Facilitators and Barriers to Acceptability of a Biopsy-First Approach in the Diagnostic Evaluation for Endometrial Cancer Among Black Women.

IF 8.7 1区 医学 Q1 OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY American journal of obstetrics and gynecology Pub Date : 2025-03-12 DOI:10.1016/j.ajog.2025.03.012
Julianna G Alson, Minerva Orellana, Whitney R Robinson, Patrice Williams, Erica Marsh, Mollie E Wood, Til Stürmer, Kemi M Doll
{"title":"Facilitators and Barriers to Acceptability of a Biopsy-First Approach in the Diagnostic Evaluation for Endometrial Cancer Among Black Women.","authors":"Julianna G Alson, Minerva Orellana, Whitney R Robinson, Patrice Williams, Erica Marsh, Mollie E Wood, Til Stürmer, Kemi M Doll","doi":"10.1016/j.ajog.2025.03.012","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Black people in the U.S. with endometrial cancer have a 5-year mortality rate that is more than twice that of white patients. This disparity is driven, in part, by Black individuals' higher likelihood of advanced-stage diagnosis. Transvaginal ultrasound (TVUS)- as a triage tool for referral to tissue sampling - underperforms among Black women. In this context, tissue sampling as an early step to rule out endometrial cancer for symptomatic Black patients may improve timely diagnosis of endometrial cancer. Patient acceptability of biopsy as a priority test is necessary to ensure success of this clinical approach. Yet, little is known about the perspective of Black women on biopsy in the diagnostic work-up for endometrial cancer.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>The goal of this qualitative study was to identify facilitators and barriers to acceptability of a biopsy-first approach to rule out endometrial cancer among cisgender Black women.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>In this community-engaged qualitative study, three focus groups were conducted among self-identified cisgender Black women at risk for endometrial cancer. Convenience sampling was carried out using social media and newsletter networks. A focus group guide was developed based on the Theory of Planned Behavior and contained questions about past experiences, initial impressions of a biopsy-first approach, an educational presentation, and final thoughts about a biopsy-first approach. Transcripts of focus group recordings were coded using a combined inductive and deductive approach, and analyzed using directed and thematic content analysis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Twenty-five women participated in focus groups (Table 1), with 6-10 participants per group. Participants initially expressed understandable apprehension and rejection of biopsy-first approach to symptom presentation, informed by concerning past experiences and awareness of medical racism. Yet, by the end of the focus groups, there was overall acceptability of biopsy as a priority test to rule out endometrial cancer. Barriers of biopsy acceptability include negative past experiences, including mismatch of pain expectations with actual experiences, and known incidents of medical racism. Facilitators of biopsy acceptability included: 1) fostering patient-provider trust through explicit acknowledgement of medical racism, sharing information, personalized recommendations, and racial concordance in care; and 2) health education about racial disparities in endometrial cancer, the biopsy procedure, physical risks of forgoing biopsy, emotional benefits of biopsy, and the range of possible pain experiences.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This qualitative study describes Black cisgender women's perspectives on biopsy as a first-line approach in evaluating abnormal bleeding as a tool to rule out endometrial cancer in this population. We find that a patient-centered communication approach that incorporates trust-building, shared decision-making and education may be most successful when recommending biopsy. These findings can inform culturally-competent clinical guideline development and public health education to ultimately improve timely diagnosis - and ultimately survival - of endometrial cancer among Black women.</p>","PeriodicalId":7574,"journal":{"name":"American journal of obstetrics and gynecology","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":8.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American journal of obstetrics and gynecology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ajog.2025.03.012","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"OBSTETRICS & GYNECOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Black people in the U.S. with endometrial cancer have a 5-year mortality rate that is more than twice that of white patients. This disparity is driven, in part, by Black individuals' higher likelihood of advanced-stage diagnosis. Transvaginal ultrasound (TVUS)- as a triage tool for referral to tissue sampling - underperforms among Black women. In this context, tissue sampling as an early step to rule out endometrial cancer for symptomatic Black patients may improve timely diagnosis of endometrial cancer. Patient acceptability of biopsy as a priority test is necessary to ensure success of this clinical approach. Yet, little is known about the perspective of Black women on biopsy in the diagnostic work-up for endometrial cancer.

Objective: The goal of this qualitative study was to identify facilitators and barriers to acceptability of a biopsy-first approach to rule out endometrial cancer among cisgender Black women.

Study design: In this community-engaged qualitative study, three focus groups were conducted among self-identified cisgender Black women at risk for endometrial cancer. Convenience sampling was carried out using social media and newsletter networks. A focus group guide was developed based on the Theory of Planned Behavior and contained questions about past experiences, initial impressions of a biopsy-first approach, an educational presentation, and final thoughts about a biopsy-first approach. Transcripts of focus group recordings were coded using a combined inductive and deductive approach, and analyzed using directed and thematic content analysis.

Results: Twenty-five women participated in focus groups (Table 1), with 6-10 participants per group. Participants initially expressed understandable apprehension and rejection of biopsy-first approach to symptom presentation, informed by concerning past experiences and awareness of medical racism. Yet, by the end of the focus groups, there was overall acceptability of biopsy as a priority test to rule out endometrial cancer. Barriers of biopsy acceptability include negative past experiences, including mismatch of pain expectations with actual experiences, and known incidents of medical racism. Facilitators of biopsy acceptability included: 1) fostering patient-provider trust through explicit acknowledgement of medical racism, sharing information, personalized recommendations, and racial concordance in care; and 2) health education about racial disparities in endometrial cancer, the biopsy procedure, physical risks of forgoing biopsy, emotional benefits of biopsy, and the range of possible pain experiences.

Conclusions: This qualitative study describes Black cisgender women's perspectives on biopsy as a first-line approach in evaluating abnormal bleeding as a tool to rule out endometrial cancer in this population. We find that a patient-centered communication approach that incorporates trust-building, shared decision-making and education may be most successful when recommending biopsy. These findings can inform culturally-competent clinical guideline development and public health education to ultimately improve timely diagnosis - and ultimately survival - of endometrial cancer among Black women.

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
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
15.90
自引率
7.10%
发文量
2237
审稿时长
47 days
期刊介绍: The American Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology, known as "The Gray Journal," covers the entire spectrum of Obstetrics and Gynecology. It aims to publish original research (clinical and translational), reviews, opinions, video clips, podcasts, and interviews that contribute to understanding health and disease and have the potential to impact the practice of women's healthcare. Focus Areas: Diagnosis, Treatment, Prediction, and Prevention: The journal focuses on research related to the diagnosis, treatment, prediction, and prevention of obstetrical and gynecological disorders. Biology of Reproduction: AJOG publishes work on the biology of reproduction, including studies on reproductive physiology and mechanisms of obstetrical and gynecological diseases. Content Types: Original Research: Clinical and translational research articles. Reviews: Comprehensive reviews providing insights into various aspects of obstetrics and gynecology. Opinions: Perspectives and opinions on important topics in the field. Multimedia Content: Video clips, podcasts, and interviews. Peer Review Process: All submissions undergo a rigorous peer review process to ensure quality and relevance to the field of obstetrics and gynecology.
期刊最新文献
Reduced risk of cesarean delivery with oxytocin discontinuation in active labor: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Vaginal progesterone reduces the risk of preterm birth and adverse perinatal outcomes in singleton gestations with a midtrimester sonographic short cervix (≤25 mm): an updated individual patient data meta-analysis. Ampicillin and gentamicin prophylaxis is superior to ampicillin alone in patients with prelabor rupture of membranes at term: the results of a randomized clinical trial. Facilitators and Barriers to Acceptability of a Biopsy-First Approach in the Diagnostic Evaluation for Endometrial Cancer Among Black Women. Consensus statement on pain management for pregnant patients with opioid use disorder from the Society for Obstetric Anesthesia and Perinatology, Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, and American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine.
×
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