Search

Background Multi-cancer early detection tests (MCEDs) have the potential to identify over 50 types of cancer from a blood sample, possibly transforming cancer screening paradigms. Studies on the safety and effectiveness of MCEDs are underway, but there is a paucity of research exploring public views on MCEDs. We sought to explore public perspectives and understanding on the use of MCEDs in patient care. Methods We conducted a cross-sectional, qualitative study using one-on-one, semi-structured interviews. Residents of the United States aged 45–70 years old were recruited through a survey panel and purposively sampled to maximize racial diversity. Interviews explored understanding of MCEDs and perspectives on their use. Interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis with deductive coding and semi-quantification. Results Among 27 participants, mean age was 62 years (range 48-70) and most (63%) were non-white. Most participants had completed at least one cancer screening (89%). Participants had a positive impression of MCEDs (85%) and found the concept easy to understand (88%). They were enthusiastic about the convenience of MCEDs (30%) and thought they would improve “cancer outcomes” by looking for multiple cancers (70%) and facilitating early detection (33%). Participants emphasized the need to balance these benefits against potential harms, including inaccuracy (96%), cost (92%), test-related anxiety (56%), and lack of evidence of effectiveness (22%). Participants favored that MCEDs be delivered in primary care (93%). Participants worried that the potential benefits of MCEDs might not be equitably distributed (44%). Conclusions Members of the US public in this study expressed an interest in using MCEDs but had concerns regarding cost, accuracy, and potential inequitable access to the tests. Findings suggest that MCEDs that are found to be safe and effective will be acceptable to patients as a part of primary care, and underscore public interest in improving this technology.

Background: Addressing the critical public health crisis of substance use disorder (SUD), this study evaluates the accuracy of SUD treatment search tools, such as FindTreatment.gov, to connect patients with appropriate care. Methods: To ensure geographic diversity, we randomly selected one state from four distinct US regions (Arizona, Florida, Massachusetts, Ohio) and then randomly selected counties of varying sizes (one large, two medium, three small) within each state using a random number generator. Contact information for practices was extracted from the tools and validated through phone calls. The primary outcome measures were exact accuracy rate (wherein all information was accurate) and functional accuracy rate (wherein enough information was provided to facilitate care establishment). Results: A total of 697 practices from within ten SUD treatment search tools were assessed. Accuracy of the ten SUD treatment search tools varied considerably, with exact accuracy rates ranging from 9.1 % to 76.0 % (mean: 56.0 %) and functional accuracy rates from 50.0 % to 92.0 % (mean: 82.8 %). National tools exhibited higher accuracy for both exact accuracy rate (66.3 % v. 49.0 %; p = 0.2864) and functional accuracy rate (83.8 % v. 82.2 %; p = 0.9148) than state tools, while privately funded tools demonstrated higher accuracy for both exact accuracy rates (66.8 % v. 48.9 %; p = 0.2008) and functional accuracy rates (83.8 % v. 82.2 %; p = 0.9148), but none of these differences were statistically significant. Conclusions: This study found that SUD treatment search tools commonly list inaccurate information, underscoring the need for systematic improvements in data management and validation practices.