CanScreen5, a global repository for breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening programs

The CanScreen5 project is a global cancer screening data repository that aims to report the status and performance of breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening programs using a harmonized set of criteria and indicators. Data collected mainly from the Ministry of Health in each country underwent quality validation and ultimately became publicly available through a Web-based portal. Until September 2022, 84 participating countries reported data for breast (n = 57), cervical (n = 75) or colorectal (n = 51) cancer screening programs in the repository. Substantial heterogeneity was observed regarding program organization and performance. Reported screening coverage ranged from 1.7% (Bangladesh) to 85.5% (England, United Kingdom) for breast cancer, from 2.1% (Côte d’Ivoire) to 86.3% (Sweden) for cervical cancer, and from 0.6% (Hungary) to 64.5% (the Netherlands) for colorectal cancer screening programs. Large variability was observed regarding compliance to further assessment of screening programs and detection rates reported for precancers and cancers. A concern is lack of data to estimate performance indicators across the screening continuum. This underscores the need for programs to incorporate quality assurance protocols supported by robust information systems. Program organization requires improvement in resource-limited settings, where screening is likely to be resource-stratified and tailored to country-specific situations.</p

Do expert assessments converge? An exploratory case study of evaluating and managing a blood supply risk

Abstract Background Examining professional assessments of a blood product recall/withdrawal and its implications for risk and public health, the paper introduces ideas about perceptions of minimal risk and its management. It also describes the context of publicly funded blood transfusion in Canada and the withdrawal event that is the basis of this study. Methods Interviews with 45 experts from administration, medicine, blood supply, laboratory services and risk assessment took place using a multi-level sampling framework in the aftermath of the recall. These experts either directly dealt with the withdrawal or were involved in the management of the blood supply at the national level. Data from these interviews were coded in NVivo for analysis and interpretation. Analytically, data were interpreted to derive typifications to relate interview responses to risk management heuristics. Results While all those interviewed agreed on the importance of patient safety, differences in the ways in which the risk was contextualized and explicated were discerned. Risk was seen in terms of patient safety, liability or precaution. These different risk logics are illustrated by selected quotations. Conclusions Expert assessments did not fully converge and it is possible that these different risk logics and discourses may affect the risk management process more generally, although not necessarily in a negative way. Patient safety is not to be compromised but management of blood risk in publicly funded systems may vary. We suggest ways of managing blood risk using formal and safety case approaches.</p