Does information about risks and benefits improve the decision-making process in cancer screening - randomized study

Providing more balanced information on the harms and benefits of cervical cancer screening: A randomized survey among US and Norwegian women

•

Additional information did not impact intentions to participate in CC screening.

•

Additional information increased uncertainty to seek precancer treatment in Norway.

•

Women reported strong system-specific preferences for sources of information.

•

Having a prior Pap-test was an important predictor of intentions-to-participate.

•

Socioeconomic factors influenced follow-up intentions in the U.S. but not in Norway.

We aimed to identify how additional information about benefits and harms of cervical cancer (CC) screening impacted intention to participate in screening, what type of information on harms women preferred receiving, from whom, and whether it differed between two national healthcare settings. We conducted a survey that randomized screen-eligible women in the United States (n = 1084) and Norway (n = 1060) into four groups according to the timing of introducing additional information. We found that additional information did not significantly impact stated intentions-to-participate in screening or follow-up testing in either country; however, the proportion of Norwegian women stating uncertainty about seeking precancer treatment increased from 7.9% to 14.3% (p = 0.012). Women reported strong system-specific preferences for sources of information: Norwegians (59%) preferred it come from a national public health agency while Americans (59%) preferred it come from a specialist care provider. Regression models revealed having a prior Pap-test was the most important predictor of intentions-to-participate in both countries, while having lower income reduced the probabilities of intentions-to-follow-up and seek precancer treatment among U.S. women. These results suggest that additional information on harms is unlikely to reduce participation in CC screening but could increase decision uncertainty to seek treatment. Providing unbiased information would improve on the ethical principle of respect for autonomy and self-determination. However, the clinical impact of additional information on women’s understanding of the trade-offs involved with CC screening should be investigated. Future studies should also consider country-specific socioeconomic barriers to screening if communication re-design initiatives aim to improve CC screening participation.

Effects of relaxation on self-esteem of patients with cancer: a randomized clinical trial

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Cancer is usually associated with decreased self-esteem. Relaxation is one of the most effective methods to promote self-esteem of patients with chronic diseases. Hence, the present study aimed to investigate the effects of relaxation on self-esteem of patients with cancer.

METHODS

This randomized clinical trial was conducted on 80 patients with cancer. The samples were selected by convenience sampling method and were randomly divided into experimental and control groups. In the experimental group, the patients implemented relaxation techniques once a day for 30 min during 60 consecutive days in addition to receiving routine care, while patients in the control group received only routine care. Before and after the intervention, the Persian version of the Coopersmith Self-Esteem Inventory (CSEI) was completed.

RESULTS

After the interventions, significant differences were observed between groups in favor of the relaxation group in total score of CSEI and all its subscales (P = 0.0001). In the experimental group, a significant increase in total score and all subscales of CSEI was observed after the intervention (P = 0.001), whereas in the control group, a significant decrease was found in all dimensions (P = 0.001).

CONCLUSION

The relaxation seems to be potentially effective in promoting self-esteem of patients with cancer. Further studies, particularly randomized clinical trials with higher sample size and more power, are needed to confirm the obtained findings.

How does information on the harms and benefits of cervical cancer screening alter the intention to be screened?: a randomized survey of Norwegian women

Cervical cancer (CC) is the 13th most frequent cancer among women in Norway, but the third most common among women aged 25-49 years. The national screening program sends information letters to promote screening participation. We aimed to evaluate how women's stated intention to participate in screening and pursue treatment changed with the provision of additional information on harms associated with screening, and to assess women's preferences on the timing and source of such information. We administered a web-based questionnaire to a panel of Norwegian women aged 25-69 years and randomized into three groups on the basis of when in the screening process additional information was introduced: (i) invited for routine screening, (ii) recommended an additional test following detection of cellular abnormalities, and (iii) recommended precancer treatment. A fourth (control) group did not receive any additional information. Results show that among 1060 respondents, additional information did not significantly alter women's stated intentions to screen. However, it created decision uncertainty on when treatment was recommended (8.76-9.09 vs. 9.40; 10-point Likert scale; P=0.004). Over 80% of women favored receiving information on harms and 59% preferred that information come from a qualified public health authority. Nearly 90% of women in all groups overestimated women's lifetime risk of CC. In conclusion, additional information on harms did not alter Norwegian women's stated intention to screen for CC; yet, it resulted in greater decision uncertainty to undergo precancer treatment. Incorporating information on harms into invitation letters is warranted as it would increase women's ability to make informed choices.

Introduction of an organised programme and social inequalities in mammography screening: A 22-year population-based study in Geneva, Switzerland

In developed countries, breast cancer mortality has decreased during the last decades due to, at least partially, the advent of mammography screening. Organised programmes aim, among other objectives, to increase participation and decrease social inequalities in screening access. We aimed to characterise the evolution of socioeconomic disparities in mammography screening before and after the implementation of an organised programme in Geneva, Switzerland. We included 5345 women, aged 50-74years, without past history of breast cancer who participated in the cross-sectional Bus Santé study, between 1992 and 2014. Outcome measures were: 1) never had a mammography (1992-2014) and 2) never had a mammography or not screened in the two years before being surveyed (subgroup analysis, 2007-2014). Educational attainment was divided in three groups (primary, secondary and tertiary) and period in two (before/after introduction of a screening programme in 1999). We calculated measures of relative and absolute change, including the relative (RII) and slope (SII) indices of social inequality adjusted for age and nationality. We compared the prevalence of screening before and after screening programme implementation using Poisson models. The proportion of unscreened women decreased during the study period from 30.5% to 3.6%. Lower educated women were more frequently unscreened (RII=2.39, p<0.001; SII=0.10, p<0.001). Organised screening decreased the proportion of unscreened women independently of education (prevalence ratio_{before vs. after}=4.41, p<0.001), but absolute and relative inequalities persisted (RII=2.11, p=0.01; SII=0.04, p=0.01). Introduction of an organised programme increased women's adherence to mammography screening but did not eliminate social disparities in screening participation.

Effects of Promotional Materials on Attitudes and Fear towards Colorectal Cancer Screening among Chinese Older Adults: An Experimental Study

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is a cost-effective prevention and control strategy. However, the promotion of CRC screening for older adults may be difficult because reading CRC prevention information may evoke embarrassment, fear, and anxiety towards the screening procedure and cancer diagnosis. This study aims to (1) examine the effects of three promotional materials for CRC screening on the attitudes toward CRC screening tests (screening interest, screening effectiveness, and trust in the screening results) and cancer fear, and (2) to explore the interaction effect of cancer fear with screening effectiveness and trust in the screening results on screening interest of the three screening tests (fecal occult blood test (FOBT), flexible sigmoidoscopy, and colonoscopy) among Chinese older adults. A total of 114 community-dwelling older adults were asked to look at the corresponding promotional materials (pamphlet, cartoon, and video) of one of the three study groups. The pamphlet and video represent convention strategies and the cartoon represents an innovative strategy. No significant difference was observed in the screening interest and cancer fear across groups. FOBT was the most preferred screening modality. The video group has a large proportion agreed screening effectiveness of flexible sigmoidoscopy than pamphlet and cartoon groups and trusted in the screening results for FOBT and flexible sigmoidoscopy than the pamphlet group. Logistic regression results showed that the effect of trust in the screening results on screening interest for colonoscopy was greater among participants with higher cancer fear than those with lower cancer fear level. In conclusion, the three promotional groups had produced similar results in their attitudes toward CRC screening and cancer fear. The use of cartoons may be a comparable approach with conventional methods in the promotion of CRC screening. Additional components that can arouse fear and boost response efficacy simultaneously might also be useful for the effective promotion of colonoscopy among Chinese older adults.

Adult Patients' Perspectives on the Benefits and Harms of Overused Screening Tests: a Qualitative Study

BACKGROUND

In recent years, there has been a growing interest in reducing the overuse of healthcare services. However, little is known about how patients conceptualize the benefits and harms of overused screening tests or how patients make decisions regarding these tests.

OBJECTIVE

To determine how patients think about the harms and benefits of overused screening tests and how they consider these and other factors when making decisions.

DESIGN

Semi-structured, qualitative interviews.

PARTICIPANTS

The study comprised 50 patients, ages 50-84, who had previously received or not received any of four overused screening services: 1) prostate cancer screening (men ages 50-69), 2) colon cancer screening (men and women ages 76-85), 3) osteoporosis screening (low-risk women ages 50-64), or 4) cardiovascular disease screening (low-risk men and women ages 50-85).

APPROACH

We conducted a thematic analysis, using a hybrid inductive-deductive approach. Two independent coders analyzed interview transcriptions to identify themes and exemplifying quotes.

KEY RESULTS

Many patients could not name a harm of screening. When they did name harms, patients often focused on only the harms of the screening test itself and rarely mentioned harms further along the screening cascade (e.g., from follow-up testing and treatment). In contrast, patients could easily name benefits of screening, although many seemed to misunderstand or overestimate the magnitude of the benefits. Furthermore, patients described many additional factors they considered when making screening decisions, including their clinicians' recommendations, their age, family or friends' experiences with disease, and insurance coverage.

CONCLUSIONS

This study highlights the need to help adults recognize and understand the benefits and harms of screening and make appropriate decisions about overused screening tests.

Public Perceptions of the Benefits and Risks of Newborn Screening

BACKGROUND

Growing technological capacity and parent and professional advocacy highlight the need to understand public expectations of newborn population screening.

METHODS

We administered a bilingual (French, English) Internet survey to a demographically proportional sample of Canadians in 2013 to assess preferences for the types of diseases to be screened for in newborns by using a discrete choice experiment. Attributes were: clinical benefits of improved health, earlier time to diagnosis, reproductive risk information, false-positive (FP) results, and overdiagnosed infants. Survey data were analyzed with a mixed logit model to assess preferences and trade-offs among attributes, interaction between attributes, and preference heterogeneity.

RESULTS

On average, respondents were favorable toward screening. Clinical benefits were the most important outcome; reproductive risk information and early diagnosis were also valued, although 8% disvalued early diagnosis, and reproductive risk information was least important. All respondents preferred to avoid FP results and overdiagnosis but were willing to accept these to achieve moderate clinical benefit, accepting higher rates of harms to achieve significant benefit. Several 2-way interactions between attributes were statistically significant: respondents were willing to accept a higher FP rate for significant clinical benefit but preferred a lower rate for moderate benefit; similarly, respondents valued early diagnosis more when associated with significant rather than moderate clinical benefit.

CONCLUSIONS

Members of the public prioritized clinical benefits for affected infants and preferred to minimize harms. These findings suggest support for newborn screening policies prioritizing clinical benefits over solely informational benefits, coupled with concerted efforts to avoid or minimize harms.

Clinicians' perceptions of the benefits and harms of prostate and colorectal cancer screening

BACKGROUND

Clinicians' perceptions of screening benefits and harms influence their recommendations, which in turn shape patients' screening decisions. We sought to understand clinicians' perceptions of the benefits and harms of cancer screening by comparing 2 screening tests that differ in their balance of potential benefits to harms: colonoscopy, which results in net benefit for many adults, and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing, which may do more harm than good.

METHODS

In this cross-sectional study, 126 clinicians at 24 family/internal medicine practices completed surveys in which they listed and rated the magnitude of colonoscopy and PSA testing benefits and harms for a hypothetical 70-year-old male patient and then estimated the likelihood that these tests would cause harm and lengthen the life of 100 similar men in the next 10 years. We tested the hypothesis that the availability heuristic would explain the association of screening test to perceived likelihood of benefit/harm and a competing hypothesis that clinicians' gist of screening tests as good or bad would mediate this association.

RESULTS

Clinicians perceived PSA testing to have a greater likelihood of harm and a lower likelihood of lengthening life relative to colonoscopy. Consistent with our gist hypothesis, these associations were mediated by clinicians' gist of screening (balance of perceived benefits to perceived harms).

LIMITATIONS

Generalizability beyond academic clinicians remains to be established.

CONCLUSIONS

Targeting clinicians' gist of screening, for example through graphical displays that allow clinicians to make gist-based relative magnitude comparisons, may influence their risk perception and possibly reduce overrecommendation of screening.

Communication about colorectal cancer screening in Britain: public preferences for an expert recommendation

BACKGROUND

Informed decision-making approaches to cancer screening emphasise the importance of decisions being determined by individuals' own values and preferences. However, advice from a trusted source may also contribute to autonomous decision-making. This study examined preferences regarding a recommendation from the NHS and information provision in the context of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening.

METHODS

In face-to-face interviews, a population-based sample of adults across Britain (n=1964; age 50-80 years) indicated their preference between: (1) a strong recommendation to participate in CRC screening, (2) a recommendation alongside advice to make an individual decision, and (3) no recommendation but advice to make an individual decision. Other measures included trust in the NHS and preferences for information on benefits and risks.

RESULTS

Most respondents (84%) preferred a recommendation (47% strong recommendation, 37% recommendation plus individual decision-making advice), but the majority also wanted full information on risks (77%) and benefits (78%). Men were more in favour of a recommendation than women (86% vs 81%). Trust in the NHS was high overall, but the minority who expressed low trust were less likely to want a recommendation.

CONCLUSION

Most British adults want full information on risks and benefits of screening but they also want a recommendation from an authoritative source. An 'expert' view may be an important part of autonomous health decision-making.