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

Testing Enhanced Active Choice to Optimize Acceptance and Participation in a Population-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening Program in Malta

Opt-out strategies have been shown to improve participation in cancer screening; however, there are ethical concerns regarding the presumed consent. In this study, we tested an alternative opt-in strategy, called: "enhanced active choice," in which the response options summarize the consequences of the decision. The study was conducted as part of the Maltese colorectal cancer screening program, which offers men and women, aged 60-64, a "one-off" fecal immunochemical test (FIT). A total of 8349 individuals were randomly assigned to receive either an invitation letter that featured a standard opt-in strategy (control condition), or an alternative letter with a modified opt-in strategy (enhanced active choice condition). Our primary outcome was participation three months after the invitation was delivered. Additionally, we also compared the proportion who said they wanted to take part in screening. We used multivariable logistic regression for the analysis. Overall, 48.4% (N = 4042) accepted the invitation and 42.4% (N = 3542) did the screening test. While there were no statistically significant differences between the two conditions in terms of acceptance and participation, enhanced active choice did increase acceptance among men by 4.6 percentage points, which translated to a significant increase in participation of 3.4 percentage points. We conclude that enhanced active choice can improve male screening participation. Given the higher risk of CRC in men, as well as their lower participation screening, we believe this to be an important finding.

Barriers and facilitators of colorectal cancer screening in Asia

Purpose

One of the most common cancers in Asia is colorectal cancer (CRC). Early diagnosis and timely treatment are necessary for preventing complications and advanced stages of the disease. It is important to evaluate barriers and facilitators of screening in different countries. This systematic review aimed to identify the barriers and facilitators of CRC screening in Asia.

Methods

In this systematic review, for identifying barriers and facilitators of CRC screening, a comprehensive search was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science and Scopus in 12 December 2020. Combination keywords such as colorectal cancer, screening, sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, faecal occult blood test, barriers, facilitators and the names of each Asian country were used for searching. Full text original studies in English language were accepted in the review.

Results

In total, 36 articles were included in the review. Barriers and facilitators were evaluated. The most common reported barriers were lack of knowledge, fear of result, fear of procedure, fear of pain, lack of awareness, high cost and lack of gastrointestinal symptoms. The most frequent facilitators were having knowledge and awareness of CRC screening, perceived risk and severity, family history of cancer and physician recommendation.

Conclusion

For promoting success in CRC screening programmes, knowing what the barriers and facilitators are is necessary. Awareness and various personal, professional and social factors have been shown to be the major barriers toward CRC screening in most Asian countries.

Treatment recommendations to parents during pediatric tonsillectomy consultations: A mixed methods analysis of surgeon language

OBJECTIVE

A deeper understanding of the dialogue clinicians use to relay treatment recommendations is needed to fully understand their influence on patient decisions about surgery. We characterize how otolaryngologists provide treatment recommendations and suggest a classification framework.

METHODS

We qualitatively analyzed surgeon recommendations from 55 encounters between otolaryngologists and parents of children evaluated for tonsillectomy, and classified recommendation types by phrasing. Multilevel logistic regression identified predictors of recommendation phrasing.

RESULTS

Clinicians provided 183 recommendations (mean/visit = 3.3). We identified four domains of recommendation-phrasing (direct, passive, acceptable, parent-oriented). Direct recommendations (n = 68, 37%) included presumptive statements phrasing intentions as inevitable. Passive recommendations (n = 65, 36%) included practice-based recommendations utilizing general statements. Acceptable recommendations (n = 29, 16%) included speaking positively about treatment options. Parent-oriented recommendations (n = 21, 11%) included parent choice statements. Clinicians more commonly made direct recommendations to parents who were racial minorities (OR = 2.7, p = .02, 95% CI [1.7, 5.9]) or had an annual income <$50,000 (OR = 2.2, p = .03, 95% CI [1.1, 4.4]).

CONCLUSION

Clinicians provide treatment recommendations in a variety of ways that may introduce more or less certainty and choice to parental treatment decisions.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Findings may be implemented into training which increases clinician awareness of dialogue use when recommending treatment alternatives to patients.

Autonomous and informed decision-making: The case of colorectal cancer screening

INTRODUCTION

It is increasingly considered important that people make an autonomous and informed decision concerning colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. However, the realisation of autonomy within the concept of informed decision-making might be interpreted too narrowly. Additionally, relatively little is known about what the eligible population believes to be a 'good' screening decision. Therefore, we aimed to explore how the concepts of autonomous and informed decision-making relate to how the eligible CRC screening population makes their decision and when they believe to have made a 'good' screening decision.

METHODS

We conducted 27 semi-structured interviews with the eligible CRC screening population (eighteen CRC screening participants and nine non-participants). The general topics discussed concerned how people made their CRC screening decision, how they experienced making this decision and when they considered they had made a 'good' decision.

RESULTS

Most interviewees viewed a 'good' CRC screening decision as one based on both reasoning and feeling/intuition, and that is made freely. However, many CRC screening non-participants experienced a certain social pressure to participate. All CRC screening non-participants viewed making an informed decision as essential. This appeared to be the case to a lesser extent for CRC screening participants. For most, experiences and values were involved in their decision-making.

CONCLUSION

Our sample of the eligible CRC screening population viewed aspects related to the concepts of autonomous and informed decision-making as important for making a 'good' CRC screening decision. However, in particular the existence of a social norm may be affecting a true autonomous decision-making process. Additionally, the present concept of informed decision-making with its strong emphasis on making a fully informed and well-considered decision does not appear to be entirely reflective of the process in practice. More efforts could be made to attune to the diverse values and factors that are involved in deciding about CRC screening participation.

Parental role in decision-making for pediatric surgery: Perceptions of involvement in consultations for tonsillectomy

OBJECTIVE

Parental role in decision-making has implications for quality of care. We describe roles of parent participation in decision-making for tonsillectomy.

METHODS

Parents reported preferred role in decision-making before consultations for tonsillectomy and the role they experienced after their consult. Parents completed questionnaires, including items evaluating clinician/parent communication. Clinicians rated perception of parents' preferred role in decision-making. Congruence between parent and clinician responses was evaluated via kappa analysis. Logistic regression identified associations between decision-making roles and socioemotional and communication factors.

RESULTS

Consults between 63 parents and 8 otolaryngologists were analyzed.There was inadequate agreement between clinician and parent ratings of preferred roles (37%, p = 0.6, 95% CI [-0.09, 0.001]). Parents perceived greater involvement when clinicians discussed reasons to have (OR = 4.3, p = 0.03) or not have (OR = 4.1, p = 0.005) surgery. Parents perceived less involvement when clinicians used jargon (OR = 0.1, p = 0.03), and when parents trusted clinicians (OR = 0.4, p = 0.049), or experienced greater decisional conflict (OR = 0.9, p = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Parents and clinicians perceived parental preference for decision-making involvement differently during consultations for tonsillectomy. Clinician information-sharing, jargon use, and parent trust in clinician predicted extent of perceived engagement.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Findings may enhance understanding of strategies to effectively communicate and engage parents in shared decision-making for pediatric surgical care.

Using Nudges to Enhance Clinicians' Implementation of Shared Decision Making With Patient Decision Aids

Background. Although effective interventions for shared decision making (SDM) exist, there is a lack of uptake of these tools into clinical practice. “Nudges,” which draw on behavioral economics and target automatic thinking processes, are used by policy makers to influence population-level behavior change. Nudges have not been applied in the context of SDM interventions but have potential to influence clinician motivation, a primary barrier to long-term adoption of SDM tools. Objective. Describe, evaluate, and propose recommendations for the use of a behavioral economics framework (MINDSPACE) on clinician motivation and behavior during implementation of a validated decision aid (DA) for left ventricular assist device at nine hospitals. Methods. Qualitative thematic analysis of process notes from stakeholder meetings during the first 6 months of implementation to identify examples of how the MINDSPACE framework was operationalized. Quantitative implementation progress was evaluated using the RE-AIM framework. Results. MINDSPACE components were translated into concrete approaches that leveraged influential stakeholders, fostered ownership over the DA and positive emotional associations, spread desirable norms across sites, and situated the DA within established default processes. DA reach to eligible patients increased from 9.8% in the first month of implementation to 70.0% in the sixth month. Larger gains in reach were observed following meetings using MINDSPACE approaches. Limitations. The MINDSPACE framework does not capture all possible influences on behavior and responses to nudges may differ across populations. Conclusions. Behavioral economics can be applied to implementation science to foster uptake of SDM tools by increasing clinician motivation. Our recommendations can help other researchers effectively apply these approaches in real-world settings when there are often limited incentives and opportunities to change organizational- or structural-level factors.

Defining the information needs of lung cancer screening participants: a qualitative study

Introduction

Lung cancer screening (LCS) by low-dose CT has been shown to improve mortality, but individuals must consider the potential benefits and harms before making an informed decision about taking part. Shared decision-making is required for LCS in USA, though screening-eligible individuals' specific views of these harms, and their preferences for accessing this information, are not well described.

Methods

In this qualitative study, we aimed to explore knowledge and perceptions around lung cancer and LCS with a focus on harms. We carried out seven focus groups with screening-eligible individuals, which were divided into current versus former smokers and lower versus higher educational backgrounds; and 16 interviews with health professionals including general practitioners, respiratory physicians, lung cancer nurse specialists and public health consultants. Interviews and focus groups were audio-recorded and transcribed. Data were coded inductively and analysed using the framework method.

Results

Fatalistic views about lung cancer as an incurable disease dominated, particularly among current smokers, and participants were often unaware of curative treatment options. Despite this, beliefs that screening is sensible and worthwhile were expressed. Generally participants felt they had the 'right' to an informed decision, though some cautioned against information overload. The potential harms of LCS were poorly understood, particularly overdiagnosis and radiation exposure, but participants were unlikely to be deterred by them. Strong concerns about false-negative results were expressed, while false-positive results and indeterminate nodules were also reported as concerning.

Conclusions

These findings demonstrate the need for LCS information materials to highlight information on the benefits of early detection and options for curative treatment, while accurately presenting the possible harms. Information needs are likely to vary between individuals and we recommend simple information materials to be made available to all individuals considering participating in LCS, with signposting to more detailed information for those who require it.

Impact of a Lung Cancer Screening Information Film on Informed Decision-making: A Randomized Trial

Rationale: Lung cancer screening has the potential to save lives, but it also carries a risk of potential harms. Explaining the benefits and harms of screening in a way that is balanced and comprehensible to individuals with various levels of education is essential. Although a shared decision-making approach is mandated by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, there have been no randomized studies to evaluate the impact of different forms of lung screening information. Objectives: To evaluate the impact of a novel information film on informed decision-making in individuals considering participating in lung cancer screening. Methods: A subset of participants from LSUT (Lung Screen Uptake Trial) were randomly allocated either to view the information film and receive a written information booklet or to receive the booklet alone. The primary outcome was the objective knowledge score after intervention. Secondary outcomes included subjective knowledge, decisional conflict, final screening participation, and acceptability of the materials. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to determine differences in pre- and postintervention knowledge scores in both groups and between groups for the primary and secondary outcomes. Results: In the final analysis of 229 participants, both groups showed significantly improved subjective and objective knowledge scores after intervention. This improvement was greatest in the film + booklet group, where mean objective knowledge improved by 2.16 points (standard deviation [SD] 1.8) compared with 1.84 points (SD 1.9) in the booklet-alone group (β coefficient 0.62; confidence interval, 0.17-1.08; P = 0.007 in the multivariable analysis). Mean subjective knowledge increased by 0.92 points (SD 1.0) in the film + booklet group and 0.55 points (SD 1.1) in the booklet-alone group (β coefficient 0.32; CI, 0.05-0.58; P = 0.02 in the multivariable analysis). Decisional certainty was higher in the film + booklet (mean 8.5/9 points [SD 1.3], group than in the booklet-alone group (mean 8.2/9 points [SD 1.5]). Both information materials were well accepted, and there were no differences in final screening participation rates between groups. Conclusions: The information film improved knowledge and reduced decisional conflict without affecting lung-screening uptake. Clinical trial registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02558101).

Fit for Cancer Treatment: a prospective feasibility study of primary care initiated prehabilitation for patients with suspected cancer

Background

Risk profile assessment and corrective interventions using optimisation of health status and prehabilitation represent an important strategy in the management of patients with a suspected cancer diagnosis.

Aim

To determine the feasibility of pre-treatment optimisation and prehabilitation commenced at index primary care consultation, to improve patients’ preparation for treatment by maximising the time available.

Design & setting

Between January 2015 and May 2016, 195 patients presenting to 12 GP practices were deemed eligible to enter the study, of which 189 (96.9%, median age 60 [21–91] years and 65 months; 124 female) were recruited and consented to the prehabilitation bundle.

Method

All patients were simultaneously referred to secondary care using urgent suspected cancer (USC) pathways. The primary outcome measures were definitive diagnosis and treatment plan.

Results

Fifteen patients (7.9%) were diagnosed with cancer (three breast, three colon, two lung, two skin [one melanoma, one sarcoma], one tonsil, one vocal cord, one pancreas, one prostate, one ependymoma) and 62 were diagnosed with other significant medical conditions (47 gastrointestinal, 13 sepsis, two respiratory) requiring secondary care assessment and treatment. Of the 15 patients with cancer, 11 (73.3%) underwent potentially curative treatment, and four (26.7%) palliative treatment. Of the total study cohort, 84 (44%) required a form of optimisation in primary care, and patients with cancer were more likely to require optimisation than others (n = 10 [63%] versus n = 74 [43%], χ² 9.384, P = 0.002).

Conclusion

One in 12 primary care USC patients had cancer (5.6% receiving potentially curative treatment), one in three had other systemic health issues, and overall two in five benefited from healthcare intervention. Primary care optimisation was feasible and associated with important allied health benefits.

What is the appropriate communication style for family members confronting difficult surrogate decision-making in palliative care?: A randomized video vignette study in medical staff with working experiences of clinical oncology

Background

The family members of terminally ill patients are often requested to make difficult surrogate decisions during palliative care. This study sought to clarify the appropriate communication style for physicians as perceived by family members confronting difficult surrogate decision-making.

Methods

This experimental psychological study used scripted videos. In the videos, the physician described treatment options including continuous deep sedation to the family members of patients with cancer and terminal delirium using an autonomous or paternalistic style. Medical professionals with clinical experience in oncology were randomly assigned to either group viewing the videos. The primary outcomes were physician compassion, decisional conflict and emotion scores. We also evaluated the communication style preference.

Results

In total, 251 participants completed this study. Although participants in both groups reported high physician compassion, participants in the autonomous style group reported lower compassion scores (reflecting higher physician compassion) (mean 15.0 vs. 17.3, P = 0.050), lower decisional conflicts scores (51.1 vs. 56.8, P = 0.002) and comparable emotions compared with those in the paternalistic style group. Seventy-six percent of participants preferred the autonomous style.

Conclusions

Regarding difficult surrogate decision-making, the autonomous style might be more appropriate than the paternalistic style. However, various factors, such as family members' communication style preferences, family members' values, physician-family relationships and ethnic cultures, should be considered.

Eliciting vulnerable patients' preferences regarding colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Patient preferences are important to consider in the decision-making process for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Vulnerable populations, such as racial/ethnic minorities and low-income, veteran, and rural populations, exhibit lower screening uptake. This systematic review summarizes the existing literature on vulnerable patient populations' preferences regarding CRC screening.

METHODS

We searched the CINAHL, PsycINFO, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science databases for articles published between January 1, 1996 and December 31, 2017. We screened studies for eligibility and systematically abstracted and compared study designs and outcomes.

RESULTS

A total of 43 articles met the inclusion criteria, out of 2,106 articles found in our search. These 43 articles were organized by the primary sub-population(s) whose preferences were reported: 27 report on preferences among racial/ethnic minorities, eight among low-income groups, six among veterans, and two among rural populations. The majority of studies (n=34) focused on preferences related to test modality. No single test modality was overwhelmingly supported by all sub-populations, although veterans seemed to prefer colonoscopy. Test attributes such as accuracy, sensitivity, cost, and convenience were also noted as important features. Furthermore, a preference for shared decision-making between vulnerable patients and providers was found.

CONCLUSION

The heterogeneity in study design, populations, and outcomes of the selected studies revealed a wide spectrum of CRC screening preferences within vulnerable populations. More decision aids and discrete choice experiments that focus on vulnerable populations are needed to gain a more nuanced understanding of how vulnerable populations weigh particular features of screening methods. Improved CRC screening rates may be achieved through the alignment of vulnerable populations' preferences with screening program design and provider practices. Collaborative decision-making between providers and vulnerable patients in preventive care decisions may also be important.

Development of an evidence-based brief 'talking' intervention for non-responders to bowel screening for use in primary care: stakeholder interviews

BACKGROUND

Bowel cancer is the third most common cause of cancer death worldwide. Bowel screening has been shown to reduce mortality and primary care interventions have been successful in increasing uptake of screening. Using evidence-based theory to inform the development of such interventions has been shown to increase their effectiveness. This study aimed to develop and refine a brief evidence-based intervention for eligible individuals whom have not responded to their last bowel screening invitation (non-responders), for opportunistic use by primary care providers during routine consultations.

METHODS

The development of a brief intervention involving a conversation between primary care providers and non-responders was informed by a multi-faceted model comprising: research team workshop and meetings to draw on expertise; evidence from the literature regarding barriers to bowel screening and effective strategies to promote informed participation; relevant psychological theory, and intervention development and behaviour change guidance. Qualitative telephone interviews with 1) bowel screening stakeholders and 2) patient non-responders explored views regarding the acceptability of the intervention to help refine its content and process.

RESULTS

The intervention provides a theory and evidence-based tool designed to be incorporated within current primary care practice. Bowel screening stakeholders were supportive of the intervention and recognised the importance of the role of primary care. Interviews highlighted the importance of brevity and simplicity to incorporate the intervention into routine clinical care. Non-responders similarly found the intervention acceptable, valuing a holistic approach to their care. Moreover, they expected their primary care provider to encourage participation.

CONCLUSIONS

A theory-based brief conversation for use in a primary care consultation was acceptable to bowel screening stakeholders and potential recipients, reflecting a health promoting primary care ethos. Findings indicate that it is appropriate to test the intervention in primary care in a feasibility study.

Colorectal cancer screening: Associations between information provision, attitudes and intended participation

OBJECTIVE

Properly informing target audiences is crucial in population-based screening programs. We aimed to evaluate the impact of information about CRC screening on attitudes and intended participation in a screening-naive population.

METHODS

614 persons (aged 55-75 years) received a survey. Information on CRC and screening was provided piece by piece, and per piece its impact on attitudes and intended participation was assessed. All persons received the same information content, but the sequence of information differed per condition: information on the high mortality rate of colorectal cancer was presented in the first or the second piece. Educational levels, the extent people considered future consequences, and value concordance between attitudes and intentions were assessed.

RESULTS

436 persons (response 71%) completed the survey. Overall most respondents reported positive attitudes towards CRC screening (78%) and intentions to participate in CRC screening (83%), independent of sequence of information provision. Intentions about participation were value concordant in the majority (88%). Results were similar in low educated groups.

CONCLUSION

Providing balanced information about CRC screening (also addressing negative effects) did not impede value concordance and high rates of intended participation.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

High rates of screening intentions are possible without omitting threatening health information in communication materials.

Ethical issues with colorectal cancer screening-a systematic review

RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is widely recommended and implemented. However, sometimes CRC screening is not implemented despite good evidence, and some types of CRC screening are implemented despite lack of evidence. The objective of this article is to expose and elucidate relevant ethical issues in the literature on CRC screening that are important for open and transparent deliberation on CRC screening.

METHODS

An axiological question-based method is used for exposing and elucidating ethical issues relevant in HTA. A literature search in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, PubMed Bioethics subset, ISI Web of Knowledge, Bioethics Literature Database (BELIT), Ethics in Medicine (ETHMED), SIBIL Base dati di bioetica, LEWI Bibliographic Database on Ethics in the Sciences and Humanities, and EUROETHICS identified 870 references of which 114 were found relevant according to title and abstract. The content of the included papers were subject to ethical analysis to highlight the ethical issues, concerns, and arguments.

RESULTS

A wide range of important ethical issues were identified. The main benefits are reduced relative CRC mortality rate, and potentially incidence rate, but there is no evidence of reduced absolute mortality rate. Potential harms are bleeding, perforation, false test results, overdetection, overdiagnosis, overtreatment (including unnecessary removal of polyps), and (rarely) death. Other important issues are related to autonomy and informed choice equity, justice, medicalization, and expanding disease.

CONCLUSION

A series of important ethical issues have been identified and need to be addressed in open and transparent deliberation on CRC screening.

Ethnic minority women prefer strong recommendations to be screened for cancer

BACKGROUND

Cancer screening invitations can explicitly recommend attendance or encourage individuals to consider the risks and benefits before deciding for themselves. Public preferences for these approaches might vary. We explored ethnic minority women's preferences for a strong recommendation to be screened.

METHODS

Women aged 30-60 years from Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Caribbean, African and white British backgrounds (n = 120 per group) completed face-to-face interviews with a multi-lingual interviewer. The interview included a question on which approach to screening invitations they would prefer: i) A strong recommendation from the National Health Service (NHS) to go for screening, ii) A statement that the NHS thinks you should go for screening, but it's up to you to decide, iii) No recommendation. Analyses examined predictors of preference for a strong recommendation.

RESULTS

Preferences varied by ethnicity (χ ²(5) = 98.20, p <.001). All ethnic minority groups had a preference for a strong recommendation to be screened (53-86% across ethnic groups vs 31% white British). Socio-demographic factors (marital status, education and employment), and indicators of acculturation (main language and migration status), contributed to explaining recommendation preferences (χ ²(5) = 35.95 and χ ²(3) = 11.59, respectively, both p <.001), but did not mediate the ethnicity effect entirely. Self-rated comprehension of written health information did not contribute to the model.

CONCLUSIONS

A strong recommendation to participate in cancer screening appears to be important for ethnic minority women, particularly non-English speakers. Future research could explore how to best arrive at a consensus that respects patient autonomy while also accommodating those that would prefer to be guided by a trusted source.

Common methods of measuring 'informed choice' in screening participation: Challenges and future directions

There is general agreement among public health practitioners, academics, and policymakers that people offered health screening tests should be able to make informed choices about whether to accept. Robust measures are necessary in order to gauge the extent to which informed choice is achieved in practice and whether efforts to improve it have succeeded. This review aims to add to the literature on how to improve methods of measuring informed choice. We discuss and critique commonly-used approaches and outline possible alternative methods that might address the issues identified. We explore the challenges of defining what information should be provided about screening and hence understood by service users, appraise the use of 'thresholds' to define e.g. positive attitudes towards screening, and describe problems inherent in conceptualising 'informed choice' as a single dichotomous outcome that either does or does not occur. Suggestions for future research include providing greater detail on why particular aspects of screening information were considered important, analysing knowledge and attitude measures at an ordinal or continuous level (avoiding problematic decisions about dichotomising data in order to set thresholds), and reconceptualising informed choice as a multifactorial set of outcomes, rather than a unitary one.

Factors influencing participation in colorectal cancer screening-a qualitative study in an ethnic and socio-economically diverse inner city population

Background

Ethnic and socio‐economic inequalities have been reported in the uptake of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. This study aimed to explore the factors affecting CRC screening participation in an ethnically and socio‐economically diverse inner city population.

Methods

Semi‐structured interviews were undertaken with 50 people aged 55–74 years, recruited from GP practices in south‐east London. Participants were from Black African (n=13), Black Caribbean (n=15), White British (n=17), Black other (n=2) and White other (n=3) backgrounds. Participants' socio‐economic status (SES) was assessed using a combined measure of educational attainment, housing tenure and car ownership. Participants' SES varied although there were more participants from less deprived backgrounds than those from more deprived backgrounds. The interview topic guide was informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and analysed using framework analysis.

Findings

Lack of awareness of CRC screening was a barrier for all participants. There were also some notable group differences by ethnicity and SES. Cancer fear was a barrier for White British participants of varying SES. Misunderstanding instructions for completing the guaiac faecal occult blood test (gFOBt) was a barrier for people of low SES regardless of ethnicity. For Black African and Black Caribbean participants, of any SES, religious faith and a perceived civic duty to participate in screening encouraged participation.

Discussion and conclusions

This is the first study to provide detailed information on the separate views of Black African and Black Caribbean participants about screening. Consideration of ethnicity and SES together also allowed us to identify pertinent barriers for particular groups that can be targeted to improve access to screening for those who wish to take part.

A lack of information engagement among colorectal cancer screening non-attenders: cross-sectional survey

Background

The NHS Cancer Screening Programmes in England now operate a policy of ‘informed choice’ about participation in cancer screening. Engagement with written information about screening is important to facilitate informed choice, although the degree to which the screening-eligible public engages with the available information is unknown. We examined the association between reading of the standard informational booklet (‘Bowel Cancer Screening: The Facts') and participation in the nationally organised NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme in England.

Methods

Face-to-face interviews were conducted with 1307 adults who were age-eligible for nationally organised colorectal cancer (CRC; also called bowel cancer) in a population-based survey in England in 2014. Respondents were shown an image of ‘The Facts’ booklet and were asked how much of it they had read when they received their screening invitation (‘none’, ‘a little’, ‘some’, ‘most’, ‘almost all’, or ‘all’). Logistic regression was used to estimate the associations between screening uptake status (‘never’ vs. ‘ever’) and self-reported reading of ‘The Facts’ booklet (dichotomised to ‘none vs. ‘any’), adjusting for age, sex, ethnicity, educational attainment, and occupation-based social grade.

Results

Overall, 69 % of the sample (908/1307) had participated in CRC screening at least once (‘ever’ screeners). One-fifth of the sample reported that they had read ‘none’ of ‘The Facts’ booklet (22 %; 287/1307), while half reported having read ‘all’ of it (52 %; 680/1307). Reading of the booklet was strongly differential according to screening uptake status: nearly two-thirds of ‘never’ screeners had read none of ‘The Facts’ booklet (63 %; 251/399), compared to less than one in twenty ‘ever’ screeners (4 %; 36/908); adjusted OR = 39.0; 95 % CI: 26.2-58.1 for reading ‘none’ in ‘never’ vs. ‘ever’ screeners.

Conclusions

Although ‘The Facts’ booklet is intended to support informed choices about CRC screening, the majority of unscreened individuals report that they have read none of it. The degree to which public engagement with the decision-making process about cancer screening is socially unequal must be better understood so that comprehensive and equitable public communication strategies can be developed.

The Role of Patient Activation in Preferences for Shared Decision Making: Results From a National Survey of U.S. Adults

Studies investigating preferences for shared decision making (SDM) have focused on associations with sociodemographic variables, with few investigations exploring patient factors. We aimed to investigate the relationship between patient activation and preferences for SDM in 6 common medical decisions among a nationally representative cross-sectional survey of American adults. Adults older than 18 were recruited online (n = 2,700) and by telephone (n = 700). Respondents completed sociodemographic assessments and the Patient Activation Measure. They were also asked whether they perceived benefit (yes/no) in SDM in 6 common medical decisions. Nearly half of the sample (45.9%) reached the highest level of activation (Level 4). Activation was associated with age (p < .001), higher income (p = .001), higher education (p = .010), better self-rated health (p < .001), and fewer chronic conditions (p = .050). The proportion of people who agreed that SDM was beneficial varied from 53.1% (deciding the necessity of a diagnostic test) to 71.8% (decisions associated with making lifestyle changes). After we controlled for participant characteristics, higher activation was associated with greater perceived benefit in SDM across 4 of the 6 decisions. Preferences for SDM varied among 6 common medical scenarios. Low patient activation is an important barrier to SDM that could be ameliorated through the development of behavioral interventions.

Physician use of persuasion and colorectal cancer screening

The impact of patient-physician communication on subsequent patient behavior has rarely been evaluated in the context of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening discussions. We describe physicians' use of persuasive techniques when recommending CRC screening and evaluate its association with patients' subsequent adherence to screening. Audio recordings of N = 414 periodic health examinations were joined with screening use data from electronic medical records and pre-/post-visit patient surveys. The association between persuasion and screening was assessed using generalized estimating equations. According to observer ratings, primary care physicians frequently use persuasive techniques (63 %) when recommending CRC screening, most commonly argument or refutation. However, physician persuasion was not associated with subsequent screening adherence. Physician use of persuasion may be a common vehicle for information provision during CRC screening discussions; however, our results do not support the sole reliance on persuasive techniques if the goal is to improve adherence to recommended screening.

The effect of a supplementary ('Gist-based') information leaflet on colorectal cancer knowledge and screening intention: a randomized controlled trial

Guided by Fuzzy Trace Theory, this study examined the impact of a ‘Gist-based’ leaflet on colorectal cancer screening knowledge and intentions; and tested the interaction with participants’ numerical ability. Adults aged 45–59 years from four UK general practices were randomly assigned to receive standard information (‘The Facts’, n = 2,216) versus standard information plus ‘The Gist’ leaflet (Gist + Facts, n = 2,236). Questionnaires were returned by 964/4,452 individuals (22 %). 82 % of respondents reported having read the information, but those with poor numeracy were less likely (74 vs. 88 %, p < .001). The ‘Gist + Facts’ group were more likely to reach the criterion for adequate knowledge (95 vs. 91 %; p < .01), but this was not moderated by numeracy. Most respondents (98 %) intended to participate in screening, with no group differences and no interaction with numeracy. The improved levels of knowledge and self-reported reading suggest ‘The Gist’ leaflet may increase engagement with colorectal cancer screening, but ceiling effects reduced the likelihood that screening intentions would be affected.

Understanding narrative effects in physical activity promotion: the influence of breast cancer survivor testimony on exercise beliefs, self-efficacy, and intention in breast cancer patients

PURPOSE

Research in health communication has shown that narratives contribute more positively to changing health behaviors than informational messages. The main purposes of this study were to examine and to compare the effects of two messages promoting physical activity, one narrative and the other informational, on the perceptions and behavioral intentions of cancer patients.

METHODS

A total of 158 women with breast cancer, undergoing chemotherapy and sedentary, were assigned to read the testimony of a breast cancer survivor who had been physically active during and after treatment (TE group), a content-equivalent message composed of expert recommendations about physical activity in breast cancer patients (RE group), or no message (control group).

RESULTS

Source trust was higher in TE group than RE group (p < 0.001). Exercise self-efficacy and exercise intention were higher in TE group than RE and control groups (p < 0.001). However, scores in RE group were higher than those of TE group for beliefs about exercise benefits (p < 0.001) and lower than those of TE and control groups for beliefs about exercise risks (p < 0.001). Source trust, exercise self-efficacy, and beliefs about exercise benefits and risks mediated the relationship between the message and exercise intention.

CONCLUSIONS

The results suggest that narratives may be more effective in improving perceived physical abilities and involvement in physical activity, whereas informational messages seem to be more appropriate to convey the benefits and the absence of risks related to physical activity.

Factors Associated with Informed Decisions and Participation in Bowel Cancer Screening among Adults with Lower Education and Literacy

Background. Making informed decisions about cancer screening involves understanding the benefits and harms in conjunction with personal values. There is little research examining factors associated with informed decision making or participation in screening in the context of a decision aid trial. Objectives. To identify factors associated with informed choice and participation in fecal occult blood testing (FOBT) among lower education populations. Design. Randomized controlled trial of an FOBT decision aid conducted between July and November 2008. Setting. Socioeconomically disadvantaged areas in New South Wales, Australia. Participants. Included 572 adults aged 55 to 64 years with lower education. Measurements. Sociodemographic variables, perceived health literacy, and involvement preferences in decision making were examined to identify predictors of informed choice (knowledge, attitudes, and behavior). Results. Multivariate analysis identified independent predictors of making an informed choice as having higher education (relative risk [RR], 1.49; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.13–1.95; P = 0.001), receiving the decision aid (RR, 2.88; 95% CI, 1.87–4.44; P < 0.001), and being male (RR, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.11–1.97; P = 0.009). Participants with no confidence in completing forms and poorer self-reported health were less likely to make an informed choice (RR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.53–1.03; P = 0.05 and RR, 0.57; 95% CI, 0.36–0.89; P = 0.007, respectively). Independent predictors of completing the FOBT were positive screening attitudes, receiving the standard information, preference for making the decision alone, and knowing that screening may lead to false-positive/negative results. Limitations. We did not objectively measure health literacy. Conclusions. Participants with the lowest levels of education had greater difficulties making an informed choice about participation in bowel screening. Alternative methods are needed to support informed decision making among lower education populations.

The development and testing of a brief ('gist-based') supplementary colorectal cancer screening information leaflet

OBJECTIVE

To design and user-test a 'gist-based' colorectal cancer screening information leaflet, which promotes comprehension of the screening offer.

METHODS

Twenty-eight individuals approaching screening age were recruited from organisations in deprived areas of England. Using a between-subjects design, we tested iterations of a newly-designed gist-based information leaflet. Participants read the leaflet and answered 8 'true' or 'false' comprehension statements. For the leaflet to be considered fit-for-purpose, all statements had to be answered correctly by at least 80% of participants in each round. Alterations were made if this threshold was not met and additional rounds of testing were undertaken.

RESULTS

At round 1, answers to 2/8 statements did not meet the threshold. After changes, answers in round 2 did not reach the threshold for 1/8 statements. In round 3, all answers were adequate and the leaflet was deemed fit-for-purpose. Qualitative data offered solutions such as language and layout changes which led to improved comprehension of the leaflet.

CONCLUSION

User-testing substantially improved the design and subsequent comprehensibility of a theory-driven gist-based colorectal cancer screening information leaflet.

PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS

This leaflet will be evaluated as part of a large national randomised controlled trial designed to reduce socioeconomic inequalities in colorectal cancer screening participation.

Continuing cancer screening later in life: attitudes and intentions among older adults in England

Background: the rise in life expectancy, together with age-related increase in the incidence of most cancers, has led to mounting interest in cancer screening in older people. In England, routine invitations stop and an ‘opt-in’ (individual request) process is available from ages 71 to 76 years for breast and colorectal screening respectively. Little is known about public attitudes towards age-stoppage policy.

Objective: this study examined public attitudes to current stoppage policy, information preferences and intentions to request screening beyond the age of routine invitations.

Sample: participants (n = 927; age 60–74 years) were recruited as part of a TNS Research International survey and took part in home-based, computer-assisted interviews.

Methods: measures included: (i) attitudes towards current stoppage policy, (ii) preference for communications about screening after the end of the routine invitation period and (iii) intention to opt-in.

Results: the majority of respondents (78%) did not agree with age-based stoppage policies. Most (83%) wanted a strong recommendation to opt-in after this age, although the number who thought they would follow such a recommendation was much lower (27%). A majority of participants (54%) thought information on screening at older ages should come from their general practitioner (GP).

Conclusion: this survey indicates that older people in England wish to continue to be actively invited for cancer screening, although only a minority think that they would ultimately take up the offer. Primary care may play a role in negotiating a shared decision that is based on individual circumstances.

Colorectal cancer prevention: screening and the role of aspirin

SUMMARY Colon cancer is the third most common cancer worldwide. Sigmoidoscopy and colonoscopy, with the removal of rectal and colon polyps, are proven strategies for the prevention of colon cancer, and testing for fecal occult blood helps to identify subjects suitable for endoscopy. Evidence that low-dose aspirin is associated with a substantial reduction in colon cancer risk and reduces the number and growth of colon polyps is accumulating from randomized trials and observational studies. Advantages and disadvantages of endoscopy and aspirin prophylaxis are discussed extensively in this review. The reduction in cancer incidence by the two approaches together is considerably enhanced as they complement each other. Expenditure could become more cost effective if the two were promoted together.

Gender differences in predictors of colorectal cancer screening uptake: a national cross sectional study based on the health belief model

BACKGROUND

Colorectal Cancer (CRC) is rapidly rising in Asia, but screening uptake remains poor. Although studies have reported gender differences in screening rates, there have been few studies assessing gender specific perceptions and barriers towards CRC screening, based on behavioral frameworks. We applied the Health Belief Model to identify gender-specific predictors of CRC screening in an Asian population.

METHODS

A nationwide representative household survey was conducted on 2000 subjects aged 50 years and above in Singapore from 2007 to 2008. Screening behaviour, knowledge and beliefs on CRC screening were assessed by face-to-face structured interviews. The response rate was 88.2%.

RESULTS

26.7 percent had undergone current CRC screening with no gender difference in rates. Almost all agreed that CRC would lead to suffering (89.8%), death (84.6%) and would pose significant treatment cost and expense (83.1%). The majority (88.5%) agreed that screening aids early detection and cure but only 35.4% felt susceptible to CRC. Nearly three-quarters (74.3%) of the respondents recalled reading or hearing information on CRC in the print or broadcast media. However, only 22.6% were advised by their physicians to undergo screening. Significantly more women than men had feared a positive diagnosis, held embarrassment, pain and risk concerns about colonoscopy and had friends and family members who encouraged screening. On multivariate analysis, screening uptake showed a positive association with worry about contracting CRC and a physician's recommendation and a negative association with perceived pain about colonoscopy for both genders. For women only, screening was positively associated with having attended a public talk on CRC and having a family member with CRC, and was negatively associated with Malay race and perceived danger of colonoscopy.

CONCLUSIONS

CRC screening remains poor despite high levels of awareness of its benefits in this Asian population. Race, worry about contracting cancer, psychological barriers, and cues from the doctor and a public talk on CRC were associated with screening with gender specific differences. Strategies to increase CRC screening uptake should consider gender specific approaches to address psychological barriers and increase disease susceptibility through public health education and active promotion by physicians.

Women's responses to information about overdiagnosis in the UK breast cancer screening programme: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

To explore the influence of overdiagnosis information on women's decisions about mammography.

DESIGN

A qualitative focus group study with purposive sampling and thematic analysis, in which overdiagnosis information was presented.

SETTING

Community and university settings in London.

PARTICIPANTS

40 women within the breast screening age range (50-71 years) including attenders and non-attenders were recruited using a recruitment agency as well as convenience sampling methods.

RESULTS

Women expressed surprise at the possible extent of overdiagnosis and recognised the information as important, although many struggled to interpret the numerical data. Overdiagnosis was viewed as less-personally relevant than the possibility of 'under diagnosis' (false negatives), and often considered to be an issue for follow-up care decisions rather than screening participation. Women also expressed concern that information on overdiagnosis could deter others from attending screening, although they rarely saw it as a deterrent. After discussing overdiagnosis, few women felt that they would make different decisions about breast screening in the future.

CONCLUSIONS

Women regard it as important to be informed about overdiagnosis to get a complete picture of the risks and benefits of mammography, but the results of this study indicate that understanding overdiagnosis may not always influence women's attitudes towards participation in breast screening. The results also highlight the challenge of communicating the individual significance of information derived from population-level modelling.