Increasing uptake to a lung cancer screening programme: building with communities through co-design.


Journal

BMC public health
ISSN: 1471-2458
Titre abrégé: BMC Public Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968562

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
23 04 2022
Historique:
received: 19 08 2021
accepted: 08 03 2022
entrez: 24 4 2022
pubmed: 25 4 2022
medline: 27 4 2022
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Lung cancer is the most common cause of cancer death in the UK. Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening has been shown to identify lung cancer at an earlier stage. A risk stratified approach to LDCT referral is recommended. Those at higher risk of developing lung cancer (aged 55 + , smoker, deprived area) are least likely to participate in such a programme and, therefore, it is necessary to understand the barriers they face and to develop pathways for implementation in order to increase uptake. A 2-phased co-design process was employed to identify ways to further increase opportunity for uptake of a lung cancer screening programme, using a risk indicator for LDCT referral, amongst people who could benefit most. Participants were members of the public at high risk from developing lung cancer and professionals who may provide or signpost to a future lung cancer screening programme. Phase 1: interviews and focus groups, considering barriers, facilitators and pathways for provision. Phase 2: interactive offline booklet and online surveys with professionals. Qualitative data was analysed thematically, while descriptive statistics were conducted for quantitative data. In total, ten barriers and eight facilitators to uptake of a lung cancer screening programme using a biomarker blood test for LDCT referral were identified. An additional four barriers and four facilitators to provision of such a programme were identified. These covered wider themes of acceptability, awareness, reminders and endorsement, convenience and accessibility. Various pathway options were evidenced, with choice being a key facilitator for uptake. There was a preference (19/23) for the provision of home test kits but 7 of the 19 would like an option for assistance, e.g. nurse, pharmacist or friend. TV was the preferred means of communicating about the programme and fear was the most dominant barrier perceived by members of the public. Co-design has provided a fuller understanding of the barriers, facilitators and pathways for the provision of a future lung cancer screening programme, with a focus on the potential of biomarker blood tests for the identification of at-risk individuals. It has also identified possible solutions and future developments to enhance uptake, e.g. Embedding the service in communities, Effective communication, Overcoming barriers with options. Continuing the process to develop these solutions in a collaborative way helps to encourage the personalised approach to delivery that is likely to improve uptake amongst groups that could benefit most.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Lung cancer is the most common cause of cancer death in the UK. Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening has been shown to identify lung cancer at an earlier stage. A risk stratified approach to LDCT referral is recommended. Those at higher risk of developing lung cancer (aged 55 + , smoker, deprived area) are least likely to participate in such a programme and, therefore, it is necessary to understand the barriers they face and to develop pathways for implementation in order to increase uptake.
METHODS
A 2-phased co-design process was employed to identify ways to further increase opportunity for uptake of a lung cancer screening programme, using a risk indicator for LDCT referral, amongst people who could benefit most. Participants were members of the public at high risk from developing lung cancer and professionals who may provide or signpost to a future lung cancer screening programme. Phase 1: interviews and focus groups, considering barriers, facilitators and pathways for provision. Phase 2: interactive offline booklet and online surveys with professionals. Qualitative data was analysed thematically, while descriptive statistics were conducted for quantitative data.
RESULTS
In total, ten barriers and eight facilitators to uptake of a lung cancer screening programme using a biomarker blood test for LDCT referral were identified. An additional four barriers and four facilitators to provision of such a programme were identified. These covered wider themes of acceptability, awareness, reminders and endorsement, convenience and accessibility. Various pathway options were evidenced, with choice being a key facilitator for uptake. There was a preference (19/23) for the provision of home test kits but 7 of the 19 would like an option for assistance, e.g. nurse, pharmacist or friend. TV was the preferred means of communicating about the programme and fear was the most dominant barrier perceived by members of the public.
CONCLUSION
Co-design has provided a fuller understanding of the barriers, facilitators and pathways for the provision of a future lung cancer screening programme, with a focus on the potential of biomarker blood tests for the identification of at-risk individuals. It has also identified possible solutions and future developments to enhance uptake, e.g. Embedding the service in communities, Effective communication, Overcoming barriers with options. Continuing the process to develop these solutions in a collaborative way helps to encourage the personalised approach to delivery that is likely to improve uptake amongst groups that could benefit most.

Identifiants

pubmed: 35461289
doi: 10.1186/s12889-022-12998-0
pii: 10.1186/s12889-022-12998-0
pmc: PMC9034739
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

815

Subventions

Organisme : Chief Scientist Office
ID : CGA/19/31
Pays : United Kingdom
Organisme : Chief Scientist Office
ID : HSRU2
Pays : United Kingdom

Informations de copyright

© 2022. The Author(s).

Références

N Engl J Med. 2011 Aug 4;365(5):395-409
pubmed: 21714641
JAMA. 2012 Jun 13;307(22):2418-29
pubmed: 22610500
Lung Cancer. 2021 Aug;158:85-90
pubmed: 34130044
Health Expect. 2017 Aug;20(4):563-573
pubmed: 27397651
Thorax. 2009 May;64(5):388-92
pubmed: 19052048
Br J Cancer. 2013 Oct 15;109(8):2027-34
pubmed: 24045658
Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2020 Apr 15;201(8):965-975
pubmed: 31825647
Health Expect. 2017 Feb;20(1):59-68
pubmed: 26701339
J Thorac Oncol. 2019 Sep;14(9):1528-1537
pubmed: 31077790
Thorax. 2017 Sep;72(9):825-831
pubmed: 28377492
Lung Cancer. 2019 Aug;134:66-71
pubmed: 31319997
Public Health Rev. 2018 Aug 15;39:23
pubmed: 30128168
Thorax. 2019 Apr;74(4):405-409
pubmed: 29440588
BMJ Open. 2015 Jul 14;5(7):e008254
pubmed: 26173719
PLoS Med. 2013;10(2):e1001376
pubmed: 23393428
J Thorac Oncol. 2019 Mar;14(3):343-357
pubmed: 30529598
Br J Gen Pract. 2020 Nov 26;70(701):572-573
pubmed: 33243902
Thorax. 2015 Feb;70(2):161-8
pubmed: 25311471
Fam Pract. 2017 Apr 1;34(2):239-244
pubmed: 28122849
N Engl J Med. 2020 Aug 13;383(7):640-649
pubmed: 32786189
BMJ Open. 2012 May 25;2(3):
pubmed: 22637374
Thorax. 2012 May;67(5):412-7
pubmed: 22052579
Thorax. 2007 Feb;62(2):126-30
pubmed: 17101739
Eur Respir J. 2021 Jan 14;57(1):
pubmed: 32732334
Br J Cancer. 2012 Oct 9;107(8):1220-6
pubmed: 22996611
BMC Cancer. 2018 May 2;18(1):497
pubmed: 29716550
J Am Coll Radiol. 2019 Apr;16(4 Pt B):601-606
pubmed: 30947894
Thorax. 2020 Aug;75(8):661-668
pubmed: 32631933
Thorax. 2017 Oct;72(10):912-918
pubmed: 28710339
Ann Oncol. 2020 Jun;31(6):745-759
pubmed: 33506766
JAMA Oncol. 2017 Sep 1;3(9):1278-1281
pubmed: 28152136
Transl Lung Cancer Res. 2018 Jun;7(3):272-280
pubmed: 30050765
Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2021 Mar;18(3):135-151
pubmed: 33046839
Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2015 Jun;8(6):570-5
pubmed: 25873368
Health Expect. 2018 Dec;21(6):1150-1158
pubmed: 30085384
Diagn Progn Res. 2020 Dec 2;4(1):20
pubmed: 33292800
JAMA. 2021 Mar 9;325(10):971-987
pubmed: 33687468
Health Expect. 2019 Apr;22(2):162-172
pubmed: 30289583
Br J Gen Pract. 2018 Dec;68(677):562-563
pubmed: 30498141

Auteurs

Lynsey Rachael Brown (LR)

School of Medicine, University of St Andrews, North Haugh, St Andrews, Scotland, UK, KY16 9TF. lrb21@st-andrews.ac.uk.

Frank Sullivan (F)

School of Medicine, University of St Andrews, North Haugh, St Andrews, Scotland, UK, KY16 9TF.

Shaun Treweek (S)

Health Services Research Unit, University of Aberdeen, Foresterhill, Aberdeen, Scotland, UK, AB25 2ZD.

Anne Haddow (A)

Fife Community Advisory Council (PPI), Fife, UK.

Rodney Mountain (R)

Ninewells Hospital, NHS Tayside, Dundee, Scotland, UK, DD1 9SY.

Colin Selby (C)

NHS Fife, Fife, UK.

Mara van Beusekom (MV)

School of Medicine, University of St Andrews, North Haugh, St Andrews, Scotland, UK, KY16 9TF.
Dutch Centre of Expertise On Health Disparities, Pharos, Netherlands.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH