Improving the Communication of Multifactorial Cancer Risk Assessment Results for Different Audiences: a Co-design Process

Overview

Journal J Community Genet

Publisher Springer

Specialty Health Services

Date 2024 Sep 25

PMID 39320563

Authors

Francisca Stutzin Donoso

Tim Carver

Lorenzo Ficorella

Nichola Fennell

Antonis C Antoniou

Douglas F Easton

Marc Tischkowitz

Fiona M Walter

Juliet A Usher-Smith

Stephanie Archer

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Background: Multifactorial cancer risk prediction tools, such as CanRisk, are increasingly being incorporated into routine healthcare. Understanding risk information and communicating risk is challenging and healthcare professionals rely substantially on the outputs of risk prediction tools to communicate results. This work aimed to produce a new CanRisk report so users can directly access key information and communicate risk estimates effectively.

Methods: Over a 13-month period, we led an 8-step co-design process with patients, the public, and healthcare professionals. Steps comprised 1) think aloud testing of the original CanRisk report; 2) structured feedback on the original report; 3) literature review; 4) development of a new report prototype; 5) first round of structured feedback; 6) updating the new report prototype; 7) second round of structured feedback; and 8) finalising and publishing the new CanRisk report.

Results: We received 56 sets of feedback from 34 stakeholders. Overall, the original CanRisk report was not suitable for patients and the public. Building on the feedback, the new report has an overview of the information presented: section one summarises key information for individuals; sections two and three present information for healthcare professionals in different settings. New features also include explanatory text, definitions, graphs, keys and tables to support the interpretation of the information.

Discussion: This co-design experience shows the value of collaboration for the successful communication of complex health information. As a result, the new CanRisk report has the potential to better support shared decision-making processes about cancer risk management across clinical settings.

References

Elo S, Kyngas H . The qualitative content analysis process. J Adv Nurs. 2008; 62(1):107-15. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x. View

Lee A, Mavaddat N, Cunningham A, Carver T, Ficorella L, Archer S . Enhancing the BOADICEA cancer risk prediction model to incorporate new data on , , updates to tumour pathology and cancer incidence. J Med Genet. 2022; 59(12):1206-1218. PMC: 9691826. DOI: 10.1136/jmedgenet-2022-108471. View

Carver T, Hartley S, Lee A, Cunningham A, Archer S, de Villiers C . CanRisk Tool-A Web Interface for the Prediction of Breast and Ovarian Cancer Risk and the Likelihood of Carrying Genetic Pathogenic Variants. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2020; 30(3):469-473. PMC: 7611188. DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-20-1319. View

Brigden T, Mitchell C, Redrup Hill E, Hall A . Ethical and legal implications of implementing risk algorithms for early detection and screening for oesophageal cancer, now and in the future. PLoS One. 2023; 18(10):e0293576. PMC: 10615292. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0293576. View

Julian-Reynier C, Welkenhuysen M, Hagoel L, Decruyenaere M, Hopwood P . Risk communication strategies: state of the art and effectiveness in the context of cancer genetic services. Eur J Hum Genet. 2003; 11(10):725-36. DOI: 10.1038/sj.ejhg.5201037. View

Woof V, McWilliams L, Howell A, Evans D, French D . How do women at increased risk of breast cancer make sense of their risk? An interpretative phenomenological analysis. Br J Health Psychol. 2023; 28(4):1169-1184. PMC: 10947456. DOI: 10.1111/bjhp.12678. View

Dorschner M, Amendola L, Shirts B, Kiedrowski L, Salama J, Gordon A . Refining the structure and content of clinical genomic reports. Am J Med Genet C Semin Med Genet. 2014; 166C(1):85-92. PMC: 4077592. DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.c.31395. View

Haga S, Mills R, Pollak K, Rehder C, Buchanan A, Lipkus I . Developing patient-friendly genetic and genomic test reports: formats to promote patient engagement and understanding. Genome Med. 2014; 6(7):58. PMC: 4254435. DOI: 10.1186/s13073-014-0058-6. View

Vargas C, Whelan J, Brimblecombe J, Allender S . Co-creation, co-design, co-production for public health - a perspective on definition and distinctions. Public Health Res Pract. 2022; 32(2). DOI: 10.17061/phrp3222211. View

10.

Lewis A, Perez E, Prince A, Flaxman H, Gomez L, Brockman D . Patient and provider perspectives on polygenic risk scores: implications for clinical reporting and utilization. Genome Med. 2022; 14(1):114. PMC: 9540716. DOI: 10.1186/s13073-022-01117-8. View

11.

Stuckey H, Williams J, Fan A, Rahm A, Green J, Feldman L . Enhancing genomic laboratory reports from the patients' view: A qualitative analysis. Am J Med Genet A. 2015; 167A(10):2238-43. PMC: 4744953. DOI: 10.1002/ajmg.a.37174. View

12.

Glanz K, Volpicelli K, Jepson C, Ming M, Schuchter L, Armstrong K . Effects of tailored risk communications for skin cancer prevention and detection: the PennSCAPE randomized trial. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2014; 24(2):415-21. PMC: 4323936. DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-14-0926. View

13.

Pal Choudhury P, Brook M, Hurson A, Lee A, Mulder C, Coulson P . Comparative validation of the BOADICEA and Tyrer-Cuzick breast cancer risk models incorporating classical risk factors and polygenic risk in a population-based prospective cohort of women of European ancestry. Breast Cancer Res. 2021; 23(1):22. PMC: 7885342. DOI: 10.1186/s13058-021-01399-7. View

14.

Lee A, Mavaddat N, Wilcox A, Cunningham A, Carver T, Hartley S . BOADICEA: a comprehensive breast cancer risk prediction model incorporating genetic and nongenetic risk factors. Genet Med. 2019; 21(8):1708-1718. PMC: 6687499. DOI: 10.1038/s41436-018-0406-9. View

15.

Archer S, Stutzin Donoso F, Carver T, Yue A, Cunningham A, Ficorella L . Exploring the barriers to and facilitators of implementing CanRisk in primary care: a qualitative thematic framework analysis. Br J Gen Pract. 2023; 73(733):e586-e596. PMC: 10285688. DOI: 10.3399/BJGP.2022.0643. View

16.

Archer S, de Villiers C, Scheibl F, Carver T, Hartley S, Lee A . Evaluating clinician acceptability of the prototype CanRisk tool for predicting risk of breast and ovarian cancer: A multi-methods study. PLoS One. 2020; 15(3):e0229999. PMC: 7059924. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0229999. View

17.

Brockman D, Petronio L, Dron J, Kwon B, Vosburg T, Nip L . Design and user experience testing of a polygenic score report: a qualitative study of prospective users. BMC Med Genomics. 2021; 14(1):238. PMC: 8485114. DOI: 10.1186/s12920-021-01056-0. View

18.

Richter R, Jansen J, Bongaerts I, Damman O, Rademakers J, van der Weijden T . Communication of benefits and harms in shared decision making with patients with limited health literacy: A systematic review of risk communication strategies. Patient Educ Couns. 2023; 116:107944. DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2023.107944. View

19.

Recchia G, Chiappi A, Chandratillake G, Raymond L, Freeman A . Creating genetic reports that are understood by nonspecialists: a case study. Genet Med. 2019; 22(2):353-361. PMC: 7000324. DOI: 10.1038/s41436-019-0649-0. View

20.

Yang X, Eriksson M, Czene K, Lee A, Leslie G, Lush M . Prospective validation of the BOADICEA multifactorial breast cancer risk prediction model in a large prospective cohort study. J Med Genet. 2022; 59(12):1196-1205. PMC: 9691822. DOI: 10.1136/jmg-2022-108806. View