified consistent evidence that risk-tailored screening is largely acceptable across population groups, however reluctance to accept a reduction in screening frequency for low-risk informed by cultural norms, presents a major barrier. Limited studies were identified for cancer types other than breast cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

Implementation strategies will need to address alternate models of delivery, education of health professionals, communication with the public, screening options for people at low risk of cancer, and inequity in outcomes across cancer types.

Acceptability of risk-tailored cancer screening among Australian GPs: a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Cancer screening that is tailored to individual risk has the potential to improve health outcomes and reduce screening-related harms, if implemented well. However, successful implementation depends on acceptability, particularly as this approach will require GPs to change their practice.

AIM

To explore Australian GPs' views about the acceptability of risk-tailored screening across cancer types and to identify barriers to and facilitators of implementation.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with Australian GPs.

METHOD

Interviews were carried out with GPs and audio-recorded and transcribed. Data were first analysed inductively then deductively using an implementation framework.

RESULTS

Participants (n = 20) found risk-tailored screening to be acceptable in principle, recognising potential benefits in offering enhanced screening to those at highest risk. However, they had significant concerns that changes in screening advice could potentially cause confusion. They also reported that a reduced screening frequency or exclusion from a screening programme for those deemed low risk may not initially be acceptable, especially for common cancers with minimally invasive screening. Other reservations about implementing risk-tailored screening in general practice included a lack of high-quality evidence of benefit, fear of missing the signs or symptoms of a patient's cancer, and inadequate time with patients. While no single preferred approach to professional education was identified, education around communicating screening results and risk stratification was considered important.

CONCLUSION

GPs may not currently be convinced of the net benefits of risk-tailored screening. Development of accessible evidence-based guidelines, professional education, risk calculators, and targeted public messages will increase its feasibility in general practice.

"For and against" factors influencing participation in personalized breast cancer screening programs: a qualitative systematic review until March 2022

BACKGROUND

Personalized breast cancer screening is a novel strategy that estimates individual risk based on age, breast density, family history of breast cancer, personal history of benign breast lesions, and polygenic risk. Its goal is to propose personalized early detection recommendations for women in the target population based on their individual risk. Our aim was to synthesize the factors that influence women's decision to participate in personalized breast cancer screening, from the perspective of women and health care professionals.

METHODS

Systematic review of qualitative evidence on factors influencing participation in personalized Breast Cancer Screening. We searched in Medline, Web of science, Scopus, EMBASE, CINAHL and PsycINFO for qualitative and mixed methods studies published up to March 2022. Two reviewers conducted study selection and extracted main findings. We applied the best-fit framework synthesis and adopted the Multilevel influences on the cancer care continuum model for analysis. After organizing initial codes into the seven levels of the selected model, we followed thematic analysis and developed descriptive and analytical themes. We assessed the methodological quality with the Critical Appraisal Skills Program tool.

RESULTS

We identified 18 studies published between 2017 and 2022, conducted in developed countries. Nine studies were focused on women (n = 478) and in four studies women had participated in a personalized screening program. Nine studies focused in health care professionals (n = 162) and were conducted in primary care and breast cancer screening program settings. Factors influencing women's decision to participate relate to the women themselves, the type of program (personalized breast cancer screening) and perspective of health care professionals. Factors that determined women participation included persistent beliefs and insufficient knowledge about breast cancer and personalized screening, variable psychological reactions, and negative attitudes towards breast cancer risk estimates. Other factors against participation were insufficient health care professionals knowledge on genetics related to breast cancer and personalized screening process. The factors that were favourable included the women's perceived benefits for themselves and the positive impact on health systems.

CONCLUSION

We identified the main factors influencing women's decisions to participate in personalized breast cancer screening. Factors related to women, were the most relevant negative factors. A future implementation requires improving health literacy for women and health care professionals, as well as raising awareness of the strategy in society.

A Comprehensive Review of Breast Fibroadenoma: Correlating Clinical and Pathological Findings

Breast fibroadenomas, common benign conditions, exhibit distinct clinical and histopathological features. This review highlights clinical presentation and histology correlations, providing insights for healthcare providers. Palpable masses, pain, and changes in breast appearance align with glandular and stromal components, emphasizing accurate diagnosis. Mammography, ultrasound, and MRI guide tailored treatment decisions. Challenges in differentiating atypical fibroadenomas highlight the need for meticulous histopathological evaluation. Clinical implications stress patient-centered care, shared decision-making, and ongoing follow-up. Future research focuses on genetic investigations and long-term studies. A multidisciplinary approach to breast fibroadenomas ensures comprehensive care for improved outcomes in both medical and emotional aspects.

Perceived benefits and barriers to implementing precision preventive care: Results of a national physician survey

Polygenic risk scores (PRS) may improve risk-stratification in preventive care. Their clinical implementation will depend on primary care physicians' (PCPs) uptake. We surveyed PCPs in a national physician database about the perceived clinical utility, benefits, and barriers to the use of PRS in preventive care. Among 367 respondents (participation rate 96.3%), mean (SD) age was 54.9 (12.9) years, 137 (37.3%) were female, and mean (SD) time since medical school graduation was 27.2 (13.3) years. Respondents reported greater perceived utility for more clinical action (e.g., earlier or more intensive screening, preventive medications, or lifestyle modification) for patients with high-risk PRS than for delayed or discontinued prevention actions for low-risk patients (p < 0.001). Respondents most often chose out-of-pocket costs (48%), lack of clinical guidelines (24%), and insurance discrimination concerns (22%) as extreme barriers. Latent class analysis identified 3 subclasses of respondents. Skeptics (n = 83, 22.6%) endorsed less agreement with individual clinical utilities, saw patient anxiety and insurance discrimination as significant barriers, and agreed less often that PRS could help patients make better health decisions. Learners (n = 134, 36.5%) and enthusiasts (n = 150, 40.9%) expressed similar levels of agreement that PRS had utility for preventive actions and that PRS could be useful for patient decision-making. Compared with enthusiasts, however, learners perceived greater barriers to the clinical use of PRS. Overall results suggest that PCPs generally endorse using PRS to guide medical decision-making about preventive care, and barriers identified suggest interventions to address their needs and concerns.

Canadian Healthcare Professionals' Views and Attitudes toward Risk-Stratified Breast Cancer Screening

Given the controversy over the effectiveness of age-based breast cancer (BC) screening, offering risk-stratified screening to women may be a way to improve patient outcomes with detection of earlier-stage disease. While this approach seems promising, its integration requires the buy-in of many stakeholders. In this cross-sectional study, we surveyed Canadian healthcare professionals about their views and attitudes toward a risk-stratified BC screening approach. An anonymous online questionnaire was disseminated through Canadian healthcare professional associations between November 2020 and May 2021. Information collected included attitudes toward BC screening recommendations based on individual risk, comfort and perceived readiness related to the possible implementation of this approach. Close to 90% of the 593 respondents agreed with increased frequency and earlier initiation of BC screening for women at high risk. However, only 9% agreed with the idea of not offering BC screening to women at very low risk. Respondents indicated that primary care physicians and nurse practitioners should play a leading role in the risk-stratified BC screening approach. This survey identifies health services and policy enhancements that would be needed to support future implementation of a risk-stratified BC screening approach in healthcare systems in Canada and other countries.

Barriers to Implementation of Breast Cancer Risk Assessment: The Health Care Team Perspective

PURPOSE

To assess health care professionals' perceptions of barriers to the utilization of breast cancer risk assessment tools in the public health setting through a series of one-on-one interviews with health care team members.

METHODS

We conducted a cross-sectional qualitative study consisting of one-on-one semistructured telephone interviews with health care team members in the public health setting in the state of Tennessee between May 2020 and October 2020. An iterative inductive-deductive approach was used for qualitative analysis of interview data, resulting in the development of a conceptual framework to depict influences of provider behavior in the utilization of breast cancer risk assessment.

RESULTS

A total of 24 interviews were completed, and a framework of influences of provider behavior in the utilization of breast cancer risk assessment was developed. Participants identified barriers to the utilization of breast cancer risk assessment (knowledge and understanding of risk assessment tools, workflow challenges, and availability of personnel); patient-level barriers as perceived by health care team members (psychological, economic, educational, and environmental); and strategies to increase the utilization of breast cancer risk assessment at the provider level (leadership buy-in, training, supportive policies, and incentives) and patient level (improved communication and better understanding of patients' perceived cancer risk and severity of cancer).

CONCLUSIONS

Understanding barriers to implementation of breast cancer risk assessment and strategies to overcome these barriers as perceived by health care team members offers an opportunity to improve implementation of risk assessment and to identify a racially, geographically, and socioeconomically diverse population of young women at high risk for breast cancer.

Women's preference to apply shared decision-making in breast cancer screening: a discrete choice experiment

OBJECTIVE

To analyse women's stated preferences for establishing the relative importance of each attribute of shared decision-making (SDM) and their willingness to pay (WTP) for more participatory care in breast cancer screening programmes (BCSP).

DESIGN

A discrete choice experiment was designed with 12 questions (choice tasks). It included three attributes: 'How the information is obtained', regarding benefits and harms; whether there is a 'Dialogue for scheduled mammography' between the healthcare professional and the woman; and, 'Who makes the decision', regarding participation in BCSP. Data were obtained using a survey that included 12 choice tasks, 1 question on WTP and 7 socioeconomic-related questions. The analysis was performed using conditional mixed-effect logit regression and stratification according to WTP.

SETTING

Data collection related to BCSP was conducted between June and November 2021 in Catalonia, Spain.

PARTICIPANTS

Sixty-five women aged between 50 and 60.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Women's perceived utility of each attribute, trade-off on these attributes and WTP for SDM in BCSP.

RESULT

The only significant attribute was 'Who makes the decision'. The decision made alone (coefficient=2.879; 95% CI=2.297 to 3.461) and the decision made together with a healthcare professional (2.375; 95% CI=1.573 to 3.177) were the options preferred by women. The former contributes 21% more utility than the latter. Moreover, 52.3% of the women stated a WTP of €10 or more for SDM. Women's preferences regarding attributes did not influence their WTP.

CONCLUSIONS

The participant women refused a current paternalistic model and preferred either SDM or informed decision-making in BCSP.

Implementing Risk-Stratified Breast Screening in England: An Agenda Setting Meeting

It is now possible to accurately assess breast cancer risk at routine NHS Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP) appointments, provide risk feedback and offer risk management strategies to women at higher risk. These strategies include National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) approved additional breast screening and risk-reducing medication. However, the NHSBSP invites nearly all women three-yearly, regardless of risk. In March 2022, a one-day agenda setting meeting took place in Manchester to discuss the feasibility and desirability of implementation of risk-stratified screening in the NHSBSP. Fifty-eight individuals participated (38 face-to-face, 20 virtual) with relevant expertise from academic, clinical and/or policy-making perspectives. Key findings were presented from the PROCAS2 NIHR programme grant regarding feasibility of risk-stratified screening in the NHSBSP. Participants discussed key uncertainties in seven groups, followed by a plenary session. Discussions were audio-recorded and thematically analysed to produce descriptive themes. Five themes were developed: (i) risk and health economic modelling; (ii) health inequalities and communication with women; (iii); extending screening intervals for low-risk women; (iv) integration with existing NHSBSP; and (v) potential new service models. Most attendees expected some form of risk-stratified breast screening to be implemented in England and collectively identified key issues to be resolved to facilitate this.

Feasibility and Acceptability of Personalized Breast Cancer Screening (DECIDO Study): A Single-Arm Proof-of-Concept Trial

The aim of this study was to assess the acceptability and feasibility of offering risk-based breast cancer screening and its integration into regular clinical practice. A single-arm proof-of-concept trial was conducted with a sample of 387 women aged 40-50 years residing in the city of Lleida (Spain). The study intervention consisted of breast cancer risk estimation, risk communication and screening recommendations, and a follow-up. A polygenic risk score with 83 single nucleotide polymorphisms was used to update the Breast Cancer Surveillance Consortium risk model and estimate the 5-year absolute risk of breast cancer. The women expressed a positive attitude towards varying the frequency of breast screening according to individual risk and, especially, more frequently inviting women at higher-than-average risk. A lower intensity screening for women at lower risk was not as welcome, although half of the participants would accept it. Knowledge of the benefits and harms of breast screening was low, especially with regard to false positives and overdiagnosis. The women expressed a high understanding of individual risk and screening recommendations. The participants' intention to participate in risk-based screening and satisfaction at 1-year were very high.

Towards implementation of comprehensive breast cancer risk prediction tools in health care for personalised prevention

Advances in knowledge about breast cancer risk factors have led to the development of more comprehensive risk models. These integrate information on a variety of risk factors such as lifestyle, genetics, family history, and breast density. These risk models have the potential to deliver more personalised breast cancer prevention. This is through improving accuracy of risk estimates, enabling more effective targeting of preventive options and creating novel prevention pathways through enabling risk estimation in a wider variety of populations than currently possible. The systematic use of risk tools as part of population screening programmes is one such example. A clear understanding of how such tools can contribute to the goal of personalised prevention can aid in understanding and addressing barriers to implementation. In this paper we describe how emerging models, and their associated tools can contribute to the goal of personalised healthcare for breast cancer through health promotion, early disease detection (screening) and improved management of women at higher risk of disease. We outline how addressing specific challenges on the level of communication, evidence, evaluation, regulation, and acceptance, can facilitate implementation and uptake.

The feasibility of implementing risk stratification into a national breast cancer screening programme: a focus group study investigating the perspectives of healthcare personnel responsible for delivery

BACKGROUND

Providing women with personalized estimates of their risk of developing breast cancer, as part of routine breast cancer screening programmes, allows women at higher risk to be offered more frequent screening or drugs to reduce risk. For this to be feasible, the concept and practicalities have to be acceptable to the healthcare professionals who would put it in to practice. The present research investigated the acceptability to healthcare professionals who were responsible for the implementation of this new approach to screening in the ongoing BC-Predict study.

METHODS

Four focus groups were conducted with 29 healthcare professionals from a variety of professional backgrounds working within three breast screening services in north-west England. An inductive-manifest thematic analysis was conducted.

RESULTS

Overall, healthcare professionals viewed the implementation of personalised breast cancer risk estimation as a positive step, but discussion focused on concerns. Three major themes are presented. (1) Service constraints highlights the limited capacity within current breast services and concerns about the impact of additional workload. (2) Risk communication concerns the optimal way to convey risk to women within resource constraints. (3) Accentuating inequity discusses how risk stratification could decrease screening uptake for underserved groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Staff who implemented risk stratification considered it a positive addition to routine screening. They considered it essential to consider improving capacity and demands on healthcare professional time. They highlighted the need for skilled communication of risks and new pathways of care to ensure that stratification could be implemented in financially and time constrained settings without impacting negatively on women.