A discrete choice experiment to understand public preferences and priorities for risk-stratified bowel cancer screening programmes in the UK.

OBJECTIVE: Public acceptability of bowel cancer screening programmes must be maintained, including if risk stratification is introduced. We aimed to describe and quantify preferences for different attributes of risk-stratified screening programmes amongst the UK population, focussing on who to invite for bowel screening. METHODS: We conducted a discrete choice experiment (DCE) including the following attributes: risk factors used to estimate bowel cancer risk (age plus/minus sex, lifestyle factors and genetics); personalisation of risk feedback; risk stratification strategy plus resource implications; default screening in the case of no risk information; number of deaths prevented by screening; and number experiencing physical harm from screening. We used the results of conditional logit regression models to estimate the importance of each attribute, willingness to trade-off between the attributes, and preferences for different programmes using contemporary risk scores and models. RESULTS: 1196 respondents completed the survey, generating 21,528 DCE observations. Deaths prevented was the most influential attribute on respondents' decision-making (contributing to 58.8% of the choice), followed by harms experienced (15.9%). For every three additional deaths prevented, respondents were willing to accept an additional screening harm per 100,000 people. Risk factors and risk stratification strategy contributed to just 11.1% and 3.6% of the choice, respectively. Although the influence on decision-making was small, respondents favoured more personalised feedback. CONCLUSIONS: Bowel cancer screening programmes that improve cancer outcomes, particularly by preventing more deaths amongst those screened, are most preferred by the public. Optimising risk prediction models, developing public communication, and readying infrastructure should be prioritised for implementation.

Implementation of risk stratification within bowel cancer screening: a community jury study exploring public acceptability and communication needs.

BACKGROUND: Population-based cancer screening programmes are shifting away from age and/or sex-based screening criteria towards a risk-stratified approach. Any such changes must be acceptable to the public and communicated effectively. We aimed to explore the social and ethical considerations of implementing risk stratification at three different stages of the bowel cancer screening programme and to understand public requirements for communication. METHODS: We conducted two pairs of community juries, addressing risk stratification for screening eligibility or thresholds for referral to colonoscopy and screening interval. Using screening test results (where applicable), and lifestyle and genetic risk scores were suggested as potential stratification strategies. After being informed about the topic through a series of presentations and discussions including screening principles, ethical considerations and how risk stratification could be incorporated, participants deliberated over the research questions. They then reported their final verdicts on the acceptability of risk-stratified screening and what information should be shared about their preferred screening strategy. Transcripts were analysed using codebook thematic analysis. RESULTS: Risk stratification of bowel cancer screening was acceptable to the informed public. Using data within the current system (age, sex and screening results) was considered an obvious next step and collecting additional data for lifestyle and/or genetic risk assessment was also preferable to age-based screening. Participants acknowledged benefits to individuals and health services, as well as articulating concerns for people with low cancer risk, potential public misconceptions and additional complexity for the system. The need for clear and effective communication about changes to the screening programme and individual risk feedback was highlighted, including making a distinction between information that should be shared with everyone by default and additional details that are available elsewhere. CONCLUSIONS: From the perspective of public acceptability, risk stratification using current data could be implemented immediately, ahead of more complex strategies. Collecting additional data for lifestyle and/or genetic risk assessment was also considered acceptable but the practicalities of collecting such data and how the programme would be communicated require careful consideration.

A community jury study exploring the public acceptability of using risk stratification to determine eligibility for cancer screening.

INTRODUCTION: Using risk stratification to determine eligibility for cancer screening is likely to improve the efficiency of screening programmes by targeting resources towards those most likely to benefit. We aimed to explore the implications of this approach from a societal perspective by understanding public views on the most acceptable stratification strategies. METHODS: We conducted three online community juries with 9 or 10 participants in each. Participants were purposefully sampled by age (40-79 years), sex, ethnicity, social grade and English region. On the first day, participants were informed of the potential benefits and harms of cancer screening and the implications of different ways of introducing stratification using scenarios based on phenotypic and genetic risk scores. On the second day, participants deliberated to reach a verdict on the research question, 'Which approach(es) to inviting people to screening are acceptable, and under what circumstances?' Deliberations and feedback were recorded and analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Across the juries, the principle of risk stratification was generally considered to be an acceptable approach for determining eligibility for screening. Disregarding increasing capacity, the participants considered it to enable efficient resource allocation to high-risk individuals and could see how it might help to save lives. However, there were concerns regarding fair implementation, particularly how the risk assessment would be performed at scale and how people at low risk would be managed. Some favoured using the most accurate risk prediction model whereas others thought that certain risk factors should be prioritized (particularly factors considered as non-modifiable and relatively stable, such as genetics and family history). Transparently justifying the programme and public education about cancer risk emerged as important contributors to acceptability. CONCLUSION: Using risk stratification to determine eligibility for cancer screening was acceptable to informed members of the public, particularly if it included risk factors they considered fair and when communicated transparently. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Two patient and public involvement representatives were involved throughout this study. They were not involved in synthesizing the results but contributed to producing study materials, co-facilitated the community juries and commented on the interpretation of the findings and final report.

A systematic review of public health interventions to address breast cancer inequalities in low- and middle-income countries.

BACKGROUND: Breast cancer is the most diagnosed cancer in the world, with a worse prognosis documented in low- and middle-income countries. Inequalities pertaining to breast cancer outcomes are observed at within-country level, with demographics and socioeconomic status as major drivers. AIM: This review aims to aggregate all available evidence from low- and middle-income countries on public health interventions that can be utilized to reduce breast cancer inequalities within the breast cancer continuum. METHODS: The study was a systematic review and narrative synthesis of available literature, with the literature search conducted between September and October 2021. The search was re-run in September 2022 to update the review. PubMed, Scopus, Embase, African Index Medicus and LILACS were searched, based on predetermined criteria. Randomized controlled trials, cohort studies and quasi-experimental studies were included for review, while studies without an intervention and comparator group were excluded. The Joanna Briggs Institute family of checklists was used for quality assessment of the included studies. Data pertaining to study design, quality control and intervention effectiveness was extracted. RESULTS: A total of 915 studies were identified for screening and 21 studies met the selection criteria. Only one study specifically evaluated the impact of an intervention on breast cancer inequalities. Diverse, multi-level interventions that can be utilized to address breast cancer inequalities through targeted application to disadvantaged subpopulations were identified. Educational interventions were found to be effective in improving screening rates, downstaging through early presentation as well as improving time to diagnosis. Interventions aimed at subsidizing or eliminating screening payments resulted in improved screening rates. Patient navigation was highlighted to be effective in improving outcomes throughout the breast cancer continuum. CONCLUSION: Findings from the systematic review underline the importance of early detection in breast cancer management for low- and middle-income countries. This can be achieved through a variety of interventions, including population education, and addressing access barriers to public health services such as screening, particularly among under-served populations. This study provides a comprehensive database of public health interventions relevant to low- and middle-income countries that can be utilized for planning and decision-making purposes. Findings from the review highlight an important research gap in primary studies on interventions aimed at reducing breast cancer inequalities in low- and middle-income countries. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021289643.

Development of a Web-Based, Guided Self-help, Acceptance and Commitment Therapy-Based Intervention for Weight Loss Maintenance: Evidence-, Theory-, and Person-Based Approach.

BACKGROUND: The long-term impact and cost-effectiveness of weight management programs depend on posttreatment weight maintenance. There is growing evidence that interventions based on third-wave cognitive behavioral therapy, particularly acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT), could improve long-term weight management; however, these interventions are typically delivered face-to-face by psychologists, which limits the scalability of these types of intervention. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to use an evidence-, theory-, and person-based approach to develop an ACT-based intervention for weight loss maintenance that uses digital technology and nonspecialist guidance to minimize the resources needed for delivery at scale. METHODS: Intervention development was guided by the Medical Research Council framework for the development of complex interventions in health care, Intervention Mapping Protocol, and a person-based approach for enhancing the acceptability and feasibility of interventions. Work was conducted in two phases: phase 1 consisted of collating and analyzing existing and new primary evidence and phase 2 consisted of theoretical modeling and intervention development. Phase 1 included a synthesis of existing evidence on weight loss maintenance from previous research, a systematic review and network meta-analysis of third-wave cognitive behavioral therapy interventions for weight management, a qualitative interview study of experiences of weight loss maintenance, and the modeling of a justifiable cost for a weight loss maintenance program. Phase 2 included the iterative development of guiding principles, a logic model, and the intervention design and content. Target user and stakeholder panels were established to inform each phase of development, and user testing of successive iterations of the prototype intervention was conducted. RESULTS: This process resulted in a guided self-help ACT-based intervention called SWiM (Supporting Weight Management). SWiM is a 4-month program consisting of weekly web-based sessions for 13 consecutive weeks followed by a 4-week break for participants to reflect and practice their new skills and a final session at week 18. Each session consists of psychoeducational content, reflective exercises, and behavioral experiments. SWiM includes specific sessions on key determinants of weight loss maintenance, including developing skills to manage high-risk situations for lapses, creating new helpful habits, breaking old unhelpful habits, and learning to manage interpersonal relationships and their impact on weight management. A trained, nonspecialist coach provides guidance for the participants through the program with 4 scheduled 30-minute telephone calls and 3 further optional calls. CONCLUSIONS: This comprehensive approach facilitated the development of an intervention that is based on scientific theory and evidence for supporting people with weight loss maintenance and is grounded in the experiences of the target users and the context in which it is intended to be delivered. The intervention will be refined based on the findings of a planned pilot randomized controlled trial.