Public Perspectives on Multi-Cancer Early Detection: A Qualitative Study.

IF 2.5 4区 医学 Q3 ONCOLOGY Cancer Control Pub Date : 2024-01-01 DOI:10.1177/10732748241291609
Norah L Crossnohere, Nicola B Campoamor, Rosa Negash, Marie Wood, Jamie L Studts, Mohamed I Elsaid, Macarius Donneyong, Electra D Paskett, Daniel E Jonas, Daniel G Stover, Chyke A Doubeni, John F P Bridges
{"title":"Public Perspectives on Multi-Cancer Early Detection: A Qualitative Study.","authors":"Norah L Crossnohere, Nicola B Campoamor, Rosa Negash, Marie Wood, Jamie L Studts, Mohamed I Elsaid, Macarius Donneyong, Electra D Paskett, Daniel E Jonas, Daniel G Stover, Chyke A Doubeni, John F P Bridges","doi":"10.1177/10732748241291609","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Multi-cancer early detection tests (MCEDs) have the potential to identify over 50 types of cancer from a blood sample, possibly transforming cancer screening paradigms. Studies on the safety and effectiveness of MCEDs are underway, but there is a paucity of research exploring public views on MCEDs. We sought to explore public perspectives and understanding on the use of MCEDs in patient care.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We conducted a cross-sectional, qualitative study using one-on-one, semi-structured interviews. Residents of the United States aged 45-70 years old were recruited through a survey panel and purposively sampled to maximize racial diversity. Interviews explored understanding of MCEDs and perspectives on their use. Interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis with deductive coding and semi-quantification.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 27 participants, mean age was 62 years (range 48-70) and most (63%) were non-white. Most participants had completed at least one cancer screening (89%). Participants had a positive impression of MCEDs (85%) and found the concept easy to understand (88%). They were enthusiastic about the convenience of MCEDs (30%) and thought they would improve \"cancer outcomes\" by looking for multiple cancers (70%) and facilitating early detection (33%). Participants emphasized the need to balance these benefits against potential harms, including inaccuracy (96%), cost (92%), test-related anxiety (56%), and lack of evidence of effectiveness (22%). Participants favored that MCEDs be delivered in primary care (93%). Participants worried that the potential benefits of MCEDs might not be equitably distributed (44%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Members of the US public in this study expressed an interest in using MCEDs but had concerns regarding cost, accuracy, and potential inequitable access to the tests. Findings suggest that MCEDs that are found to be safe and effective will be acceptable to patients as a part of primary care, and underscore public interest in improving this technology.</p>","PeriodicalId":49093,"journal":{"name":"Cancer Control","volume":"31 ","pages":"10732748241291609"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11489936/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cancer Control","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/10732748241291609","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Multi-cancer early detection tests (MCEDs) have the potential to identify over 50 types of cancer from a blood sample, possibly transforming cancer screening paradigms. Studies on the safety and effectiveness of MCEDs are underway, but there is a paucity of research exploring public views on MCEDs. We sought to explore public perspectives and understanding on the use of MCEDs in patient care.

Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional, qualitative study using one-on-one, semi-structured interviews. Residents of the United States aged 45-70 years old were recruited through a survey panel and purposively sampled to maximize racial diversity. Interviews explored understanding of MCEDs and perspectives on their use. Interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis with deductive coding and semi-quantification.

Results: Among 27 participants, mean age was 62 years (range 48-70) and most (63%) were non-white. Most participants had completed at least one cancer screening (89%). Participants had a positive impression of MCEDs (85%) and found the concept easy to understand (88%). They were enthusiastic about the convenience of MCEDs (30%) and thought they would improve "cancer outcomes" by looking for multiple cancers (70%) and facilitating early detection (33%). Participants emphasized the need to balance these benefits against potential harms, including inaccuracy (96%), cost (92%), test-related anxiety (56%), and lack of evidence of effectiveness (22%). Participants favored that MCEDs be delivered in primary care (93%). Participants worried that the potential benefits of MCEDs might not be equitably distributed (44%).

Conclusions: Members of the US public in this study expressed an interest in using MCEDs but had concerns regarding cost, accuracy, and potential inequitable access to the tests. Findings suggest that MCEDs that are found to be safe and effective will be acceptable to patients as a part of primary care, and underscore public interest in improving this technology.

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
公众对多种癌症早期检测的看法:定性研究。
背景:多种癌症早期检测试验(MCED)有可能从血液样本中识别出 50 多种癌症,从而改变癌症筛查模式。有关多重癌症早期检测试剂盒安全性和有效性的研究正在进行中,但有关公众对多重癌症早期检测试剂盒看法的研究却很少。我们试图探索公众对在患者护理中使用 MCED 的看法和理解:我们采用一对一、半结构化访谈的方式进行了一项横断面定性研究。我们通过调查小组招募了年龄在 45-70 岁之间的美国居民,并有针对性地进行了抽样调查,以最大限度地实现种族多样性。访谈探讨了对 MCED 的理解和使用观点。访谈采用主题分析法、演绎编码法和半量化法进行分析:在 27 名参与者中,平均年龄为 62 岁(48-70 岁不等),大多数(63%)为非白人。大多数参与者至少完成过一次癌症筛查(89%)。参与者对医用电子设备的印象良好(85%),并认为其概念易于理解(88%)。他们热衷于 MCED 的便利性(30%),并认为 MCED 可以通过检查多种癌症(70%)和促进早期发现(33%)来改善 "癌症治疗效果"。与会者强调,需要在这些益处与潜在危害之间取得平衡,潜在危害包括不准确性(96%)、成本(92%)、与测试相关的焦虑(56%)以及缺乏有效性证据(22%)。与会者赞成在初级保健中提供 MCED(93%)。参与者担心 MCEDs 的潜在益处可能得不到公平分配(44%):在这项研究中,美国公众对使用 MCED 表示了兴趣,但对成本、准确性和潜在的不公平使用测试表示了担忧。研究结果表明,安全有效的 MCED 将作为初级医疗的一部分为患者所接受,并强调了公众对改进该技术的兴趣。
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
Cancer Control
Cancer Control ONCOLOGY-
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
148
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Cancer Control is a JCR-ranked, peer-reviewed open access journal whose mission is to advance the prevention, detection, diagnosis, treatment, and palliative care of cancer by enabling researchers, doctors, policymakers, and other healthcare professionals to freely share research along the cancer control continuum. Our vision is a world where gold-standard cancer care is the norm, not the exception.
期刊最新文献
Clinicopathological Features and Prognoses of Patients With Splenic Metastases From Breast Cancer: A Single-Centre, Retrospective Study. Epidemiological Features of Sinonasal Adenocarcinoma and Prognostic Nomogram: A Study Based on the SEER Database. Hepatitis B Virus Reactivation in Patients With HBV-Related Advanced Hepatocellular Carcinoma Undergoing Lenvatinib and Camrelizumab Treatment. Prognostic Value of Surgical Resection for Non-small-cell Lung Cancer Patients Comorbid With Minimal Pleural Effusion. Tumor Mutation Signature Reveals the Risk Factors of Lung Adenocarcinoma with EGFR or KRAS Mutation.
×
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:481959085
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