» Articles » PMID: 35526275

A Community Jury Study Exploring the Public Acceptability of Using Risk Stratification to Determine Eligibility for Cancer Screening

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.

Citing Articles

Societal views on using risk-based innovations to inform cancer screening and referral policies: findings from three community juries.

Dennison R, Clune R, Tung J, John S, Moorthie S, Waller J BMC Public Health. 2025; 25(1):801.

PMID: 40016715 PMC: 11869612. DOI: 10.1186/s12889-025-21996-x.


Public acceptability and anticipated uptake of risk-stratified bowel cancer screening in the UK: An online survey.

Taylor L, Dennison R, Usher-Smith J Prev Med Rep. 2024; 48:102927.

PMID: 39634284 PMC: 11614824. DOI: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2024.102927.


Older people's perspectives on frailty screening in primary care settings - a citizens' jury study.

Braunack-Mayer A, Street J, Reader C, OBrien L, Dent E, Fabrianesi B BMC Prim Care. 2024; 25(1):407.

PMID: 39623328 PMC: 11610195. DOI: 10.1186/s12875-024-02626-8.


Intention to have blood-based multi-cancer early detection (MCED) screening: a cross-sectional population-based survey in England.

Schmeising-Barnes N, Waller J, Marlow L Br J Cancer. 2024; 131(7):1202-1211.

PMID: 39191895 PMC: 11443085. DOI: 10.1038/s41416-024-02822-4.


Acceptability of adding a non-contrast abdominal CT scan to screen for kidney cancer and other abdominal pathology within a community-based CT screening programme for lung cancer: A qualitative study.

Usher-Smith J, Masson G, Godoy A, Burge S, Kitt J, Farquhar F PLoS One. 2024; 19(7):e0300313.

PMID: 38950010 PMC: 11216619. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0300313.


References
1.
Thomas R, Sims R, Degeling C, Street J, Carter S, Rychetnik L . CJCheck Stage 1: development and testing of a checklist for reporting community juries - Delphi process and analysis of studies published in 1996-2015. Health Expect. 2016; 20(4):626-637. PMC: 5513001. DOI: 10.1111/hex.12493. View

2.
Dunlop K, Rankin N, Smit A, Salgado Z, Newson A, Keogh L . Acceptability of risk-stratified population screening across cancer types: Qualitative interviews with the Australian public. Health Expect. 2021; 24(4):1326-1336. PMC: 8369084. DOI: 10.1111/hex.13267. View

3.
Meisel S, Rahman B, Side L, Fraser L, Gessler S, Lanceley A . Genetic testing and personalized ovarian cancer screening: a survey of public attitudes. BMC Womens Health. 2016; 16:46. PMC: 4962369. DOI: 10.1186/s12905-016-0325-3. View

4.
Rychetnik L, Doust J, Thomas R, Gardiner R, Mackenzie G, Glasziou P . A Community Jury on PSA screening: what do well-informed men want the government to do about prostate cancer screening--a qualitative analysis. BMJ Open. 2014; 4(4):e004682. PMC: 4010814. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-004682. View

5.
Marcus P, Pashayan N, Church T, Doria-Rose V, Gould M, Hubbard R . Population-Based Precision Cancer Screening: A Symposium on Evidence, Epidemiology, and Next Steps. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2016; 25(11):1449-1455. PMC: 5165650. DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-16-0555. View