Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Dec;25(6):3287-3296.
doi: 10.1111/hex.13637. Epub 2022 Oct 28.

What are the views of three key stakeholder groups on extending the breast screening interval for low-risk women? A secondary qualitative analysis

Grace Taylor  1 , Lorna McWilliams  1   2 , Victoria G Woof  1 , D Gareth Evans  2   3   4   5 , David P French  1   2   4
Affiliations

What are the views of three key stakeholder groups on extending the breast screening interval for low-risk women? A secondary qualitative analysis

Grace Taylor et al. Health Expect. 2022 Dec.

Abstract

Introduction: There is increasing interest in risk-stratified breast screening, whereby the prevention and early detection offers vary by a woman's estimated risk of breast cancer. To date, more focus has been directed towards high-risk screening pathways rather than considering women at lower risk, who may be eligible for extended screening intervals. This secondary data analysis aimed to compare the views of three key stakeholder groups on how extending screening intervals for low-risk women should be implemented and communicated as part of a national breast screening programme.

Methods: Secondary data analysis of three qualitative studies exploring the views of distinct stakeholder groups was conducted. Interviews took place with 23 low-risk women (identified from the BC-Predict study) and 17 national screening figures, who were involved in policy-making and implementation. In addition, three focus groups and two interviews were conducted with 26 healthcare professionals. A multiperspective thematic analysis was conducted to identify similarities and differences between stakeholders.

Findings: Three themes were produced: Questionable assumptions about negative consequences, highlighting how other stakeholders lack trust in how women are likely to understand extended screening intervals; Preserving the integrity of the programme, centring on decision-making and maintaining a positive reputation of breast screening and Negotiating a communication pathway highlighting communication expectations and public campaign importance.

Conclusions: A risk-stratified screening programme should consider how best to engage women assessed as having a low risk of breast cancer to ensure mutual trust, balance the practicality of change whilst ensuring acceptability, and carefully develop multilevel inclusive communication strategies.

Patient and public contribution: The research within this paper involved patient/public contributors throughout including study design and materials input.

Keywords: breast cancer; interview; qualitative; risk estimation; screening; screening intervals.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

    1. Marmot MG, Altman DG, Cameron DA, Dewar JA, Thompson SG, Wilcox M. The benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review. Br J Cancer. 2013;108(11):2205‐2240. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Long H, Brooks JM, Harvie M, Maxwell A, French DP. How do women experience a false‐positive test result from breast screening? A systematic review and thematic synthesis of qualitative studies. Br J Cancer. 2019;121(4):351‐358. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Pashayan N, Antoniou AC, Ivanus U, et al. Personalized early detection and prevention of breast cancer: ENVISION consensus statement. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2020;17(11):687‐705. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Evans DG, Astley S, Stavrinos P, et al. Improvement in risk prediction, early detection and prevention of breast cancer in the NHS Breast Screening Programme and family history clinics: a dual cohort study. Prog Grants Appl Res. 2016;4:11. - PubMed
    1. Evans D, van Veen EM, Harkness EF, et al. Breast cancer risk stratification in women of screening age: incremental effects of adding mammographic density, polygenic risk, and a gene panel. Genet Med. 2022;24:1485‐1494. 10.1016/j.gim.2022.03.009 - DOI - PubMed

Publication types