Barriers to cascade screening in people at risk of Thoracic Aortic Disease: a mixed methods evaluation from the DECIDE-TAD initiative
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Cascade genetic and imaging screening for relatives of people with non-syndromic thoracic aortic diseases (NS-TAD) is recommended by guidelines. However, the availability and uptake of cascade screening is low. The aim of this study was to use applied health research methods to identify barriers to screening, and strategies to overcome these. Methods A cohort study using routinely collected health data evaluated barriers to imaging, genetic testing, and treatment for people with NS-TAD. Delphi consensus exercises and workshops evaluated the screening process and patient experience. Focus groups considered strategies to overcome individual and institutional barriers to uptake. A consensus exercise evaluated the evidence to support cascade screening. Results A cohort study of 33,793 patients with a TAD diagnosis between 2013 and 2018 demonstrated barriers to treatment and imaging surveillance in females, non-whites, and people from-low socioeconomic backgrounds. A survey of aortic dissection survivors and relatives in England reported that 33/70 (47%) of aortic dissection survivors who responded had undergone genetic testing, including 10/22 (45%) with a positive family history of TAD. In first- and second-degree relatives 66/150 (44%) and 32/155 (21%) of respondents were offered imaging or cascade genetic testing respectively. Only 19/70 (27%) probands and 20/155 (13%) relatives who responded reported that they were involved in shared decisions about their care. Barriers to the uptake of cascade screening included limited awareness of the disease and genetic aetiology, poor health literacy, concerns about cost-effectiveness of screening with low detection rates, requirements for life-long surveillance, and the management of uncertain test results. The consensus exercise demonstrated that the certainty of the evidence to guide cascade screening was Low or Very Low. Conclusions Barriers to the implementation of cascade screening in people at high-risk for TAD occur at multiple levels suggesting that a complex intervention is required to improve equity of access.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.123 | 0.111 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.010 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".