Participation in bowel screening among men attending abdominal aortic aneurysm screening

Psychosocial Predictors of Colorectal Cancer Screening Intention: An Experiment on the Invitation Letter

BACKGROUND

In Italy, attendance rates for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening are suboptimal. The present work analysed cognitive and emotional predictors of CRC screening intention and tested an intervention on a real invitation letter to improve CRC screening intention, both directly and in interaction with the predictors of our model.

METHODS

Our model included variables from the theory of planned behaviour and the emotional barriers to bowel screening scale. We applied six changes to an invitation letter used in Italy to avoid the repetition of words like 'faeces', 'blood', or 'occult' and reduce the prompting of disgust. The 228 participants were randomly assigned to a between-participants design (original letter vs. manipulated letter).

RESULTS

Disgust hindered CRC screening intention, while embarrassment, fear, and subjective norms (i.e., perception of the social pressures to attend CRC screening) were not associated with intention to screen. More positive attitudes towards CRC screening were associated with a higher intention to screen. The positive association between perceived behavioural control and CRC screening intention was stronger for participants who read the letter with fewer (vs. more) references to bodily waste. Letter manipulation did not affect intention to screen.

CONCLUSIONS

The disgust associated with faecal matter is a critical factor in determining CRC screening attendance, and it should be acknowledged as such in public policies. Until new screening tests avoiding the activation of this emotional reaction are concretely available, public campaigns should improve CRC screening participation by boosting both positive attitudes towards screening and patients' perceived behavioural control.

Reasons people avoid colorectal cancer information: a mixed-methods study

OBJECTIVE

With screening, colorectal cancer can be detected when treatable, or even prevented. However, approximately one in five people tend to avoid colorectal cancer information, and avoidance is associated with being less likely to have been screened for the disease. Crucial to developing strategies to reduce information avoidance, we sought a comprehensive understanding of reasons people avoid colorectal cancer information.

METHODS AND MEASURES

In a mixed methods study, we surveyed 200 participants who varied with respect to avoidance and interviewed 15 people who tended to avoid colorectal cancer information (all aged 40-75) about reasons for avoiding.

RESULTS

In both survey and interviews, primary reasons for information avoidance were: (1) shielding from anxiety and other aversive emotion, (2) perceived information sufficiency and (3) feelings of information overload. Trait anxiety, fear of diagnosis, anticipating negative interactions with healthcare, and negative associations with screening procedures exacerbated avoidance. Participants justified information non-relevance by attributing risk to other people's characteristics such as family history, gastrointestinal symptoms, being male, or living an unhealthy lifestyle.

CONCLUSION

Novel findings include the triggering influence of trait anxiety and financial constraints on information avoidance. Also, information overload and incorrect understanding of risk factors may exacerbate perceptions of information sufficiency and avoidance.

The role of disgust as an emotional barrier to colorectal cancer screening participation: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Worldwide colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates are suboptimal. This systematic review and meta-analysis examine the role of disgust in CRC screening avoidance.

DESIGN

A systematic literature search was conducted. In all, 46 studies were included in the review. Among these, 16 studies were compared with a meta-analytical approach in order to 1) estimate the effect size of state disgust on screening intention and attendance; 2) examine whether methodological characteristics moderate the effect of state disgust on screening behaviour; 3) estimate the effect sizes of trait disgust and type of exam kit on state disgust.

RESULTS

In the reviewed studies, state disgust was often associated with CRC screening and especially with CRC screening avoidance. The meta-analysis confirmed low-to-moderate negative effects of state disgust on screening intention and attendance. Population sampling strategy was the only significant moderator of the effect of state disgust on screening attendance, i.e. studies that used convenience (versus random/representative) samples found a significantly lower effect size. Trait disgust and type of exam kit exerted a large and a moderate-to-large positive effect, respectively, on state disgust.

CONCLUSIONS

Disgust can boost CRC screening avoidance. Further studies and interventions must be designed to help patients in overcoming this emotional barrier.

What can We Learn From High-Performing Screening Programs to Increase Bowel Cancer Screening Participation in Australia?

Background

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most diagnosed cancer in men and women and second most common cause of cancer death in Australia; Australia’s CRC incidence and mortality are among the world’s highest. The Australian National Bowel Cancer Screening Program began in 2006; however, only 33% of those approached for the first time by the Program between 2018 and 2019 returned the kit. Of the 5.7 million kits sent during this period, only 44% were returned. Our aim was to identify practices and features of national bowel cancer screening programs in countries with similar programs but higher screening participation, to identify potential interventions for optimising Australian CRC screening participation.

Methods

We searched published and grey literature for CRC screening programs reporting at least 50% screening participation using postal invitation and free return of iFOBT home kits. Interviews were conducted with cancer registry staff and academic researchers, focused on participant and practitioner engagement in screening.

Results

National programs in Netherlands, Scotland, Denmark, and Finland reported over 50% screening participation rates for all invitation rounds. Shared characteristics include small populations within small geographic areas relative to Australia; relatively high literacy; a one-sample iFOBT kit; national registration systems for population cancer screening research; and screening program research including randomised trials of program features.

Conclusions

Apart from the one-sample kit, we identified no single solution to persistent Australian low uptake of screening. Research including randomised trials within the program promises to increase participation.

Impact

This screening program comparison suggests that within-program intervention trials will lead to increased Australian screening participation.

Emotional Barriers to Bowel Screening in Italy: Scale psychometric properties and effects on screening attendance

OBJECTIVE

To assess a three-factor version of the Emotional Barriers to Bowel Screening (EBBS) scale; analyze the scale's psychometric properties; and investigate the associations of fecal disgust, embarrassment, and fear with colorectal cancer (CRC) screening avoidance.

METHODS

Retrospective design: We asked participants to rate negative emotions associated with CRC screenings as well as whether they had ever attended a fecal occult blood test.

SAMPLE

268 Italian adults aged 45-74 years.

MEASURES

negative emotions, screening knowledge, CRC risk perception, demographic and background data, and hypothetical medical help-seeking.

ANALYSES

Confirmatory factor analyses, correlations, logistic regressions.

RESULTS

The EBBS scale is a multidimensional instrument and, at least where fecal tests are of interest, can be used without the insertion disgust subscale. The analyzed negative emotions were negatively correlated with screening attendance and positively correlated with intention to delay seeking medical help. However, logistic regression models showed that, of the three analyzed emotions, fear about outcome was the only significant predictor of screening behavior and delaying medical care.

CONCLUSIONS

Further studies can adopt the version of the EBBS scale that is most suitable for their research contexts. Interventions must be designed to reassure patients.

Management of Concomitant Abdominal Aortic Aneurysm and Intra-abdominal, Retroperitoneal Malignancy

BACKGROUND/AIM

As the population ages, there are increasing findings of coincidental diseases such as abdominal aortic aneurysm (AAA) and intra-abdominal, retroperitoneal malignancy. The aim of this study was to propose an optimal treatment procedure for these patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Over a twenty-year-period, surgery was performed on a total of 1,098 patients with AAA and 32 (2.9%) patients with AAA and intra-abdominal, retroperitoneal malignancy: 18 renal, 6 colorectal carcinomas, 3 carcinomas of the small intestine, 3 primary liver tumours, 1 stomach carcinoma and 1 teratoma. The median age of patients was 72.5 years, there were 20 men (62.5%) and 12 women (37.5%). A one-stage procedure was performed on 19 patients (59.4%), and a two-stage procedure on 13 (40.6%) patients.

RESULTS

The average time of hospitalization was 12.4±6.9 days (median=11.0 days) for one-stage procedure, for a two-stage procedure 21.3±9.3 days (median=20.0 days), p=0.0045. Seven patients (21.9%) died within 30 days after the operation. All the deaths were in the group of one-stage procedures (p=0.0252). The 1-, 3- and 5-year overall survival for patients following one-stage and twostage procedures was 61.0/56.3/51.5% and 89.0/79.9/53.0% respectively (p=0.1199).

CONCLUSION

Symptomatic disease must be resolved first. Two-stage procedures are the method of choice and offer better short-term results compared to one-stage procedures.