» Articles » PMID: 39243000

Acceptability of De-intensified Screening for Women at Low Risk of Breast Cancer: a Randomised Online Experimental Survey

Overview
Journal BMC Cancer
Publisher Biomed Central
Specialty Oncology
Date 2024 Sep 6
PMID 39243000
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

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.

References
1.
Mathioudakis A, Salakari M, Pylkkanen L, Saz-Parkinson Z, Bramesfeld A, Deandrea S . Systematic review on women's values and preferences concerning breast cancer screening and diagnostic services. Psychooncology. 2019; 28(5):939-947. PMC: 6594004. DOI: 10.1002/pon.5041. View

2.
Obermair H, Dodd R, Bonner C, Jansen J, McCaffery K . 'It has saved thousands of lives, so why change it?' Content analysis of objections to cervical screening programme changes in Australia. BMJ Open. 2018; 8(2):e019171. PMC: 5829885. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-019171. View

3.
Rainey L, van der Waal D, Donnelly L, Southworth J, French D, Evans D . Women's health behaviour change after receiving breast cancer risk estimates with tailored screening and prevention recommendations. BMC Cancer. 2022; 22(1):69. PMC: 8761310. DOI: 10.1186/s12885-022-09174-3. View

4.
Lippey J, Keogh L, Mann G, Campbell I, Forrest L . "A Natural Progression": Australian Women's Attitudes About an Individualized Breast Screening Model. Cancer Prev Res (Phila). 2019; 12(6):383-390. DOI: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-18-0443. View

5.
Guan Y, Haardorfer R, McBride C, Escoffery C, Lipscomb J . Testing Theory-Based Messages to Encourage Women at Average Risk for Breast Cancer to Consider Biennial Mammography Screening. Ann Behav Med. 2023; 57(9):696-707. DOI: 10.1093/abm/kaad018. View