Table 2 Factors mentioned by less than half of the respondents but valued important by A) evident risk for implementation, B) potential impact on patients or treatment, and C) relevance for research and development
No | Implementation factor | Na | Categories | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Theme: Patient-related factors | ||||
1 | Shared decision-making methods can be applied to support patients in decision-making | 4 | Provision of information | B, C |
2 | Clear information provision of supportive care by means of a patient navigator (i.e. specialized nurse) to help patients would be beneficial | 5 | Provision of information | A, B, C |
Theme: Organizational factors | ||||
3 | FDG-PET/CT to detect nodal status is not performed in all hospitals | 5 | Identification of patients | A, B |
4 | The indication for genetic screening is mostly focused on TNBC so there is a risk of missing BRCA2 mutations (mostly ER + disease and > 40 years) | 4 | Identification of patients | A, B |
5 | Data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry shows that not all eligible patients are identified | 5 | Identification of patients | A, B, C |
6 | Lack of focus on patients with ER/PR low tumors being referred | 2 | Referral of patients | A, B |
7 | The BRCA1-like test is “In-House” developed and thus not CE-marked and patented | 5 | BRCA1-like test | A, B, C |
Theme: Costs and socioeconomic factors | ||||
8 | Concerns about income continuity and employability of patients | 5 | Patient costs | B |