Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Más filtros











Base de datos
Intervalo de año de publicación
1.
BMC Public Health ; 22(1): 815, 2022 04 23.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35461289

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is the most common cause of cancer death in the UK. Low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening has been shown to identify lung cancer at an earlier stage. A risk stratified approach to LDCT referral is recommended. Those at higher risk of developing lung cancer (aged 55 + , smoker, deprived area) are least likely to participate in such a programme and, therefore, it is necessary to understand the barriers they face and to develop pathways for implementation in order to increase uptake. METHODS: A 2-phased co-design process was employed to identify ways to further increase opportunity for uptake of a lung cancer screening programme, using a risk indicator for LDCT referral, amongst people who could benefit most. Participants were members of the public at high risk from developing lung cancer and professionals who may provide or signpost to a future lung cancer screening programme. Phase 1: interviews and focus groups, considering barriers, facilitators and pathways for provision. Phase 2: interactive offline booklet and online surveys with professionals. Qualitative data was analysed thematically, while descriptive statistics were conducted for quantitative data. RESULTS: In total, ten barriers and eight facilitators to uptake of a lung cancer screening programme using a biomarker blood test for LDCT referral were identified. An additional four barriers and four facilitators to provision of such a programme were identified. These covered wider themes of acceptability, awareness, reminders and endorsement, convenience and accessibility. Various pathway options were evidenced, with choice being a key facilitator for uptake. There was a preference (19/23) for the provision of home test kits but 7 of the 19 would like an option for assistance, e.g. nurse, pharmacist or friend. TV was the preferred means of communicating about the programme and fear was the most dominant barrier perceived by members of the public. CONCLUSION: Co-design has provided a fuller understanding of the barriers, facilitators and pathways for the provision of a future lung cancer screening programme, with a focus on the potential of biomarker blood tests for the identification of at-risk individuals. It has also identified possible solutions and future developments to enhance uptake, e.g. Embedding the service in communities, Effective communication, Overcoming barriers with options. Continuing the process to develop these solutions in a collaborative way helps to encourage the personalised approach to delivery that is likely to improve uptake amongst groups that could benefit most.


Asunto(s)
Detección Precoz del Cáncer , Neoplasias Pulmonares , Detección Precoz del Cáncer/métodos , Humanos , Neoplasias Pulmonares/diagnóstico por imagen , Neoplasias Pulmonares/prevención & control , Tamizaje Masivo , Derivación y Consulta , Tomografía Computarizada por Rayos X/métodos
2.
BJGP Open ; 6(1)2022 Mar.
Artículo en Inglés | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-34853007

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has had and will continue to have a disproportionate effect on the most vulnerable. Public health messaging has been vital to mitigate the impact of the pandemic, but messages intended to slow the transmission of the virus may also cause harm. Understanding the areas where public health messaging could be improved may help reduce this harm. AIM: To explore and understand health communication issues faced by those most likely to be impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. DESIGN & SETTING: A qualitative study using online surveys. The area of focus was Fife, a local authority in Scotland, UK. METHOD: Two consecutive surveys were conducted. Survey 1 explored the observations of support workers and Facebook group moderators, and focused on key issues faced by service users, as well as examples of good practice (n = 19). Survey 2 was aimed at community members, and focused on issues regarding access to and communication around access to primary care (n = 34). RESULTS: Survey 1 found broad issues around communication and access to primary care services. Survey 2 emphasised key issues in accessing primary care, including: (a) the lengthy process of making appointments; (b) feeling like a burden for wanting to be seen; (c) a lack of confidence in remote triaging and consultations; and (d) not knowing what to expect before getting an appointment. CONCLUSION: Clear issues regarding access to primary care were identified. The new understanding of these issues will inform a co-creation process designed to develop clear, actionable, and effective public health messages centred on improving access to primary care.

SELECCIÓN DE REFERENCIAS
DETALLE DE LA BÚSQUEDA