Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorArcher, Stephanie
dc.contributor.authorBabb de Villiers, Chantal
dc.contributor.authorScheibl, Fiona
dc.contributor.authorCarver, Tim
dc.contributor.authorHartley, Simon
dc.contributor.authorLee, Andrew
dc.contributor.authorCunningham, Alex P
dc.contributor.authorEaston, Douglas F
dc.contributor.authorMcIntosh, Jennifer G
dc.contributor.authorEmery, Jon
dc.contributor.authorTischkowitz, Marc
dc.contributor.authorAntoniou, Antonis C
dc.contributor.authorWalter, Fiona M
dc.date.accessioned2020-04-07T00:26:48Z
dc.date.available2020-04-07T00:26:48Z
dc.date.issued2020-03-06
dc.identifier.issn1932-6203
dc.identifier.otherPMC7059924
dc.identifier.other32142536
dc.identifier.urihttps://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/304165
dc.description.abstractBACKGROUND:There is a growing focus on the development of multi-factorial cancer risk prediction algorithms alongside tools that operationalise them for clinical use. BOADICEA is a breast and ovarian cancer risk prediction model incorporating genetic and other risk factors. A new user-friendly Web-based tool (CanRisk.org) has been developed to apply BOADICEA. This study aimed to explore the acceptability of the prototype CanRisk tool among two healthcare professional groups to inform further development, evaluation and implementation. METHOD:A multi-methods approach was used. Clinicians from primary care and specialist genetics clinics in England, France and Germany were invited to use the CanRisk prototype with two test cases (either face-to-face with a simulated patient or via a written vignette). Their views about the tool were examined via a semi-structured interview or equivalent open-ended questionnaire. Qualitative data were subjected to thematic analysis and organised around Sekhon's Theoretical Framework of Acceptability. RESULTS:Seventy-five clinicians participated, 21 from primary care and 54 from specialist genetics clinics. Participants were from England (n = 37), France (n = 23) and Germany (n = 15). The prototype CanRisk tool was generally acceptable to most participants due to its intuitive design. Primary care clinicians were concerned about the amount of time needed to complete, interpret and communicate risk information. Clinicians from both settings were apprehensive about the impact of the CanRisk tool on their consultations and lack of opportunities to interpret risk scores before sharing them with their patients. CONCLUSIONS:The findings highlight the challenges associated with developing a complex tool for use in different clinical settings; they also helped refine the tool. This prototype may not have been versatile enough for clinical use in both primary care and specialist genetics clinics where the needs of clinicians are different, emphasising the importance of understanding the clinical context when developing cancer risk assessment tools.
dc.languageeng
dc.rightsAttribution 4.0 International
dc.rights.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.sourceessn: 1932-6203
dc.sourcenlmid: 101285081
dc.titleEvaluating clinician acceptability of the prototype CanRisk tool for predicting risk of breast and ovarian cancer: A multi-methods study.
dc.typeArticle
dc.date.updated2020-04-07T00:26:48Z
prism.issueIdentifier3
prism.publicationNamePloS one
prism.volume15
dc.identifier.doi10.17863/CAM.51250
rioxxterms.versionofrecord10.1371/journal.pone.0229999
rioxxterms.versionVoR
rioxxterms.licenseref.urihttps://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
dc.contributor.orcidArcher, Stephanie [0000-0003-1349-7178]
dc.contributor.orcidBabb de Villiers, Chantal [0000-0003-1334-1819]
dc.contributor.orcidHartley, Simon [0000-0001-7991-0581]
dc.contributor.orcidLee, Andrew [0000-0003-0677-0252]
pubs.funder-project-idWellcome Trust (203477/B/16/Z)


Files in this item

Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Attribution 4.0 International
Except where otherwise noted, this item's licence is described as Attribution 4.0 International