Alex Ghanouni1, Saskia C Sanderson2, Nora Pashayan3, Cristina Renzi1, Christian von Wagner1, Jo Waller1. 1. Research Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK. 2. Institute of Health Informatics, University College London, London, UK. 3. Department of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, UK.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Risk stratification may improve the benefit/harm ratio of breast screening. Research on acceptability among potential invitees is necessary to guide implementation. We assessed women's attitudes towards and willingness to undergo risk assessment and stratified screening. METHODS: Women in England aged 40-70 received summary information about the topic, and completed face-to-face computer-assisted interviews. Questions assessed willingness to undergo multifactorial breast cancer risk assessment, more frequent breast screening (if at very high risk), or less frequent or no screening (if at very low risk), and preferences for delivery of assessment results. RESULTS: Among 933 women, 85% considered breast cancer risk assessment a good idea, and 74% were willing to have it. Among 125 women unwilling to have risk assessment, reasons commonly related to 'worry' (14%) and 'preferring not to know' (14%). Among those willing to have risk assessment (n = 689), letters/emails were generally preferred (42%) for results about very low-risk status. Face-to-face communication was most commonly preferred for results of very high-risk status (78%). General practitioners were most commonly preferred sources of assessment results (≈40%). Breast cancer specialists were often preferred for results of very high-risk status (38%). Risk-stratified breast screening was considered a good idea by 70% and 89% were willing to have more frequent screening. Fewer would accept less (51%) or no screening (37%) if at very low risk. CONCLUSIONS: Women were generally in favour of multifactorial breast cancer risk assessment and risk-stratified screening. Some were unwilling to accept less or no screening if at very low risk.
OBJECTIVES: Risk stratification may improve the benefit/harm ratio of breast screening. Research on acceptability among potential invitees is necessary to guide implementation. We assessed women's attitudes towards and willingness to undergo risk assessment and stratified screening. METHODS:Women in England aged 40-70 received summary information about the topic, and completed face-to-face computer-assisted interviews. Questions assessed willingness to undergo multifactorial breast cancer risk assessment, more frequent breast screening (if at very high risk), or less frequent or no screening (if at very low risk), and preferences for delivery of assessment results. RESULTS: Among 933 women, 85% considered breast cancer risk assessment a good idea, and 74% were willing to have it. Among 125 women unwilling to have risk assessment, reasons commonly related to 'worry' (14%) and 'preferring not to know' (14%). Among those willing to have risk assessment (n = 689), letters/emails were generally preferred (42%) for results about very low-risk status. Face-to-face communication was most commonly preferred for results of very high-risk status (78%). General practitioners were most commonly preferred sources of assessment results (≈40%). Breast cancer specialists were often preferred for results of very high-risk status (38%). Risk-stratified breast screening was considered a good idea by 70% and 89% were willing to have more frequent screening. Fewer would accept less (51%) or no screening (37%) if at very low risk. CONCLUSIONS:Women were generally in favour of multifactorial breast cancer risk assessment and risk-stratified screening. Some were unwilling to accept less or no screening if at very low risk.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast neoplasms; attitude; mass screening; risk assessment; surveys and questionnaires
Authors: Amelia K Smit; Gillian Reyes-Marcelino; Louise Keogh; Kate Dunlop; Ainsley J Newson; Anne E Cust Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2020-06-29 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Victoria G Woof; Helen Ruane; David P French; Fiona Ulph; Nadeem Qureshi; Nasaim Khan; D Gareth Evans; Louise S Donnelly Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2020-05-20 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Victoria G Woof; Lorna McWilliams; Louise S Donnelly; Anthony Howell; D Gareth Evans; Anthony J Maxwell; David P French Journal: Womens Health (Lond) Date: 2021 Jan-Dec
Authors: Ash Kieran Clift; David Dodwell; Simon Lord; Stavros Petrou; Sir Michael Brady; Gary S Collins; Julia Hippisley-Cox Journal: Br J Cancer Date: 2021-10-26 Impact factor: 9.075
Authors: Lorna McWilliams; Victoria G Woof; Louise S Donnelly; Anthony Howell; D Gareth Evans; David P French Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2021-05-29 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Lorna McWilliams; Victoria G Woof; Louise S Donnelly; Anthony Howell; D Gareth Evans; David P French Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2020-07-22 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Nora Pashayan; Antonis C Antoniou; Urska Ivanus; Laura J Esserman; Douglas F Easton; David French; Gaby Sroczynski; Per Hall; Jack Cuzick; D Gareth Evans; Jacques Simard; Montserrat Garcia-Closas; Rita Schmutzler; Odette Wegwarth; Paul Pharoah; Sowmiya Moorthie; Sandrine De Montgolfier; Camille Baron; Zdenko Herceg; Clare Turnbull; Corinne Balleyguier; Paolo Giorgi Rossi; Jelle Wesseling; David Ritchie; Marc Tischkowitz; Mireille Broeders; Dan Reisel; Andres Metspalu; Thomas Callender; Harry de Koning; Peter Devilee; Suzette Delaloge; Marjanka K Schmidt; Martin Widschwendter Journal: Nat Rev Clin Oncol Date: 2020-06-18 Impact factor: 65.011