Interventions for improving uptake of population-based screening for colorectal cancer using fecal occult blood testing

Facilitators and barriers to participation in population-based colorectal cancer screening programme from the perspective of healthcare professionals: Qualitative research study

OBJECTIVE

High participation determines the success of colorectal cancer screening programmes in reducing incidence and mortality. The factors that determine participation must be studied from the perspective of professionals that implement the programme. The aim was to identify factors that facilitate or hinder the participation of the invited people in the bowel cancer screening programme of the Basque Country (Spain) from professional's perspective.

METHODS

Qualitative design based on individual interviews and focus groups. Thirty-eight primary care professionals who implement the programme participated (administrative staff, nurses and general practitioners). Thematic analysis was performed.

RESULTS

Professionals show high satisfaction with the programme, and they believe firmly in its benefits. Facilitators for participation include professionals' commitment to the programme, their previous positive experiences, their optimistic attitude towards the prognosis of cancer and their trust in the health system and accessibility. Barriers include invitees' lack of independence to make decisions, fear of a positive test result and patient vulnerability and labour mobility of the health professionals.

CONCLUSIONS

Professionals show a high degree of involvement and identify primary care is an appropriate place to carry out disease prevention. They identify the closeness to patients, the personal attitude and the characteristics of the health system as key factors that influence participation.

Valuing Healthcare Improvement: Implicit Norms, Explicit Normativity, and Human Agency

I argue that greater attention to human agency and normativity in both researching and practicing service improvement may be one strategy for enhancing improvement science, illustrating with examples from cancer screening. Improvement science tends to deliberately avoid explicit normativity, for paradigmatically coherent reasons. But there are good reasons to consider including explicit normativity in thinking about improvement. Values and moral judgements are central to social life, so an adequate account of social life must include these elements. And improvement itself is unavoidably normative: it assumes that things could and should be better than they are. I seek to show that normativity will always be implicated in the creation of evidence, the design of programs, the practice of healthcare, and in citizens' judgements about that care, and to make a case that engaging with this normativity is worthwhile.

Personalised risk communication for informed decision making about taking screening tests

BACKGROUND

There is a trend towards greater patient involvement in healthcare decisions. Although screening is usually perceived as good for the health of the population, there are risks associated with the tests involved. Achieving both adequate involvement of consumers and informed decision making are now seen as important goals for screening programmes. Personalised risk estimates have been shown to be effective methods of risk communication.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of personalised risk communication on informed decision making by individuals taking screening tests. We also assess individual components that constitute informed decisions.

SEARCH METHODS

Two authors searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL, The Cochrane Library, Issue 3, 2012), MEDLINE (OvidSP), EMBASE (OvidSP), CINAHL (EbscoHOST) and PsycINFO (OvidSP) without language restrictions. We searched from 2006 to March 2012. The date ranges for the previous searches were from 1989 to December 2005 for PsycINFO and from 1985 to December 2005 for other databases. For the original version of this review, we also searched CancerLit  and Science Citation Index (March 2001). We also reviewed the reference lists and conducted citation searches of included studies and other systematic reviews in the field, to identify any studies missed during the initial search.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials incorporating an intervention with a 'personalised risk communication element' for individuals undergoing screening procedures, and reporting measures of informed decisions and also cognitive, affective, or behavioural outcomes addressing the decision by such individuals, of whether or not to undergo screening.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently assessed each included trial for risk of bias, and extracted data. We extracted data about the nature and setting of interventions, and relevant outcome data. We used standard statistical methods to combine data using RevMan version 5, including analysis according to different levels of detail of personalised risk communication, different conditions for screening, and studies based only on high-risk participants rather than people at 'average' risk. 

MAIN RESULTS

We included 41 studies involving 28,700 people. Nineteen new studies were identified in this update, adding to the 22 studies included in the previous two iterations of the review. Three studies measured informed decision with regard to the uptake of screening following personalised risk communication as a part of their intervention. All of these three studies were at low risk of bias and there was strong evidence that the interventions enhanced informed decision making, although with heterogeneous results. Overall 45.2% (592/1309) of participants who received personalised risk information made informed choices, compared to 20.2% (229/1135) of participants who received generic risk information. The overall odds ratios (ORs) for informed decision were 4.48 (95% confidence interval (CI) 3.62 to 5.53 for fixed effect) and 3.65 (95% CI 2.13 to 6.23 for random effects). Nine studies measured increase in knowledge, using different scales. All of these studies showed an increase in knowledge with personalised risk communication. In three studies the interventions showed a trend towards more accurate risk perception, but the evidence was of poor quality. Four out of six studies reported non-significant changes in anxiety following personalised risk communication to the participants. Overall there was a small non-significant decrease in the anxiety scores. Most studies (32/41) measured the uptake of screening tests following interventions. Our results (OR 1.15 (95% CI 1.02 to 1.29)) constitute low quality evidence, consistent with a small effect, that personalised risk communication in which a risk score was provided (6 studies) or the participants were given their categorised risk (6 studies), increases uptake of screening tests. 

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

There is strong evidence from three trials that personalised risk estimates incorporated within communication interventions for screening programmes enhance informed choices. However the evidence for increasing the uptake of such screening tests with similar interventions is weak, and it is not clear if this increase is associated with informed choices. Studies included a diverse range of screening programmes. Therefore, data from this review do not allow us to draw conclusions about the best interventions to deliver personalised risk communication for enhancing informed decisions. The results are dominated by findings from the topic area of mammography and colorectal cancer. Caution is therefore required in generalising from these results, and particularly for clinical topics other than mammography and colorectal cancer screening.

An Overview of Colorectal Cancer Screening

Colorectal cancer ranks highly amongst all cancer sites in incidence and contributes to a substantial number of cancer related deaths in the United Kingdom. However, screening of average risk individuals has been shown to reduce both disease associated mortality and incidence. This paper provides an overview of both current and future screening methods for colorectal cancer, as well as current practice for screening in both average and high risk individuals.