英国公众对风险分级肠癌筛查的接受程度和预期接受率：在线调查

IF 2.4 3区医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Preventive Medicine Reports Pub Date : 2024-11-10 DOI:10.1016/j.pmedr.2024.102927

Lily C. Taylor, Rebecca A. Dennison, Juliet A. Usher-Smith

{"title":"英国公众对风险分级肠癌筛查的接受程度和预期接受率：在线调查","authors":"Lily C. Taylor, Rebecca A. Dennison, Juliet A. Usher-Smith","doi":"10.1016/j.pmedr.2024.102927","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>This study aimed to quantify public acceptability and anticipated uptake with risk stratification incorporated at three points on the bowel cancer screening pathway, compared with current screening in England.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We conducted an online population-based survey of 1,203 UK adults in 2024. The main outcome measures were overall acceptability of three strategies where risk stratification is introduced at 1) the point of eligibility, 2) the referral threshold and 3) the screening interval, compared with the current programme (screening as usual), and the acceptability of high- and low-risk screening practices at each point. Other outcomes included anticipated uptake of screening and the acceptability of data collection methods.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Acceptability of risk-stratified eligibility and referral thresholds was significantly greater than for screening as usual (<em>p</em> < 0.001). There was no difference for stratified intervals. At all three points, more intense screening for those at high-risk was more acceptable and less intense screening for those at low-risk less acceptable when compared with screening as usual (<em>p</em> < 0.0001). The anticipated likelihood of taking up screening was also significantly higher if at high-risk and significantly lower if at low-risk, compared with screening as usual for all strategies (<em>p</em> < 0.0001).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Participants expressed strong acceptability for risk-stratified bowel cancer screening, particularly for risk-stratified eligibility and thresholds for referral. However, acceptability for less intense screening for those at low-risk was lower than for the current programme and may negatively impact uptake. This suggests that the design and framing of risk groups requires careful consideration and communication with the public.</div></div><div><h3>Patient and public contribution</h3><div>Three members of the public contributed through online correspondence to the development of the survey and participant-facing documents.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":38066,"journal":{"name":"Preventive Medicine Reports","volume":"48 ","pages":"Article 102927"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Public acceptability and anticipated uptake of risk-stratified bowel cancer screening in the UK: An online survey\",\"authors\":\"Lily C. Taylor, Rebecca A. Dennison, Juliet A. Usher-Smith\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.pmedr.2024.102927\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><h3>Objective</h3><div>This study aimed to quantify public acceptability and anticipated uptake with risk stratification incorporated at three points on the bowel cancer screening pathway, compared with current screening in England.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>We conducted an online population-based survey of 1,203 UK adults in 2024. The main outcome measures were overall acceptability of three strategies where risk stratification is introduced at 1) the point of eligibility, 2) the referral threshold and 3) the screening interval, compared with the current programme (screening as usual), and the acceptability of high- and low-risk screening practices at each point. Other outcomes included anticipated uptake of screening and the acceptability of data collection methods.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>Acceptability of risk-stratified eligibility and referral thresholds was significantly greater than for screening as usual (<em>p</em> < 0.001). There was no difference for stratified intervals. At all three points, more intense screening for those at high-risk was more acceptable and less intense screening for those at low-risk less acceptable when compared with screening as usual (<em>p</em> < 0.0001). The anticipated likelihood of taking up screening was also significantly higher if at high-risk and significantly lower if at low-risk, compared with screening as usual for all strategies (<em>p</em> < 0.0001).</div></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><div>Participants expressed strong acceptability for risk-stratified bowel cancer screening, particularly for risk-stratified eligibility and thresholds for referral. However, acceptability for less intense screening for those at low-risk was lower than for the current programme and may negatively impact uptake. This suggests that the design and framing of risk groups requires careful consideration and communication with the public.</div></div><div><h3>Patient and public contribution</h3><div>Three members of the public contributed through online correspondence to the development of the survey and participant-facing documents.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":38066,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Preventive Medicine Reports\",\"volume\":\"48 \",\"pages\":\"Article 102927\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Preventive Medicine Reports\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211335524003425\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Preventive Medicine Reports","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2211335524003425","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究旨在量化公众对在肠癌筛查路径的三个点上纳入风险分层的接受度和预期接受率，并与英格兰目前的筛查情况进行比较。方法我们在 2024 年对 1203 名英国成年人进行了基于人口的在线调查。主要结果指标是：与现行计划（照常筛查）相比，在 1）合格点、2）转诊阈值和 3）筛查间隔点引入风险分层的三种策略的总体可接受性，以及每个点的高风险和低风险筛查做法的可接受性。其他结果包括筛查的预期接受率和数据收集方法的可接受性。结果风险分层资格和转诊阈值的可接受性明显高于照常筛查（p < 0.001）。分层间隔没有差异。与常规筛查相比，在所有三点上，对高风险人群进行更密集筛查的可接受性更高，而对低风险人群进行较低强度筛查的可接受性较低（p < 0.0001）。与所有策略下的常规筛查相比，高风险人群接受筛查的预期可能性明显较高，而低风险人群接受筛查的预期可能性明显较低（p < 0.0001）。然而，低风险人群对筛查强度较低的接受度低于现行计划，这可能会对筛查率产生负面影响。患者和公众的贡献三位公众通过在线通信为调查和面向参与者的文件的开发做出了贡献。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

查看原文

微信好友朋友圈 QQ好友复制链接

本刊更多论文

Public acceptability and anticipated uptake of risk-stratified bowel cancer screening in the UK: An online survey

Objective

This study aimed to quantify public acceptability and anticipated uptake with risk stratification incorporated at three points on the bowel cancer screening pathway, compared with current screening in England.

Methods

We conducted an online population-based survey of 1,203 UK adults in 2024. The main outcome measures were overall acceptability of three strategies where risk stratification is introduced at 1) the point of eligibility, 2) the referral threshold and 3) the screening interval, compared with the current programme (screening as usual), and the acceptability of high- and low-risk screening practices at each point. Other outcomes included anticipated uptake of screening and the acceptability of data collection methods.

Results

Acceptability of risk-stratified eligibility and referral thresholds was significantly greater than for screening as usual (p < 0.001). There was no difference for stratified intervals. At all three points, more intense screening for those at high-risk was more acceptable and less intense screening for those at low-risk less acceptable when compared with screening as usual (p < 0.0001). The anticipated likelihood of taking up screening was also significantly higher if at high-risk and significantly lower if at low-risk, compared with screening as usual for all strategies (p < 0.0001).

Conclusions

Participants expressed strong acceptability for risk-stratified bowel cancer screening, particularly for risk-stratified eligibility and thresholds for referral. However, acceptability for less intense screening for those at low-risk was lower than for the current programme and may negatively impact uptake. This suggests that the design and framing of risk groups requires careful consideration and communication with the public.