Decision-making about participation in colorectal cancer screening in Sweden: Autonomous, value-dependent but uninformed?

Acceptability of adding a non-contrast abdominal CT scan to screen for kidney cancer and other abdominal pathology within a community-based CT screening programme for lung cancer: A qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

The Yorkshire Kidney Screening Trial (YKST) is a feasibility study of adding non-contrast abdominal CT scanning to screen for kidney cancer and other abdominal malignancies to community-based CT screening for lung cancer within the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial (YLST). This study explored the acceptability of the combined screening approach to participants and healthcare professionals (HCPs) involved in the trial.

METHODS

We conducted semi-structured interviews with eight HCPs and 25 participants returning for the second round of scanning within YLST, 20 who had taken up the offer of the additional abdominal CT scan and five who had declined. Transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis, guided by the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability.

RESULTS

Overall, combining the offer of a non-contrast abdominal CT scan alongside the low-dose thoracic CT was considered acceptable to participants, including those who had declined the abdominal scan. The offer of the additional scan made sense and fitted well within the process, and participants could see benefits in terms of efficiency, cost and convenience both for themselves as individuals and also more widely for the NHS. Almost all participants made an instant decision at the point of initial invitation based more on trust and emotions than the information provided. Despite this, there was a clear desire for more time to decide whether to accept the scan or not. HCPs also raised concerns about the burden on the study team and wider healthcare system arising from additional workload both within the screening process and downstream following findings on the abdominal CT scan.

CONCLUSIONS

Adding a non-contrast abdominal CT scan to community-based CT screening for lung cancer is acceptable to both participants and healthcare professionals. Giving potential participants prior notice and having clear pathways for downstream management of findings will be important if it is to be offered more widely.

Risk factors for underestimation of patient pain in outpatient colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

Adequate management of patient pain and discomfort during colonoscopy is crucial to obtaining a high-quality examination. We aimed to investigate the ability of endoscopists and endoscopy assistants to accurately assess patient pain in colonoscopy.

METHODS

This was a single-center, cross-sectional study including patients scheduled for an outpatient colonoscopy. Procedure-related pain, as experienced by the patient, was scored on a verbal rating scale (VRS). Endoscopists and endoscopy assistants rated patient pain likewise. Cohen's kappa was used to measure the agreement between ratings and logistic regression applied to test for potential predictors associated with underestimation of moderate-severe pain.

RESULTS

In total, 785 patients [median age: 54 years; females: n = 413] were included. Mild, moderate, and severe pain was reported in 378/785 (48%), 168/785 (22%), and 111/785 (14%) procedures respectively. Inter-rater reliability of patient pain comparing patients with endoscopists was κ = 0.29, p < .001 and for patients with endoscopy assistants κ = 0.37, p < .001. In the 279 patients reporting moderate/severe pain, multivariable analysis showed that male gender (OR = 1.79), normal BMI (OR = 1.71), no history of abdominal surgery (OR = 1.81), and index-colonoscopy (OR = 1.81) were factors significantly associated with a risk for underestimation of moderate/severe pain by endoscopists. Young age (OR = 2.05) was the only corresponding factor valid for endoscopy assistants.

CONCLUSIONS

In a colonoscopy, estimation of patient pain by endoscopists and endoscopy assistants is often inaccurate. Endoscopists need to pay specific attention to subgroups of patients, such as male gender, and normal BMI, among whom there seems to be an important risk of underestimation of moderate-severe pain.

Different information needs-The major reasons for calling the helpline when invited to colorectal cancer screening

INTRODUCTION

This study pertains to the design of a decision aid (DA) to shed light on information and support needs in colorectal cancer screening, with the aim to explore the calling patterns to the Screening of Swedish Colons (SCREESCO) study's helpline.

METHODS

A cross-sectional study was conducted with data from documented telephone calls to the SCREESCO study, including individuals, 59-60 years, randomized to colonoscopy or high sensitive faecal immunochemical test (FIT).

RESULTS

More than 2000 calls (women 58.5%; colonoscopy 59%) were analysed. Calling patterns: unsubscribing from screening, confirmation of participation, logistical concerns about the screening procedure, counselling, and FIT screening difficulties or in need of a new FIT test. Comorbidity was the most frequent reason for unsubscribing and most of the counselling calls included questions about the FIT test or the colonoscopy.

CONCLUSION

Most of the calls to the helpline seemed to be related to individuals' lack of understanding about the organization of the screening programme and the screening procedure. Therefore, we find it important to further stress the tailoring part in our DA developing process, that is, provide limited information initially, with the possibility of access to more, if desired by the individual, still with respect to the individual's needs, health and digital literacy.

PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

Individuals representing the public and invited to SCREESCO participated since we analysed their calls to the helpline. The findings will contribute to our continued work with the DA where the public will contribute and participate.

AI and Clinical Decision Making: The Limitations and Risks of Computational Reductionism in Bowel Cancer Screening

Advances in artificial intelligence in healthcare are frequently promoted as ‘solutions’ to improve the accuracy, safety, and quality of clinical decisions, treatments, and care. Despite some diagnostic success, however, AI systems rely on forms of reductive reasoning and computational determinism that embed problematic assumptions about clinical decision-making and clinical practice. Clinician autonomy, experience, and judgement are reduced to inputs and outputs framed as binary or multi-class classification problems benchmarked against a clinician’s capacity to identify or predict disease states. This paper examines this reductive reasoning in AI systems for colorectal cancer (CRC) to highlight their limitations and risks: (1) in AI systems themselves due to inherent biases in (a) retrospective training datasets and (b) embedded assumptions in underlying AI architectures and algorithms; (2) in the problematic and limited evaluations being conducted on AI systems prior to system integration in clinical practice; and (3) in marginalising socio-technical factors in the context-dependent interactions between clinicians, their patients, and the broader health system. The paper argues that to optimise benefits from AI systems and to avoid negative unintended consequences for clinical decision-making and patient care, there is a need for more nuanced and balanced approaches to AI system deployment and evaluation in CRC.

Two sides of every coin: individuals' experiences of undergoing colorectal cancer screening by faecal immunochemical test and colonoscopy

BACKGROUND

Acceptability of the recommended screening procedure represents a crucial determinant of the impact of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programmes. This study aims to explore how individuals in CRC screening experience the screening procedure.

METHODS

Study participants (n = 44), aged 60-62 years, screened by faecal immunochemical test (FIT) and/or colonoscopy, were recruited from the Screening of Swedish Colons (SCREESCO) study. Data were collected through six focus group discussions and 20 individual telephone interviews and analyzed using qualitative content analysis.

RESULTS

The analysis resulted in 30 subcategories together forming four categories describing individuals' experiences of the CRC screening procedure: From no worries to bothering emotions; Varying logistical concerns; Being well treated, but inconsistently informed and involved and Expectations not matching reality. Some subcategories only applied to either FIT or colonoscopy screening, while others applied to both screening procedures.

CONCLUSIONS

Undergoing CRC screening by FIT or colonoscopy is an individual experience. Strategies to improve patient experiences may include using one-sample FITs and optimizing bowel preparation and scheduling of colonoscopies according to individual preferences. Ensuring that needs for emotional support are acknowledged, together with clear and adequate information delivered at right time are further important aspects to consider.