The introduction of risk stratified screening into the NHS breast screening Programme: views from British-Pakistani women.
Aged
Breast Neoplasms
/ diagnosis
Cross-Sectional Studies
Early Detection of Cancer
/ methods
Ethnicity
/ statistics & numerical data
Female
Follow-Up Studies
Humans
Middle Aged
Minority Groups
/ statistics & numerical data
Pakistan
/ ethnology
Prognosis
Qualitative Research
Risk Assessment
/ methods
State Medicine
United Kingdom
/ epidemiology
Breast cancer risk
British-Pakistani women
Qualitative interviews
Risk stratified screening
UK
Underserved populations
Journal
BMC cancer
ISSN: 1471-2407
Titre abrégé: BMC Cancer
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967800
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
20 May 2020
20 May 2020
Historique:
received:
16
12
2019
accepted:
13
05
2020
entrez:
22
5
2020
pubmed:
22
5
2020
medline:
3
2
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
UK national guidelines suggest women at high-risk of breast cancer should be offered more frequent screening or preventative medications. Currently, only 1 in 6 high-risk women are identified. One route to identify more high-risk women is via multifactorial risk assessment as part of the UK's NHS Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP). As lower socioeconomic and minority ethnic populations continue to experience barriers to screening, it is important that any new service does not exacerbate issues further. To inform service development, this study explored views of women from underserved backgrounds regarding the introduction of risk stratification into the NHSBSP. Nineteen semi-structured interviews were conducted with British-Pakistani women from low socioeconomic backgrounds from East Lancashire, UK. Fourteen interviews were conducted via an interpreter. Thematic analysis produced three themes. Attitudes toward risk awareness concerns the positive views women have toward the idea of receiving personalised breast cancer risk information. Anticipated barriers to accessibility emphasises the difficulties associated with women's limited English skills for accessing information, and their I.T proficiency for completing an online risk assessment questionnaire. Acceptability of risk communication strategy highlights the diversity of opinion regarding the suitability of receiving risk results via letter, with the option for support from a healthcare professional deemed essential. The idea of risk stratification was favourable amongst this underserved community. To avoid exacerbating inequities, this new service should provide information in multiple languages and modalities and offer women the opportunity to speak to a healthcare professional about risk. This service should also enable completion of personal risk information via paper questionnaires, as well as online.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
UK national guidelines suggest women at high-risk of breast cancer should be offered more frequent screening or preventative medications. Currently, only 1 in 6 high-risk women are identified. One route to identify more high-risk women is via multifactorial risk assessment as part of the UK's NHS Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP). As lower socioeconomic and minority ethnic populations continue to experience barriers to screening, it is important that any new service does not exacerbate issues further. To inform service development, this study explored views of women from underserved backgrounds regarding the introduction of risk stratification into the NHSBSP.
METHODS
METHODS
Nineteen semi-structured interviews were conducted with British-Pakistani women from low socioeconomic backgrounds from East Lancashire, UK. Fourteen interviews were conducted via an interpreter.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Thematic analysis produced three themes. Attitudes toward risk awareness concerns the positive views women have toward the idea of receiving personalised breast cancer risk information. Anticipated barriers to accessibility emphasises the difficulties associated with women's limited English skills for accessing information, and their I.T proficiency for completing an online risk assessment questionnaire. Acceptability of risk communication strategy highlights the diversity of opinion regarding the suitability of receiving risk results via letter, with the option for support from a healthcare professional deemed essential.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The idea of risk stratification was favourable amongst this underserved community. To avoid exacerbating inequities, this new service should provide information in multiple languages and modalities and offer women the opportunity to speak to a healthcare professional about risk. This service should also enable completion of personal risk information via paper questionnaires, as well as online.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32434564
doi: 10.1186/s12885-020-06959-2
pii: 10.1186/s12885-020-06959-2
pmc: PMC7240981
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
452Subventions
Organisme : NIHR Programme Grants for Applied Research (GB)
ID : RP-PG-1214-200016
Organisme : Manchester Biomedical Research Centre
ID : IS-BRC-1215-20007
Références
Ann Behav Med. 2017 Oct;51(5):718-729
pubmed: 28290066
Asian Pac J Cancer Prev. 2011;12(6):1619-26
pubmed: 22126509
J Med Screen. 2019 Nov 8;:969141319883662
pubmed: 31701797
BMC Public Health. 2010 Mar 25;10:157
pubmed: 20334699
J Oncol Pract. 2015 Jul;11(4):e460-7
pubmed: 26036266
Breast Cancer Res. 2015 Dec 01;17(1):147
pubmed: 26627479
Acta Oncol. 2018 Oct;57(10):1275-1283
pubmed: 29882455
Ann Intern Med. 2011 Jul 5;155(1):10-20
pubmed: 21727289
J Med Genet. 2017 Feb;54(2):111-113
pubmed: 27794048
JAMA Oncol. 2018 Apr 1;4(4):476-482
pubmed: 29346471
Psychooncology. 2018 Apr;27(4):1089-1099
pubmed: 29080378
Br J Cancer. 2016 Apr 26;114(9):1045-52
pubmed: 27022688
Stat Med. 2004 Apr 15;23(7):1111-30
pubmed: 15057881
Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2012 Jul;5(7):943-51
pubmed: 22581816
BMJ Open. 2014 Oct 16;4(10):e005586
pubmed: 25324320
Int J Cancer. 2020 Apr 15;146(8):2122-2129
pubmed: 31251818
OTJR (Thorofare N J). 2015 Jul;35(3):169-77
pubmed: 26594739
Int J Palliat Nurs. 2005 Nov;11(11):562, 564-71
pubmed: 16471043
Am J Public Health. 1999 Jun;89(6):924-6
pubmed: 10358689
Qual Prim Care. 2010;18(4):251-61
pubmed: 20836941
NPJ Breast Cancer. 2017 Sep 13;3:34
pubmed: 28944288
Br J Cancer. 2018 Jun;118(12):1648-1657
pubmed: 29736008
AJR Am J Roentgenol. 2017 May;208(5):1163-1170
pubmed: 28225643
Acta Oncol. 2016;55(1):45-51
pubmed: 25990635
Prev Med Rep. 2018 Dec 29;13:189-195
pubmed: 30666286
BMC Public Health. 2018 Jan 25;18(1):178
pubmed: 29370783
J Med Screen. 2019 Dec 2;:969141319887405
pubmed: 31791172
Health Soc Care Community. 2016 Mar;24(2):123-53
pubmed: 25721339
Public Health. 2014 Nov;128(11):1017-22
pubmed: 25443131
Int J Qual Stud Health Well-being. 2018 Dec;13(1):1479582
pubmed: 29912650
J Gen Intern Med. 2018 Nov;33(11):1905-1912
pubmed: 30066118
Narrat Inq Bioeth. 2018;8(1):53-66
pubmed: 29657180
Postgrad Med J. 2005 Mar;81(953):141-7
pubmed: 15749788