A community jury study exploring the public acceptability of using risk stratification to determine eligibility for cancer screening
Authors
Dennison, Rebecca A
Boscott, Rachel A
Thomas, Rae
Harrison, Hannah
John, Stephen D
Moorthie, Sowmiya A
Morris, Stephen
Rossi, Sabrina H
Thomas, Chloe V
Usher‐Smith, Juliet A
Publication Date
2022-05-08Journal Title
Health Expectations
ISSN
1369-6513
Language
en
Type
Article
This Version
AO
VoR
Metadata
Show full item recordCitation
Dennison, R. A., Boscott, R. A., Thomas, R., Griffin, S., Harrison, H., John, S. D., Moorthie, S. A., et al. (2022). A community jury study exploring the public acceptability of using risk stratification to determine eligibility for cancer screening. Health Expectations https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.13522
Abstract
Abstract: 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.
Keywords
ORIGINAL ARTICLE, ORIGINAL ARTICLES, acceptability, cancer, communication, community jury, population screening, risk stratification
Relationships
Is supplemented by: https://doi.org/10.17863/CAM.78681
Sponsorship
National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR300861)
Cancer Research UK Cambridge Centre (C9685/A25117)
Identifiers
hex13522
External DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.13522
This record's URL: https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/336934
Rights
Licence:
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/
Statistics
Total file downloads (since January 2020). For more information on metrics see the
IRUS guide.
Recommended or similar items
The current recommendation prototype on the Apollo Repository will be turned off on 03 February 2023. Although the pilot has been fruitful for both parties, the service provider IKVA is focusing on horizon scanning products and so the recommender service can no longer be supported. We recognise the importance of recommender services in supporting research discovery and are evaluating offerings from other service providers. If you would like to offer feedback on this decision please contact us on: support@repository.cam.ac.uk