Are We Choosing Wisely? Older Adults' Cancer Screening Intentions and Recalled Discussions with Physicians About Stopping

Breast cancer screening motivation and behaviours of women aged over 75 years

OBJECTIVE

In Australia, breast screening is offered free every two years to women aged 50-74 years. Women aged ≥75 are eligible to receive a free mammogram but do not receive an invitation. This study aimed to explore the motivations and behaviours of women living in Australia aged ≥75 years regarding ongoing breast cancer screening given the public health guidance.

METHODS

Sixty women aged ≥75 were recruited from metropolitan, regional, and rural areas across Australia to participate in a descriptive qualitative study. Semi-structured interviews were used to seek reflection on women's experience of screening, any advice they had received about screening beyond 75, their understanding of the value of screening and their intention to participate in the future. Thematic analysis of transcripts led to the development of themes.

RESULTS

Themes resulting from the study included: reasons to continue and discontinue screening, importance of inclusivity in the health system and availability of information. Regular screeners overwhelmingly wished to continue screening and had strong beliefs in the benefits of screening. Women received limited information about the benefits or harms of screening beyond age 75 and very few had discussed screening with their Primary Healthcare Provider. No longer receiving an invitation to attend screening impacted many women's decision-making.

CONCLUSION

More information via structured discussion with health professionals is required to inform women about the risks and benefits of ongoing screening. No longer being invited to attend screening left many women feeling confused and for some this led to feelings of discrimination.

A qualitative study of primary care clinician's approach to ending cervical cancer screening in older women in the United States

The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommends that cervical cancer screening end in average-risk patients with a cervix at 65 years of age if adequate screening measures have been met, defined as having 1) at least three normal consecutive cytology (Pap) tests, or 2) two normal cytology tests and/or two negative high-risk human papillomavirus tests between ages 55-65; the last test should be performed within the prior 5 years. Up to 60 % of all women aged 65 years and older who are ending screening do not meet the criteria for adequate screening. The objective of this study was to understand the process and approach that healthcare clinicians use to determine eligibility to end cervical cancer screening. In 2021 we conducted semi-structured interviews in San Francisco, CA with twelve healthcare clinicians: two family medicine physicians, three general internal medicine physicians, two obstetrician/gynecologists and five nurse practitioners. Thematic analysis, using inductive and deductive coding, was utilized. Three major themes emerged: following guidelines, relying on self-reported data regarding prior screening, and considering sexual activity as a factor in the decision to end screening. All interviewees endorsed following the USPSTF guidelines and they utilized self-report to determine eligibility to end screening. Clinicians' approach was dependent in part on their judgement about the reliability of the patient to convey their screening history. Sexual activity of the patient was considered when making clinical recommendations. Shared decision-making was often utilized. Clinicians voiced a strong reliance on self-reported screening history to end cervical cancer screening.

Patterns of Diagnostic Evaluation and Determinants of Treatment in Older Patients With Non-transfusion Dependent Myelodysplastic Syndromes

BACKGROUND

Older patients with myelodysplastic syndromes (MDS), particularly those with no or one cytopenia and no transfusion dependence, typically have an indolent course. Approximately, half of these receive the recommended diagnostic evaluation (DE) for MDS. We explored factors determining DE in these patients and its impact on subsequent treatment and outcomes.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We used 2011-2014 Medicare data to identify patients ≥66 years of age diagnosed with MDS. We used Classification and Regression Tree (CART) analysis to identify combinations of factors associated with DE and its impact on subsequent treatment. Variables examined included demographics, comorbidities, nursing home status, and investigative procedures performed. We conducted a logistic regression analysis to identify correlates associated with receipt of DE and treatment.

RESULTS

Of 16 851 patients with MDS, 51% underwent DE. patients with MDS with no cytopenia (n = 3908) had the lowest uptake of DE (34.7%). Compared to patients with no cytopenia, those with any cytopenia had nearly 3 times higher odds of receiving DE [adjusted odds ratio (AOR), 2.81: 95% CI, 2.60-3.04] and the odds were higher for men than for women [AOR, 1.39: 95%CI, 1.30-1.48] and for Non-Hispanic Whites [vs. everyone else (AOR, 1.17: 95% CI, 1.06-1.29)]. The CART showed DE as the principal discriminating node, followed by the presence of any cytopenia for receiving MDS treatment. The lowest percentage of treatment was observed in patients without DE, at 14.6%.

CONCLUSION

In this select older patients with MDS, we identified disparities in accurate diagnosis by demographic and clinical factors. Receipt of DE influenced subsequent treatment but not survival.

Incorporating Value-Based Decisions in Breast Cancer Treatment Algorithms

Given the excellent prognosis and availability of evidence-based treatment, patients with early-stage breast cancer are at risk of overtreatment. In this review, we summarize key opportunities to incorporate value-based decisions to optimize the delivery of high-value treatment across the breast cancer care continuum.

Perceived Barriers Among Clinicians and Older Adults Aged 65 and Older Regarding Use of Life Expectancy to Inform Cancer Screening: A Narrative Review and Comparison

While cancer screening guidelines increasingly recommend incorporating life expectancy estimates to inform screening decisions for older adults, little is known about how this happens in practice. This review summarizes current knowledge about primary care clinician and older adult (65+) perspectives about use of life expectancy to guide cancer screening decisions. Clinicians report operational barriers, uncertainty, and hesitation around use of life expectancy in screening decisions. They recognize it may help them more accurately weigh benefits and harms but are unsure how to estimate life expectancy for individual patients. Older adults face conceptual barriers and are generally unconvinced of the benefits of considering their life expectancy when making screening decisions. Life expectancy will always be a difficult topic for clinicians and patients, but there are advantages to incorporating it in cancer screening decisions. We highlight key takeaways from both clinician and older adult perspectives to guide future research.

Mirror, mirror on the wall, when are inequalities higher, after all? Analysis of breast and cervical cancer screening in 30 European countries

Screening for breast and cervical cancer is strongly related with a reduction in cancer mortality but previous evidence has found socioeconomic inequalities in screening. Using up-to-date data from the second wave of the European Health Interview Survey (2013-2015), this study aims to analyse income-related inequalities in mammography screening and Pap smear test in 30 European countries. We propose a framework that combines age group and screening interval, identifying situations of due-, under-, and over-screening. Coverage rates, standard and generalised concentration indices are calculated. Overall, pro-rich inequalities in screening persist though there are varied combinations of prevalence of screening attendance and relative inequality across countries. Bulgaria and particularly Romania stand out with low coverage and high inequality. Some Baltic and Mediterranean countries also present less favourable figures on both accounts. In general, there are not marked differences between mammography and Pap smear test, for the recommended situation ('Due-screening'). 'Extreme under-screening' is concentrated among lower income quintiles in basically all countries analysed, for both screenings. These women, who never screened, are at risk of entering the group of 'Lost opportunity', once they reach the upper-limit age of the target group. At the same time, there are signals of 'Over-screening', within target group, due to screening more frequently than recommended. In several countries, 'Over-screening' seems to be concentrated among richer women. This is not only a waste of resources, but it can also cause harms. The inequalities found in 'Extreme under-screening' and 'Over-screening' raise concerns on whether women are making informed choices.

Why do people take part in atrial fibrillation screening? Qualitative interview study in English primary care

OBJECTIVES

There is insufficient evidence to support national screening programmes for atrial fibrillation (AF). Nevertheless, some practitioners, policy-makers and special interest groups have encouraged introduction of opportunistic screening in primary care in order to reduce the incidence of stroke through earlier detection and treatment of AF. The attitudes of the public towards AF screening are unknown. We aimed to explore why AF screening participants took part in the screening.

DESIGN

Semistructured longitudinal interview study of participant engagement in the SAFER study (Screening for Atrial Fibrillation with ECG to Reduce stroke). We undertook initial interviews face to face, with up to two follow-up telephone interviews during the screening process. We thematically analysed and synthesised these data to understand shared views of screening participation.

SETTING

5 primary care practices in the East of England, UK.

PARTICIPANTS

23 people taking part in the SAFER study first feasibility phase.

RESULTS

Participants were supportive of screening for AF, explaining their participation in screening as a 'good thing to do'. Participants suggested screening could facilitate earlier diagnosis, more effective treatment, and a better future outcome, despite most being unfamiliar with AF. Participating in AF screening helped attenuate participants' concerns about stroke and demonstrated their commitment to self-care and being a 'good patient'. Participants felt that the screening test was non-invasive, and they were unlikely to have AF; they therefore considered engaging in AF screening was low risk, with few perceived harms.

CONCLUSIONS

Participants assessed the SAFER AF screening programme to be a legitimate, relevant and safe screening opportunity, and complied obediently with what they perceived to be a recommendation to take part. Their unreserved acceptance of screening benefit and lack of awareness of potential harms suggests that uptake would be high but reinforces the importance of ensuring participants receive balanced information about AF screening initiatives.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN16939438; Pre-results.

Patient-Reported Factors Associated With Older Adults' Cancer Screening Decision-making: A Systematic Review

IMPORTANCE

Decisions for older adults (aged ≥65 years) and their clinicians about whether to continue to screen for cancer are not easy. Many older adults who are frail or have limited life expectancy or comorbidities continue to be screened for cancer despite guidelines suggesting they should not; furthermore, many older adults have limited knowledge of the potential harms of continuing to be screened.

OBJECTIVE

To summarize the patient-reported factors associated with older adults' decisions regarding screening for breast, prostate, colorectal, and cervical cancer.

EVIDENCE REVIEW

Studies were identified by searching databases from January 2000 to June 2020 and were independently assessed for inclusion by 2 authors. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment were independently conducted by 2 authors, and then all decisions were cross-checked and discussed where necessary. Data analysis was performed from September to December 2020.

FINDINGS

The search yielded 2475 records, of which 21 unique studies were included. Nine studies were quantitative, 8 were qualitative, and 4 used mixed method designs. Of the 21 studies, 17 were conducted in the US, and 10 of 21 assessed breast cancer screening decisions only. Factors associated with decision-making were synthesized into 5 categories: demographic, health and clinical, psychological, physician, and social and system. Commonly identified factors associated with the decision to undergo screening included personal or family history of cancer, positive screening attitudes, routine or habit, to gain knowledge, friends, and a physician's recommendation. Factors associated with the decision to forgo screening included being older, negative screening attitudes, and desire not to know about cancer. Some factors had varying associations, including insurance coverage, living in a nursing home, prior screening experience, health problems, limited life expectancy, perceived cancer risk, risks of screening, family, and a physician's recommendation to stop.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Although guidelines suggest incorporating life expectancy and health status to inform older adults' cancer screening decisions, older adults' ingrained beliefs about screening may run counter to these concepts. Communication strategies are needed that support older adults to make informed cancer screening decisions by addressing underlying screening beliefs in context with their perceived and actual risk of developing cancer.

Learning from the "tail end" of de-implementation: the case of chemical castration for localized prostate cancer

BACKGROUND

Men with prostate cancer are often treated with the suppression of testosterone through long-acting injectable drugs termed chemical castration or androgen deprivation therapy (ADT). In most cases, ADT is not an appropriate treatment for localized prostate cancer, indicating low-value care. Guided by the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF) and the Behavior Change Wheel's Capability, Opportunity, Motivation Model (COM-B), we conducted a qualitative study to identify behavioral determinants of low-value ADT use to manage localized prostate cancer, and theory-based opportunities for de-implementation strategy development.

METHODS

We used national cancer registry and administrative data from 2016 to 2017 to examine the variation in low-value ADT use across Veterans Health Administration facilities. Using purposive sampling, we selected high- and low-performing sites to conduct 20 urology provider interviews regarding low-value ADT. We coded transcripts into TDF domains and mapped content to the COM-B model to generate a conceptual framework for addressing low-value ADT practices.

RESULTS

Our interview findings reflected provider perspectives on prescribing ADT as low-value localized prostate cancer treatment, including barriers and facilitators to de-implementing low-value ADT. We characterized providers as belonging in 1 of 3 categories with respect to low-value ADT use: 1) never prescribe 2); willing, under some circumstances, to prescribe: and 3) prescribe as an acceptable treatment option. Provider capability to prescribe low-value ADT depended on their knowledge of localized prostate cancer treatment options (knowledge) coupled with interpersonal skills to engage patients in educational discussion (skills). Provider opportunity to prescribe low-value ADT centered on the environmental resources to inform ADT decisions (e.g., multi-disciplinary review), perceived guideline availability, and social roles and influences regarding ADT practices, such as prior training. Provider motivation involved goals of ADT use, including patient preferences, beliefs in capabilities/professional confidence, and beliefs about the consequences of prescribing or not prescribing ADT.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of the TDF domains and the COM-B model enabled us to conceptualize provider behavior with respect to low-value ADT use and clarify possible areas for intervention to effect de-implementation of low-value ADT prescribing in localized prostate cancer.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov , NCT03579680.

Factors Associated With Low-Value Cancer Screenings in the Veterans Health Administration

IMPORTANCE

Most clinical practice guidelines recommend stopping cancer screenings when risks exceed benefits, yet low-value screenings persist. The Veterans Health Administration focuses on improving the value and quality of care, using a patient-centered medical home model that may affect cancer screening behavior.

OBJECTIVE

To understand rates and factors associated with outpatient low-value cancer screenings.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

This cohort study assessed the receipt of low-value cancer screening and associated factors among 5 993 010 veterans. Four measures of low-value cancer screening defined by validated recommendations of practices to avoid were constructed using administrative data. Patients with cancer screenings in 2017 at Veterans Health Administration primary care clinics were included. Excluded patients had recent symptoms or historic high-risk diagnoses that may affect test appropriateness (eg, melena preceding colonoscopy). Data were analyzed from December 23, 2019, to June 21, 2021.

EXPOSURES

Receipt of cancer screening test.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

Low-value screenings were defined as occurring for average-risk patients outside of guideline-recommended ages or if the 1-year mortality risk estimated using a previously validated score was at least 50%. Factors evaluated in multivariable regression models included patient, clinician, and clinic characteristics and patient-centered medical home domain performance for team-based care, access, and continuity previously developed from administrative and survey data.

RESULTS

Of 5 993 010 veterans (mean [SD] age, 63.1 [16.8] years; 5 496 976 men [91.7%]; 1 027 836 non-Hispanic Black [17.2%] and 4 539 341 non-Hispanic White [75.7%] race and ethnicity) enrolled in primary care, 903 612 of 4 647 479 men of average risk (19.4%) underwent prostate cancer screening; 299 765 of 5 770 622 patients of average risk (5.2%) underwent colorectal cancer screening; 21 930 of 469 045 women of average risk (4.7%) underwent breast cancer screening; and 65 511 of 458 086 women of average risk (14.3%) underwent cervical cancer screening. Of patients screened, low-value testing was rare for 3 cancers, with receipt of a low-value test in 633 of 21 930 of women screened for breast cancer (2.9%), 630 of 65 511 of women screened for cervical cancer (1.0%), and 6790 of 299 765 of patients screened for colorectal cancer (2.3%). However, 350 705 of 4 647 479 of screened men (7.5%) received a low-value prostate cancer test. Patient race and ethnicity, sociodemographic factors, and illness burden were significantly associated with likelihood of receipt of low-value tests among screened patients. No single patient-, clinician-, or clinic-level factor explained the receipt of a low-value test across cancer screening cohorts.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

This large cohort study found that low-value breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screenings were rare in the Veterans Health Administration, but more than one-third of patients screened for prostate cancer were tested outside of clinical practice guidelines. Guideline-discordant care has quality implications and is not consistently explained by associated multilevel factors.

Formal and informal social participation and elder mistreatment in a national sample of older adults

BACKGROUND/OBJECTIVES

Older adults' susceptibility to mistreatment may be affected by their participation in social activities, but little is known about relationships between social participation and elder mistreatment.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional analysis.

SETTING/PARTICIPANTS

National probability sample of older community-dwelling U.S. adults interviewed in 2015-2016, including 1268 women and 973 men (mean age 75 years and 76 years, respectively; 82% non-Hispanic white).

MEASUREMENTS

Frequency of participation in formal activities (organized meetings, religious services, and volunteering) and informal social activities (visiting friends and family) was assessed by questionnaire. Elder mistreatment included emotional (four items), physical (two items), and financial mistreatment (two items) since age 60. Multivariable logistic regression examined associations between each type of social participation and elder mistreatment among men and women, adjusting for age, race/ethnicity, education, and comorbidity.

RESULTS

Forty percent of women and 22% of men reported at least one form of mistreatment (emotional, physical, or financial). Women reporting at least monthly engagement in formal social activities were more likely to report emotional mistreatment (adjusted odds ratio (AOR) 1.59, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.09-2.33). Among men, monthly organized meeting attendance was associated with increased odds of emotional mistreatment (AOR 1.34, 95% CI 1.01-1.93). Weekly informal socializing was inversely associated with emotional mistreatment (AOR 0.59, 95% CI 0.44-0.78) and financial mistreatment (AOR 0.59, 95% CI 0.42-0.85) among women.

CONCLUSION

In this national cohort, older adults who were frequently engaged in formal social activities reported similar or higher levels of mistreatment than those with less frequent organized social participation. Older women with regular informal contact with family or friends were less likely to report some kinds of mistreatment. Strategies for detecting and mitigating elder mistreatment should consider differences in patterns of formal and informal social participation and their potential contribution to mistreatment risk.

Personalising lung cancer screening: An overview of risk-stratification opportunities and challenges

Randomised clinical trials have shown the efficacy of computed tomography lung cancer screening, initiating discussions on whether and how to implement population‐based screening programs. Due to smoking behaviour being the primary risk‐factor for lung cancer and part of the criteria for determining screening eligibility, lung cancer screening is inherently risk‐based. In fact, the selection of high‐risk individuals has been shown to be essential in implementing lung cancer screening in a cost‐effective manner. Furthermore, studies have shown that further risk‐stratification may improve screening efficiency, allow personalisation of the screening interval and reduce health disparities. However, implementing risk‐based lung cancer screening programs also requires overcoming a number of challenges. There are indications that risk‐based approaches can negatively influence the trade‐off between individual benefits and harms if not applied thoughtfully. Large‐scale implementation of targeted, risk‐based screening programs has been limited thus far. Consequently, questions remain on how to efficiently identify and invite high‐risk individuals from the general population. Finally, while risk‐based approaches may increase screening program efficiency, efficiency should be balanced with the overall impact of the screening program. In this review, we will address the opportunities and challenges in applying risk‐stratification in different aspects of lung cancer screening programs, as well as the balance between screening program efficiency and impact.

Primary care provider perspectives on screening mammography in older women: A qualitative study

Objective

Guidelines informing screening mammography for older women are lacking. This study sought to characterize PCP perspectives on screening mammography for patients aged 75 and older.

Methods

This was an exploratory, qualitative study based on semi-structured, one-on-one interviews with PCPs from six clinics affiliated with a tertiary medical center. Two independent coders analyzed interview transcripts and identified themes, subthemes, and representative quotes using inductive analysis methodology.

Results

Ten providers completed interviews. The majority (90%) of providers reported insufficient evidence to suggest a best practice for screening in this population. Providers relied on shared decision-making with patients, a process facilitated by strong provider-patient relationships. Providers took into consideration factors such as functional status, personal risk of breast cancer, and patient preference. Time constraints disincentivized providers to engage in discussions.

Conclusions

PCPs make decisions about screening mammography for older patients on an individualized basis, taking into account patient overall health status and desire for aggressive intervention. They often rely on shared decision-making given unclear clinical guidelines.

Practice implications

These findings suggest that fostering strong provider-patient relationships, addressing patient knowledge gaps, and compensating providers for time spent on counseling may facilitate cost-efficient and patient-centered utilization of screening mammography.

Cancer Screening in Older Adults: Individualized Decision-Making and Communication Strategies

Cancer screening decisions in older adults can be complex due to the unclear cancer-specific mortality benefits of screening and several known harms including false positives, overdiagnosis, and procedural complications from downstream diagnostic interventions. In this review, we provide a framework for individualized cancer screening decisions among older adults, involving accounting for overall health and life expectancy, individual values, and the risks and benefits of specific cancer screening tests. We then discuss strategies for effective communication of recommendations during clinical visits that are considered more effective, easy to understand, and acceptable by older adults and clinicians.

Examining Older Adults' Attitudes and Perceptions of Cancer Screening and Overscreening: A Qualitative Study

Introduction/Objectives:

Screening guidelines for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer (CRC) are less clear for older adults due to the potential harms that may result from screening. Understanding older adults’ attitudes and perceptions, especially racial/ethnic minority and underserved adults, of cancer screening can help health care providers determine how best to communicate with older adults about cancer screening and screening cessation. The objective of this study was to determine how older adults primarily from minority/underserved backgrounds perceive cancer screening and overscreening.

Methods:

Four focus groups (n = 39) were conducted with adults (>=65 years of age) in 3 community settings in south-central Pennsylvania. Two focus groups were conducted in Spanish and translated to English upon transcription. Focus group data was managed and analyzed using QSR NVivo 12. Inductive thematic analysis was used to analyze the data where themes emerged following the coding process.

Results:

The focus group participants had an average age of 74 years and were primarily female (74%) and Hispanic (69%), with 69% reporting having less than a high school degree. Four key themes were identified from the focus groups: (1) importance of tailored and targeted education/information; (2) impact of physician/patient communication; (3) impact of barriers and facilitators to screening on cancer screening cessation; and (4) awareness of importance of screening. Participants were more likely to be agreeable to screening cessation if they received specific information regarding their health status and previous medical history from their physician as to why screening should be stopped and told by their physician that the screening decision is up to them.

Conclusions:

Older adults prefer individualized information from their physician in order to justify screening cessation but are against incorporating life expectancy into the discussion. Future research should focus on developing interventions to test the effectiveness of culturally tailored screening cessation messages for older adults.

Cancer Screening Among Older Adults: a Geriatrician's Perspective on Breast, Cervical, Colon, Prostate, and Lung Cancer Screening

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

We summarize the evidence of benefits, harms, and tools to assist in individualized decisions among older adults in screening for breast, prostate, colon, lung, and cervical cancer.

RECENT FINDINGS

The benefits of cancer screening in older adults remain unclear due to minimal inclusion of adults > 75 years old in most randomized controlled trials. Indirect evidence suggests that the benefits of screening seen in younger adults (< 70 years old) can be extrapolated to older adults when they have an estimated life expectancy of at least 10 years. However, older adults, especially those with limited life expectancy, may be at increased risk for experiencing harms of screening, including overdiagnosis of clinically unimportant diseases, complications from diagnostic procedures, and distress after false positive test results. We provide a framework to integrate key factors such as health status, risks and benefits of specific tests, and patient preferences to guide clinicians in cancer screening decisions in older adults.

Effect of different communication strategies about stopping cancer screening on screening intention and cancer anxiety: a randomised online trial of older adults in Australia

OBJECTIVE

To assess different strategies for communicating to older adults about stopping cancer screening.

DESIGN

4 (recommendation statement about stopping screening)×(2; time) online survey-based randomised controlled trial.

SETTING

Australia.

PARTICIPANTS

271 English-speaking participants, aged 65-90, screened for breast/prostate cancer at least once in past decade.

INTERVENTIONS

Time 1: participants read a scenario in which their general practitioner (GP) informed them about the potential benefits and harms of cancer screening, followed by double-blinded randomisation to one of four recommendation statements to stop screening: control ('this screening test would harm you more than benefit you'), health status ('your other health issues should take priority'), life expectancy framed positively ('this test would not help you live longer') and negatively ('you may not live long enough to benefit'). Time 2: in a follow-up scenario, the GP explained why guidelines changed over time (anchoring bias intervention).

MEASURES

Primary outcomes: screening intention and cancer anxiety (10-point scale, higher=greater intention/anxiety), measured at both time points.

SECONDARY OUTCOMES

trust (in their GP, the information provided, the Australian healthcare system), decisional conflict and knowledge of the information presented.

RESULTS

271 participants' responses analysed. No main effects were found. However, screening intention was lower for the negatively framed life expectancy versus health status statement (6.0 vs 7.1, mean difference (MD)=1.1, p=0.049, 95% CI 0.0 to 2.2) in post hoc analyses. Cancer anxiety was lower for the negatively versus positively framed life expectancy statement (4.8 vs 5.8, MD=1.0, p=0.025, 95% CI 0.1 to 1.9). The anchoring bias intervention reduced screening intention (MD=0.8, p=0.044, 95% CI 0.6 to 1.0) and cancer anxiety (MD=0.3, p=0.002, 95% CI 0.1 to 0.4) across all conditions.

CONCLUSION

Older adults may reduce their screening intention without reporting increased cancer anxiety when clinicians use a more confronting strategy communicating they may not live long enough to benefit and add an explicit explanation why the recommendation has changed.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12618001306202; Results).