Poster Presentation Clinical Oncology Society of Australia Annual Scientific Meeting 2024

A national cross-sectional survey of community and key informant views, attitudes and preferences for risk-tailored population-based melanoma screening (#420)

Kate LA Dunlop 1 2 , Amelia K Smit 1 2 , Rehana Abdus Salam 1 , Gillian Reyes-Marcelino 1 , Caroline Watts 1 , Rachael L Morton 3 , Nicole M Rankin 4 , Anne E Cust 1 2
  1. The Daffodil Centre, The University of Sydney, a joint venture with Cancer Council NSW, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
  2. Melanoma Institute Australia, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
  3. NHMRC Clinical Trials Centre, Health Economics and Health Technology Assessment, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia
  4. Evaluation and Implementation Science Unit, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Background: In Australia, skin checks primarily occur opportunistically, and are often consumer initiated. A risk-tailored, organised approach to skin cancer screening may reduce inequities and improve cost-effective quality care, and the Government has announced a Roadmap to build the evidence.

Aim: This study aimed to gather nationally representative and stakeholder views on the potential implementation of risk-tailored population melanoma screening.

Methods: From March to May 2024, an online questionnaire was completed by 74 key informants (policy experts, health professionals, researchers and consumer advocates) and 355 members of the community. Questions determined satisfaction with current melanoma early detection, risk assessment approaches, risk-tailored recommendations, research priorities, and open-ended items. Quantitative items were analysed descriptively, and content analysis was used for open-ended items.

Results: Only 25% (community) and 12% (key informants) were satisfied with the current situation of melanoma early detection. Comments highlighted concerns about current and potential future inequitable access to skin cancer early detection services, particularly for regional and remote areas, and health professional workforce availability. Most community participants and key informants agreed with an online questionnaire for the initial risk assessment (78%; 79% respectively), and total body photography as part of a screening examination was supported by the majority (87%; 75% respectively). For people at lower-than-average risk, 72% (community) and 62% (key informants) agreed with offering less frequent screening, however, only 12% and 36% respectively agreed with not offering routine screening to this group. Top priorities for future research included a screening trial of important outcomes and refining the diagnostic test for melanoma screening.

Conclusion: These findings of community and key informant views, attitudes and preferences will guide implementation strategies for a potential future risk-tailored melanoma screening program.