Suppr超能文献

公众和医疗保健专业人员对风险分层肠道筛查的态度:一项使用信息漫画书的定性研究

Public and Healthcare Professional Attitudes Towards Risk-Stratified Bowel Screening: A Qualitative Study Using an Info-Comic Book.

作者信息

Miles Hannah, Macleod Una, Weller David, Cairns Joanne

机构信息

Hull York Medical School, University of Hull, Hull, UK.

University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK.

出版信息

Health Expect. 2025 Aug;28(4):e70315. doi: 10.1111/hex.70315.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Screening for bowel cancer (colorectal cancer, CRC) is well established in many high-income countries. There has been considerable interest in moving towards risk-based bowel screening to increase the efficiency and effectiveness of screening. This UK-based qualitative study explored public and healthcare professionals (HCPs)' attitudes towards risk-based bowel screening.

METHODS

Five virtual focus groups were held with members of the public of bowel screening age (60-74 in England; 50-74 in Scotland) and HCPs to explore attitudes towards risk-based bowel screening. Public participants (n = 12) were invited through our existing patient and public involvement (PPI) networks. HCPs (n = 11) were recruited through existing networks and with the support of screening hubs. A co-created info-comic book was used to facilitate discussion on bowel cancer risk factors. Following transcription, qualitative data were analysed thematically.

RESULTS

There was consensus that more intense screening for those of higher risk is acceptable, but this should not imply less screening for those of lower risk. There was some agreement between the public and HCPs over concerns with undue focus on risk factors, which could disadvantage those with minimal risk factors. There was also a desire to streamline existing bowel screening across the UK nations. It was felt that the current screening programme, by treating people with all risk levels in the same way, is equitable-so clear communication is needed if this is to be changed.

CONCLUSION

Findings indicate a preference that any changes to the bowel screening programme should enhance the current screening offer, and not compromise screening offered to individuals deemed to be low risk. Changes need to be acceptable to the public and HCPs-if unacceptable, there is a risk of lowering bowel screening uptake, which could potentially exacerbate health inequities in screening outcomes.

PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

The info-comic book was co-created with two PPI networks, INVOLVE Hull and People and Research Together, Bowel Research UK, supported by Humber All Nations Alliance. The PPI network provided invaluable feedback on the development of the info-comic book, to ensure inclusivity and avoid the reproduction of dominant stereotypes associated with bowel cancer.

摘要

背景

在许多高收入国家,肠癌(结直肠癌,CRC)筛查已得到广泛开展。人们对转向基于风险的肠癌筛查以提高筛查效率和效果产生了浓厚兴趣。这项基于英国的定性研究探讨了公众和医疗保健专业人员(HCPs)对基于风险的肠癌筛查的态度。

方法

与筛查年龄的公众(英格兰为60 - 74岁;苏格兰为50 - 74岁)和医疗保健专业人员举行了5次虚拟焦点小组会议,以探讨对基于风险的肠癌筛查的态度。公众参与者(n = 12)通过我们现有的患者和公众参与(PPI)网络邀请。医疗保健专业人员(n = 11)通过现有网络并在筛查中心的支持下招募。使用共同创作的信息漫画书来促进关于肠癌风险因素的讨论。转录后,对定性数据进行主题分析。

结果

大家一致认为,对高风险人群进行更密集的筛查是可以接受的,但这并不意味着对低风险人群的筛查减少。公众和医疗保健专业人员在对过度关注风险因素的担忧上有一些共识,这可能对风险因素最小的人不利。人们还希望简化英国各地区现有的肠癌筛查。有人认为,目前的筛查计划以相同方式对待所有风险水平的人,是公平的——如果要改变这一点,就需要进行清晰的沟通。

结论

研究结果表明,人们倾向于对肠癌筛查计划的任何改变都应改进当前的筛查服务,而不是损害为被认为低风险的个人提供的筛查。这些改变需要为公众和医疗保健专业人员所接受——如果不可接受,就有降低肠癌筛查参与率的风险,这可能会加剧筛查结果中的健康不平等。

患者和公众参与

信息漫画书是与两个患者和公众参与网络共同创作的,即赫尔参与网络以及英国肠癌研究的“人与研究携手共进”网络,由亨伯全民族联盟提供支持。患者和公众参与网络对信息漫画书的开发提供了非常宝贵的反馈,以确保包容性并避免再现与肠癌相关的主导刻板印象。

相似文献

2
Interventions targeted at women to encourage the uptake of cervical screening.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2021 Sep 6;9(9):CD002834. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD002834.pub3.
4
Signs and symptoms to determine if a patient presenting in primary care or hospital outpatient settings has COVID-19.
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 May 20;5(5):CD013665. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD013665.pub3.
6
Home treatment for mental health problems: a systematic review.
Health Technol Assess. 2001;5(15):1-139. doi: 10.3310/hta5150.
7
Antidepressants for pain management in adults with chronic pain: a network meta-analysis.
Health Technol Assess. 2024 Oct;28(62):1-155. doi: 10.3310/MKRT2948.
8
Chemoprevention of colorectal cancer: systematic review and economic evaluation.
Health Technol Assess. 2010 Jun;14(32):1-206. doi: 10.3310/hta14320.
9
Health professionals' experience of teamwork education in acute hospital settings: a systematic review of qualitative literature.
JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2016 Apr;14(4):96-137. doi: 10.11124/JBISRIR-2016-1843.
10
Cost-effectiveness of using prognostic information to select women with breast cancer for adjuvant systemic therapy.
Health Technol Assess. 2006 Sep;10(34):iii-iv, ix-xi, 1-204. doi: 10.3310/hta10340.

本文引用的文献

2
Bringing fictional characters to life: reflections on co-creating a comic book with members of the public.
Res Involv Engagem. 2023 May 2;9(1):28. doi: 10.1186/s40900-023-00437-2.
4
Toward good practice in thematic analysis: Avoiding common problems and be(com)ing a researcher.
Int J Transgend Health. 2022 Oct 25;24(1):1-6. doi: 10.1080/26895269.2022.2129597. eCollection 2023.
7
A scoping review of risk-stratified bowel screening: current evidence, future directions.
Cancer Causes Control. 2022 May;33(5):653-685. doi: 10.1007/s10552-022-01568-9. Epub 2022 Mar 20.
8
Behavioural Challenges Associated With Risk-Adapted Cancer Screening.
Cancer Control. 2022 Jan-Dec;29:10732748211060289. doi: 10.1177/10732748211060289.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验