Dutch, UK and US professionals perceptions of screening for Barretts esophagus and esophageal adenocarcinoma: a concept mapping study.
BACKGROUND: Novel, less-invasive technologies to screen for Barretts esophagus (BE) may enable a paradigm shift in early detection strategies for esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). Understanding professionals perspectives on screening is important to determine how to proceed. We aimed to explore and compare professionals perceptions of screening for BE and EAC screening in three countries. METHODS: In this study, 29 Dutch, 20 British and 18 American health care professionals (clinicians, researchers and policy makers) participated in concept mapping: a mixed-methods consensus building methodolog... Mehr ...
Verfasser: | |
---|---|
Dokumenttyp: | Artikel |
Erscheinungsdatum: | 2023 |
Reihe/Periodikum: | BMC Cancer, vol 23, iss 1 |
Verlag/Hrsg.: |
eScholarship
University of California |
Schlagwörter: | Barrett’s esophagus / Early cancer diagnosis / Esophageal adenocarcinoma / Physician’s practice patterns / Screening / Humans / Barrett Esophagus / Esophageal Neoplasms / Adenocarcinoma / United Kingdom |
Sprache: | unknown |
Permalink: | https://search.fid-benelux.de/Record/base-27010637 |
Datenquelle: | BASE; Originalkatalog |
Powered By: | BASE |
Link(s) : | https://escholarship.org/uc/item/61f614hw |
BACKGROUND: Novel, less-invasive technologies to screen for Barretts esophagus (BE) may enable a paradigm shift in early detection strategies for esophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC). Understanding professionals perspectives on screening is important to determine how to proceed. We aimed to explore and compare professionals perceptions of screening for BE and EAC screening in three countries. METHODS: In this study, 29 Dutch, 20 British and 18 American health care professionals (clinicians, researchers and policy makers) participated in concept mapping: a mixed-methods consensus building methodology. Statements on perceived barriers, facilitators, advantages, disadvantages, implications or worries associated with screening for BE and EAC were collected in asynchronous digital brainstorm sessions. Subsequently, participants sorted the statements into groups according to thematic similarity and assessed the relevance of each statement in evaluating the acceptability of BE and EAC screening. Multidimensional scaling and cluster analysis were used to map the associations between generated statements. RESULTS: Professionals across three countries identified eight consistent themes that relate to their perceptions of screening for BE and EAC: (1) Benefits, (2) Harms, (3) Clinical effectiveness concerns, (4) Screening population, (5) Screening modality, (6) Resources, (7) Ownership, and (8) Public communication. Dutch and American professionals prioritized the potential health benefits of screening but also questioned clinical impact. In contrast, British participants prioritized identification of the screening population and suitable test. CONCLUSIONS: Most professionals see potential in less-invasive screening tests for BE and EAC but underline the need to define the target screening population and determine benefits and harms before widely employing them. Successful implementation will require thoughtful consideration of the involvement of general practitioners, readiness of endoscopy and pathology services, balanced ...