RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: Risk-stratified approaches to breast screening show promise for increasing benefits and reducing harms. But the successful implementation of such an approach will rely on public acceptability. To date, research suggests that while increased screening for women at high risk will be acceptable, any de-intensification of screening for low-risk groups may be met with less enthusiasm. We report findings from a population-based survey of women in England, approaching the age of eligibility for breast screening, to compare the acceptability of current age-based screening with two hypothetical risk-adapted approaches for women at low risk of breast cancer. METHODS: An online survey of 1,579 women aged 40-49 with no personal experience of breast cancer or mammography. Participants were recruited via a market research panel, using target quotas for educational attainment and ethnic group, and were randomised to view information about (1) standard NHS age-based screening; (2) a later screening start age for low-risk women; or (3) a longer screening interval for low-risk women. Primary outcomes were cognitive, emotional, and global acceptability. ANOVAs and multiple regression were used to compare acceptability between groups and explore demographic and psychosocial factors associated with acceptability. RESULTS: All three screening approaches were judged to be acceptable on the single-item measure of global acceptability (mean score > 3 on a 5-point scale). Scores for all three measures of acceptability were significantly lower for the risk-adapted scenarios than for age-based screening. There were no differences between the two risk-adapted scenarios. In multivariable analysis, higher breast cancer knowledge was positively associated with cognitive and emotional acceptability of screening approach. Willingness to undergo personal risk assessment was not associated with experimental group. CONCLUSION: We found no difference in the acceptability of later start age vs. longer screening intervals for women at low risk of breast cancer in a large sample of women who were screening naïve. Although acceptability of both risk-adapted scenarios was lower than for standard age-based screening, overall acceptability was reasonable. The positive associations between knowledge and both cognitive and emotional acceptability suggests clear and reassuring communication about the rationale for de-intensified screening may enhance acceptability.

Asunto(s)

Neoplasias de la Mama , Detección Precoz del Cáncer , Aceptación de la Atención de Salud , Humanos , Femenino , Neoplasias de la Mama/diagnóstico , Neoplasias de la Mama/psicología , Persona de Mediana Edad , Adulto , Detección Precoz del Cáncer/psicología , Detección Precoz del Cáncer/métodos , Aceptación de la Atención de Salud/psicología , Aceptación de la Atención de Salud/estadística & datos numéricos , Mamografía/psicología , Mamografía/métodos , Encuestas y Cuestionarios , Tamizaje Masivo/métodos , Tamizaje Masivo/psicología , Inglaterra/epidemiología , Medición de Riesgo/métodos

RESUMEN

BACKGROUND: A risk-stratified breast screening program could offer low-risk women less screening than is currently offered by the National Health Service. The acceptability of this approach may be enhanced if it corresponds to UK women's screening preferences and values. OBJECTIVES: To elicit and quantify preferences for low-risk screening options. METHODS: Women aged 40 to 70 y with no history of breast cancer took part in an online discrete choice experiment. We generated 32 hypothetical low-risk screening programs defined by 5 attributes (start age, end age, screening interval, risk of dying from breast cancer, and risk of overdiagnosis), the levels of which were systematically varied between the programs. Respondents were presented with 8 choice sets and asked to choose between 2 screening alternatives or no screening. Preference data were analyzed using conditional logit regression models. The relative importance of attributes and the mean predicted probability of choosing each program were estimated. RESULTS: Participants (N = 502) preferred all screening programs over no screening. An older starting age of screening, younger end age of screening, longer intervals between screening, and increased risk of dying had a negative impact on support for screening programs (P < 0.01). Although the risk of overdiagnosis was of low relative importance, a decreased risk of this harm had a small positive impact on screening choices. The mean predicted probabilities that risk-adapted screening programs would be supported relative to current guidelines were low (range, 0.18 to 0.52). CONCLUSIONS: A deintensified screening pathway for women at low risk of breast cancer, especially one that recommends a later screening start age, would run counter to women's breast screening preferences. Further research is needed to enhance the acceptability of offering less screening to those at low risk of breast cancer. HIGHLIGHTS: Risk-based breast screening may involve the deintensification of screening for women at low risk of breast cancer.Low-risk screening pathways run counter to women's screening preferences and values.Longer screening intervals may be preferable to a later start age.Work is needed to enhance the acceptability of a low-risk screening pathway.

Asunto(s)

Neoplasias de la Mama , Conducta de Elección , Detección Precoz del Cáncer , Humanos , Femenino , Neoplasias de la Mama/diagnóstico , Persona de Mediana Edad , Anciano , Adulto , Detección Precoz del Cáncer/métodos , Detección Precoz del Cáncer/psicología , Medición de Riesgo/métodos , Prioridad del Paciente/psicología , Prioridad del Paciente/estadística & datos numéricos , Reino Unido , Factores de Edad , Tamizaje Masivo/métodos

RESUMEN

Any introduction of risk-stratification within the NHS Breast Screening Programme needs to be considered acceptable by women. We conducted interviews to explore women's attitudes to personalised risk assessment and risk-stratified breast screening. Twenty-five UK women were purposively sampled by screening experience and socioeconomic background. Interview transcripts were qualitatively analysed using Framework Analysis. Women expressed positive intentions for personal risk assessment and willingness to receive risk feedback to provide reassurance and certainty. Women responded to risk-stratified screening scenarios in three ways: 'Overall acceptors' considered both high- and low-risk options acceptable as a reasonable allocation of resources to clinical need, yet acceptability was subject to specified conditions including accuracy of risk estimates and availability of support throughout the screening pathway. Others who thought 'more is better' only supported high-risk scenarios where increased screening was proposed. 'Screening sceptics' found low-risk scenarios more aligned to their screening values than high-risk screening options. Consideration of screening recommendations for other risk groups had more influence on women's responses than screening-related harms. These findings demonstrate high, but not universal, acceptability. Support and guidance, tailored to screening values and preferences, may be required by women at all levels of risk.