Adherence to melanoma screening and surveillance skin check schedules tailored to personal risk

IF 4.7 2区 医学 Q1 ONCOLOGY International Journal of Cancer Pub Date : 2024-08-23 DOI:10.1002/ijc.35146
Methmi M. Perera, Amelia K. Smit, Andrea L. Smith, Bruna Gallo, Ivy Tan, David Espinoza, Bela I. Laginha, Pascale Guitera, Linda K. Martin, Anne E. Cust
{"title":"Adherence to melanoma screening and surveillance skin check schedules tailored to personal risk","authors":"Methmi M. Perera,&nbsp;Amelia K. Smit,&nbsp;Andrea L. Smith,&nbsp;Bruna Gallo,&nbsp;Ivy Tan,&nbsp;David Espinoza,&nbsp;Bela I. Laginha,&nbsp;Pascale Guitera,&nbsp;Linda K. Martin,&nbsp;Anne E. Cust","doi":"10.1002/ijc.35146","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Population-wide skin cancer screening is not currently recommended in most countries. Instead, most clinical guidelines incorporate risk-based recommendations for skin checks, despite limited evidence around implementation and adherence to recommendations in practice. We aimed to determine adherence to personal risk-tailored melanoma skin check schedules and explore reasons influencing adherence. Patients (with/without a previous melanoma) attending tertiary dermatology clinics at the Melanoma Institute Australia, Sydney, Australia, were invited to complete a melanoma risk assessment questionnaire via iPad and provided with personal risk information alongside a risk-tailored skin check schedule. Data were collected from the risk tool, clinician-recorded data on schedule deviations, and appointment booking system. Post-consultation, we conducted semi-structured interviews with patients and clinic staff. We used a convergent segregated mixed methods approach for analysis. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed and data were analysed thematically. Participant data were analysed from clinic records (<i>n</i> = 247) and interviews (<i>n</i> = 29 patients, 11 staff). Overall, there was 62% adherence to risk-tailored skin check schedules. In cases of non-adherence, skin checks tended to occur more frequently than recommended. Decisions to deviate were similarly influenced by patients (44%) and clinicians (56%). Themes driving non-adherence among patients included anxiety and wanting autonomy around decision-making, and among clinicians included concerns around specific lesions and risk estimate accuracy. There was moderate adherence to a clinical service program of personal risk-tailored skin check recommendations. Further adherence may be gained by incorporating strategies to identify and assist patients with high levels of anxiety and supporting clinicians to communicate risk-based recommendations with patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":180,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Cancer","volume":"155 11","pages":"2058-2067"},"PeriodicalIF":4.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/ijc.35146","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Cancer","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ijc.35146","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Population-wide skin cancer screening is not currently recommended in most countries. Instead, most clinical guidelines incorporate risk-based recommendations for skin checks, despite limited evidence around implementation and adherence to recommendations in practice. We aimed to determine adherence to personal risk-tailored melanoma skin check schedules and explore reasons influencing adherence. Patients (with/without a previous melanoma) attending tertiary dermatology clinics at the Melanoma Institute Australia, Sydney, Australia, were invited to complete a melanoma risk assessment questionnaire via iPad and provided with personal risk information alongside a risk-tailored skin check schedule. Data were collected from the risk tool, clinician-recorded data on schedule deviations, and appointment booking system. Post-consultation, we conducted semi-structured interviews with patients and clinic staff. We used a convergent segregated mixed methods approach for analysis. Interviews were audio recorded, transcribed and data were analysed thematically. Participant data were analysed from clinic records (n = 247) and interviews (n = 29 patients, 11 staff). Overall, there was 62% adherence to risk-tailored skin check schedules. In cases of non-adherence, skin checks tended to occur more frequently than recommended. Decisions to deviate were similarly influenced by patients (44%) and clinicians (56%). Themes driving non-adherence among patients included anxiety and wanting autonomy around decision-making, and among clinicians included concerns around specific lesions and risk estimate accuracy. There was moderate adherence to a clinical service program of personal risk-tailored skin check recommendations. Further adherence may be gained by incorporating strategies to identify and assist patients with high levels of anxiety and supporting clinicians to communicate risk-based recommendations with patients.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
根据个人风险,坚持黑色素瘤筛查和皮肤监测检查计划。
目前,大多数国家并不建议进行全民皮肤癌筛查。取而代之的是,大多数临床指南都纳入了基于风险的皮肤检查建议,尽管在实践中实施和遵守建议的证据有限。我们的目的是确定个人是否遵守根据风险定制的黑色素瘤皮肤检查计划,并探讨影响遵守计划的原因。我们邀请在澳大利亚悉尼的澳大利亚黑色素瘤研究所的三级皮肤科诊所就诊的患者(患有/未患过黑色素瘤)通过 iPad 填写黑色素瘤风险评估问卷,并向他们提供个人风险信息和根据风险量身定制的皮肤检查时间表。我们从风险工具、临床医生记录的计划偏差数据和预约系统中收集数据。会诊后,我们对患者和诊所工作人员进行了半结构化访谈。我们采用聚合分离混合方法进行分析。我们对访谈进行了录音和转录,并对数据进行了主题分析。参与分析的数据来自诊所记录(n = 247)和访谈(n = 29 名患者,11 名员工)。总体而言,风险定制皮肤检查计划的坚持率为 62%。在未遵守计划的情况下,皮肤检查的频率往往高于建议的频率。偏离计划的决定同样受到患者(44%)和临床医生(56%)的影响。患者不坚持的原因包括焦虑和希望自主决策,临床医生不坚持的原因包括对特定病变和风险估计准确性的担忧。对个人风险定制皮肤检查建议的临床服务计划的依从性一般。如果能采取一些策略来识别和帮助焦虑程度较高的患者,并支持临床医生与患者沟通基于风险的建议,就能进一步提高患者的依从性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
13.40
自引率
3.10%
发文量
460
审稿时长
2 months
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Cancer (IJC) is the official journal of the Union for International Cancer Control—UICC; it appears twice a month. IJC invites submission of manuscripts under a broad scope of topics relevant to experimental and clinical cancer research and publishes original Research Articles and Short Reports under the following categories: -Cancer Epidemiology- Cancer Genetics and Epigenetics- Infectious Causes of Cancer- Innovative Tools and Methods- Molecular Cancer Biology- Tumor Immunology and Microenvironment- Tumor Markers and Signatures- Cancer Therapy and Prevention
期刊最新文献
Thoracic radiotherapy synergizes with first-line EGFR-TKIs in advanced EGFR-mutant NSCLC: A dual-center real-world study. Challenges in the future of cancer screening. Efficacy and immunogenic effects of Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields) in preclinical models of pancreatic ductal adenocarcinoma, with and without gemcitabine/nab-paclitaxel. Metabolome analysis identified exogenous cholesterol within lipid rafts that activate the Akt/mTOR signaling pathway in epithelial ovarian cancer. Association of recurrence patterns and outcome with HR and HER2 status in patients with resected brain metastases from breast cancer.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1