25 research outputs found
How does genetic risk information for Lynch syndrome translate to risk management behaviours?
Background There is limited research on why some individuals who have undergone predictive genetic testing for Lynch syndrome do not adhere to screening recommendations. This study aimed to explore qualitatively how Lynch syndrome non-carriers and carriers translate genetic risk information and advice to decisions about risk managment behaviours in the Australian healthcare system. Methods Participants of the Australasian Colorectal Cancer Family Registry who had undergone predictive genetic testing for Lynch syndrome were interviewed on their risk management behaviours. Transcripts were analysed thematically using a comparative coding analysis. Results Thirty-three people were interviewed. Of the non-carriers (n = 16), 2 reported having apparently unnecessary colonoscopies, and 6 were unsure about what population-based colorectal cancer screening entails. Of the carriers (n = 17), 2 reported they had not had regular colonoscopies, and spoke about their discomfort with the screening process and a lack of faith in the procedure’s ability to reduce their risk of developing colorectal cancer. Of the female carriers (n = 9), 2 could not recall being informed about the associated risk of gynaecological cancers. Conclusion Non-carriers and female carriers of Lynch syndrome could benefit from further clarity and advice about appropriate risk management options. For those carriers who did not adhere to colonoscopy screening, a lack of faith in both genetic test results and screening were evident. It is essential that consistent advice is offered to both carriers and non-carriers of Lynch syndrome
How do individuals decide whether to accept or decline an offer of genetic testing for colorectal cancer?
What can We Learn From High-Performing Screening Programs to Increase Bowel Cancer Screening Participation in Australia?
Funding Information: This work was supported by the University of Melbourne, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, Human Ethics Advisory Group. Project title: “Consultation to understand international differences in bowel cancer screening participation,” ID 2057312.1 Funding Information: The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by Engagement Research Funding from the Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia. Publisher Copyright: © The Author(s) 2022.Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most diagnosed cancer in men and women and second most common cause of cancer death in Australia; Australia’s CRC incidence and mortality are among the world’s highest. The Australian National Bowel Cancer Screening Program began in 2006; however, only 33% of those approached for the first time by the Program between 2018 and 2019 returned the kit. Of the 5.7 million kits sent during this period, only 44% were returned. Our aim was to identify practices and features of national bowel cancer screening programs in countries with similar programs but higher screening participation, to identify potential interventions for optimising Australian CRC screening participation. Methods: We searched published and grey literature for CRC screening programs reporting at least 50% screening participation using postal invitation and free return of iFOBT home kits. Interviews were conducted with cancer registry staff and academic researchers, focused on participant and practitioner engagement in screening. Results: National programs in Netherlands, Scotland, Denmark, and Finland reported over 50% screening participation rates for all invitation rounds. Shared characteristics include small populations within small geographic areas relative to Australia; relatively high literacy; a one-sample iFOBT kit; national registration systems for population cancer screening research; and screening program research including randomised trials of program features. Conclusions: Apart from the one-sample kit, we identified no single solution to persistent Australian low uptake of screening. Research including randomised trials within the program promises to increase participation. Impact: This screening program comparison suggests that within-program intervention trials will lead to increased Australian screening participation.Peer reviewe
The use of a risk assessment and decision support tool (CRISP) compared with usual care in general practice to increase risk-stratified colorectal cancer screening: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.
BACKGROUND: Australia and New Zealand have the highest incidence rates of colorectal cancer worldwide. In Australia there is significant unwarranted variation in colorectal cancer screening due to low uptake of the immunochemical faecal occult blood test, poor identification of individuals at increased risk of colorectal cancer, and over-referral of individuals at average risk for colonoscopy. Our pre-trial research has developed a novel Colorectal cancer RISk Prediction (CRISP) tool, which could be used to implement precision screening in primary care. This paper describes the protocol for a phase II multi-site individually randomised controlled trial of the CRISP tool in primary care. METHODS: This trial aims to test whether a standardised consultation using the CRISP tool in general practice (the CRISP intervention) increases risk-appropriate colorectal cancer screening compared to control participants who receive standardised information on cancer prevention. Patients between 50 and 74 years old, attending an appointment with their general practitioner for any reason, will be invited into the trial. A total of 732 participants will be randomised to intervention or control arms using a computer-generated allocation sequence stratified by general practice. The primary outcome (risk-appropriate screening at 12 months) will be measured using baseline data for colorectal cancer risk and objective health service data to measure screening behaviour. Secondary outcomes will include participant cancer risk perception, anxiety, cancer worry, screening intentions and health service utilisation measured at 1, 6 and 12 months post randomisation. DISCUSSION: This trial tests a systematic approach to implementing risk-stratified colorectal cancer screening in primary care, based on an individual's absolute risk, using a state-of-the-art risk assessment tool. Trial results will be reported in 2020. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry, ACTRN12616001573448p . Registered on 14 November 2016
Expert Status and Performance
Expert judgements are essential when time and resources are stretched or we face novel dilemmas requiring fast solutions. Good advice can save lives and large sums of money. Typically, experts are defined by their qualifications, track record and experience [1], [2]. The social expectation hypothesis argues that more highly regarded and more experienced experts will give better advice. We asked experts to predict how they will perform, and how their peers will perform, on sets of questions. The results indicate that the way experts regard each other is consistent, but unfortunately, ranks are a poor guide to actual performance. Expert advice will be more accurate if technical decisions routinely use broadly-defined expert groups, structured question protocols and feedback
How does genetic risk information for Lynch syndrome translate to risk management behaviours?
Redefining expertise and improving ecological judgment
7 pagesExpert judgments are a necessary part of environmental management. Typically,
experts are defined by their qualifications, track record, professional
standing, and experience. We outline the limitations of conventional definitions
of expertise and describe how these requirements can sometimes exclude
people with useful knowledge. The frailties and biases in expert judgments
can interact with the social status afforded to experts to produce judgments
that are both unassailable and wrong. Several approaches may improve the
rigor of expert judgments; they include widening the set of experiences and
skills involved in deliberations, employing structured elicitation, and making
experts more accountable through testing and training. We outline the most
serious impediments to the routine deployment of these tools, and suggest
protocols that would overcome these hurdles
Screening participation predictors for people at familial risk of colorectal cancer: a systematic review
C1 - Journal Articles Referee
Facial Height and Breadth Relative to Dietary Consistency and Oral Breathing in Two Populations (North India and U.S.)
Differences in total facial height and in bigonial and midfacial breadths are compared in developing North Indian (Punjab) and central Kentucky groups, according to two specific etiologies for narrow or excessively long faces: oral breathing and dietary consistency. We find no differences due to diagnosed chronic oral breathing. On the other hand significant changes result from elevated chewing forces during growth in response to less processed food; the changes, however, vary from higher faces in Punjabis to shorter and broader faces in Kentuekians