1
|
Dickson JL, Hall H, Horst C, Tisi S, Verghese P, Mullin AM, Teague J, Farrelly L, Bowyer V, Gyertson K, Bojang F, Levermore C, Anastasiadis T, McCabe J, Navani N, Nair A, Devaraj A, Hackshaw A, Quaife SL, Janes SM. Uptake of invitations to a lung health check offering low-dose CT lung cancer screening among an ethnically and socioeconomically diverse population at risk of lung cancer in the UK (SUMMIT): a prospective, longitudinal cohort study. Lancet Public Health 2023; 8:e130-e140. [PMID: 36709053 PMCID: PMC7615156 DOI: 10.1016/s2468-2667(22)00258-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/09/2022] [Revised: 09/12/2022] [Accepted: 09/27/2022] [Indexed: 01/27/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Lung cancer screening with low-dose CT reduces lung cancer mortality, but screening requires equitable uptake from candidates at high risk of lung cancer across ethnic and socioeconomic groups that are under-represented in clinical studies. We aimed to assess the uptake of invitations to a lung health check offering low-dose CT lung cancer screening in an ethnically and socioeconomically diverse cohort at high risk of lung cancer. METHODS In this multicentre, prospective, longitudinal cohort study (SUMMIT), individuals aged 55-77 years with a history of smoking in the past 20 years were identified via National Health Service England primary care records at practices in northeast and north-central London, UK, using electronic searches. Eligible individuals were invited by letter to a lung health check offering lung cancer screening at one of four hospital sites, with non-responders re-invited after 4 months. Individuals were excluded if they had dementia or metastatic cancer, were receiving palliative care or were housebound, or declined research participation. The proportion of individuals invited who responded to the lung health check invitation by telephone was used to measure uptake. We used univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses to estimate associations between uptake of a lung health check invitation and re-invitation of non-responders, adjusted for sex, age, ethnicity, smoking, and deprivation score. This study was registered prospectively with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03934866. FINDINGS Between March 20 and Dec 12, 2019, the records of 2 333 488 individuals from 251 primary care practices across northeast and north-central London were screened for eligibility; 1 974 919 (84·6%) individuals were outside the eligible age range, 7578 (2·1%) had pre-existing medical conditions, and 11 962 (3·3%) had opted out of particpation in research and thus were not invited. 95 297 individuals were eligible for invitation, of whom 29 545 (31·0%) responded. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, re-invitation letters were sent to only a subsample of 4594 non-responders, of whom 642 (14·0%) responded. Overall, uptake was lower among men than among women (odds ratio [OR] 0·91 [95% CI 0·88-0·94]; p<0·0001), and higher among older age groups (1·48 [1·42-1·54] among those aged 65-69 years vs those aged 55-59 years; p<0·0001), groups with less deprivation (1·89 [1·76-2·04] for the most vs the least deprived areas; p<0·0001), individuals of Asian ethnicity (1·14 [1·09-1·20] vs White ethnicity; p<0·0001), and individuals who were former smokers (1·89 [1·83-1·95] vs current smokers; p<0·0001). When ethnicity was subdivided into 16 groups, uptake was lower among individuals of other White ethnicity than among those with White British ethnicity (0·86 [0·83-0·90]), whereas uptake was higher among Chinese, Indian, and other Asian ethnicities than among those with White British ethnicity (1·33 [1·13-1·56] for Chinese ethnicity; 1·29 [1·19-1·40] for Indian ethnicity; and 1·19 [1·08-1·31] for other Asian ethnicity). INTERPRETATION Inviting eligible adults for lung health checks in areas of socioeconomic and ethnic diversity should achieve favourable participation in lung cancer screening overall, but inequalities by smoking, deprivation, and ethnicity persist. Reminder and re-invitation strategies should be used to increase uptake and the equity of response. FUNDING GRAIL.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jennifer L Dickson
- Lungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, University College London, London, UK
| | - Helen Hall
- Lungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, University College London, London, UK
| | - Carolyn Horst
- Lungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, University College London, London, UK
| | - Sophie Tisi
- Lungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, University College London, London, UK
| | - Priyam Verghese
- Lungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, University College London, London, UK
| | - Anne-Marie Mullin
- Cancer Research UK and UCL Cancer Trials Centre, University College London, London, UK
| | - Jon Teague
- Cancer Research UK and UCL Cancer Trials Centre, University College London, London, UK
| | - Laura Farrelly
- Cancer Research UK and UCL Cancer Trials Centre, University College London, London, UK
| | - Vicky Bowyer
- University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Kylie Gyertson
- University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Fanta Bojang
- University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Claire Levermore
- University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | | | - John McCabe
- Lungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, University College London, London, UK
| | - Neal Navani
- Lungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, University College London, London, UK; University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Arjun Nair
- University College London Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, London, UK
| | - Anand Devaraj
- Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS Trust, London, UK; National Heart and Lung Institute, Imperial College London, London, UK
| | - Allan Hackshaw
- Cancer Research UK and UCL Cancer Trials Centre, University College London, London, UK
| | - Samantha L Quaife
- Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Sam M Janes
- Lungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, University College London, London, UK.
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Kerrison RS, Travis E, Dobson C, Whitaker KL, Rees CJ, Duffy SW, von Wagner C. Barriers and facilitators to colonoscopy following fecal immunochemical test screening for colorectal cancer: A key informant interview study. PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING 2022; 105:1652-1662. [PMID: 34607734 PMCID: PMC9214549 DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2021.09.022] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/22/2021] [Revised: 07/07/2021] [Accepted: 09/14/2021] [Indexed: 06/13/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES People who are referred for colonoscopy, following an abnormal colorectal cancer (CRC) screening result, are at increased risk of CRC. Despite this, many individuals decline the procedure. The aim of this study was to investigate why. METHODS As little is currently known about non-attendance at follow-up colonoscopy, and follow-up of abnormal screening results is a nurse-led process, we decided to conduct key informant interviews with Specialist Screening Practitioners ([SSPs] nurses working in the English Bowel Cancer Screening Program). Interviews were conducted online. Transcripts were assessed using inductive and deductive coding techniques. RESULTS 21 SSPs participated in an interview. Five main types of barriers and facilitators to colonoscopy were described, namely: Sociocultural, Practical, Psychological, Health-related and COVID-related. Key psychological and sociocultural factors included: 'Fear of pain and discomfort associated with the procedure' and 'Lack of support from family and friends'. Key practical, health-related and COVID-related factors included: 'Family and work commitments', 'Existing health conditions as competing priorities' and 'Fear of getting COVID-19 at the hospital'. CONCLUSIONS A range of barriers and facilitators to follow-up colonoscopy exist. Future studies conducted with patients are needed to further explore barriers to colonoscopy. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS Strategies to reduce non-attendance should adopt a multifaceted approach.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Robert S Kerrison
- Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK; School of Health Sciences, University of Surrey, Surrey, UK.
| | | | - Christina Dobson
- Centre for Cancer, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK
| | | | - Colin J Rees
- Population Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University Centre for Cancer, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK; Department of Gastroenterology, South Tyneside NHS Foundation Trust, South Shields, UK
| | | | - Christian von Wagner
- Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Robb KA. The integrated screening action model (I-SAM): A theory-based approach to inform intervention development. Prev Med Rep 2021; 23:101427. [PMID: 34189020 PMCID: PMC8220376 DOI: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2021.101427] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/08/2021] [Revised: 05/13/2021] [Accepted: 05/25/2021] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
Screening can reduce deaths if the people invited participate. However, good uptake is hard to achieve, and our current approaches are failing to engage the most vulnerable. A coherent model of screening behaviour to guide our understanding and intervention development is yet to be established. The present aim was to propose an Integrated Screening Action Model (I-SAM) to improve screening access. The I-SAM synthesises existing models of health behaviour and empirical evidence. The I-SAM was developed following: i) an appraisal of the predominant models used within the screening literature; ii) the integration of the latest knowledge on behaviour change; with iii) the empirical literature, to inform the development of a theory-based approach to intervention development. There are three key aspects to the I-SAM: i) a sequence of stages that people pass through in engaging in screening behaviour (based on the Precaution Adoption Process Model); ii) screening behaviour is shaped by the interaction between participant and environmental influences (drawing from the Access Framework); and iii) targets for intervention should focus on the sources of behaviour - 'capability', 'opportunity', and 'motivation' (based on the COM-B Model). The I-SAM proposes an integrated model to support our understanding of screening behaviour and to identify targets for intervention. It will be an iterative process to test and refine the I-SAM and establish its value in supporting effective interventions to improve screening for all.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kathryn A. Robb
- Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 0XH, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Usher-Smith JA, Mills KM, Riedinger C, Saunders CL, Helsingen LM, Lytvyn L, Buskermolen M, Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, Bretthauer M, Guyatt G, Griffin SJ. The impact of information about different absolute benefits and harms on intention to participate in colorectal cancer screening: A think-aloud study and online randomised experiment. PLoS One 2021; 16:e0246991. [PMID: 33592037 PMCID: PMC7886213 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0246991] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/28/2020] [Accepted: 01/30/2021] [Indexed: 12/22/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND There is considerable heterogeneity in individuals' risk of disease and thus the absolute benefits and harms of population-wide screening programmes. Using colorectal cancer (CRC) screening as an exemplar, we explored how people make decisions about screening when presented with information about absolute benefits and harms, and how those preferences vary with baseline risk, between screening tests and between individuals. METHOD We conducted two linked studies with members of the public: a think-aloud study exploring decision making in-depth and an online randomised experiment quantifying preferences. In both, participants completed a web-based survey including information about three screening tests (colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, and faecal immunochemical testing) and then up to nine scenarios comparing screening to no screening for three levels of baseline risk (1%, 3% and 5% over 15 years) and the three screening tests. Participants reported, after each scenario, whether they would opt for screening (yes/no). RESULTS Of the 20 participants in the think-aloud study 13 did not consider absolute benefits or harms when making decisions concerning CRC screening. In the online experiment (n = 978), 60% expressed intention to attend at 1% risk of CRC, 70% at 3% and 77% at 5%, with no differences between screening tests. At an individual level, 535 (54.7%) would attend at all three risk levels and 178 (18.2%) at none. The 27% whose intention varied by baseline risk were more likely to be younger, without a family history of CRC, and without a prior history of screening. CONCLUSIONS Most people in our population were not influenced by the range of absolute benefits and harms associated with CRC screening presented. For an appreciable minority, however, magnitude of benefit was important.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Juliet A. Usher-Smith
- The Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Katie M. Mills
- The Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Christiane Riedinger
- The Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Catherine L. Saunders
- The Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Lise M. Helsingen
- Clinical Effectiveness Research Group, Department of Transplantation Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, and Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
| | - Lyubov Lytvyn
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada
| | - Maaike Buskermolen
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Michael Bretthauer
- Clinical Effectiveness Research Group, Department of Transplantation Medicine, Oslo University Hospital, and Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
| | - Gordon Guyatt
- Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada
| | - Simon J. Griffin
- The Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Implementation of long-term non-participant reminders for flexible sigmoidoscopy screening. Prev Med Rep 2021; 21:101308. [PMID: 33505841 PMCID: PMC7815459 DOI: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2020.101308] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/05/2020] [Revised: 12/09/2020] [Accepted: 12/21/2020] [Indexed: 12/30/2022] Open
Abstract
Long-term self-referral reminders increased uptake by 4.1%. 13% of those who self-referred had pre-cancerous lesions detected. The biggest effects were seen in the most deprived areas.
The clinical effectiveness of screening is highly dependent on uptake. Previous randomised controlled trials suggest that non-participant reminders, which highlight the opportunity to re-book an appointment, can improve participation. The present analysis examines the impact of implementing these reminders within the English Flexible Sigmoidoscopy (FS) Screening Programme, which offers once-only FS screening to adults aged 55–59 years. We assessed the screening status of 26,339 individuals invited for once-only FS screening in England. A total of 10,952 (41.6%) had attended screening, and were subsequently ineligible. The remaining 15,387 had not attended screening, and were selected to receive a reminder, 1–2 years after their invitation. Descriptive statistics were used to assess the increase in uptake and the adenoma detection rate (ADR) of those who self-referred, six months after the delivery of the final reminder. Pearson’s Chi-Square was used to compare the ADR between those who attended when invited and those who self-referred. Of the 15,387 adults eligible to receive a reminder, 13,626 (88.6%) were sent a reminder as intended (1,761 were not sent a reminder, due to endoscopy capacity). Of these, 8.0% (n = 1,086) booked and attended an appointment, which equated to a 4.1% increase in uptake from 41.6% at baseline, to 45.7% at follow-up. The ADR was significantly higher for those who self-referred, compared with those who attended when invited (13.3% and 9.5%, respectively; X2 = 16.138, p = 0.000059). The implementation of non-participant reminders led to a moderate increase in uptake. Implementing non-participant reminders could help mitigate the negative effects of COVID-19 on uptake.
Collapse
|
6
|
Kaushal A, Hirst Y, Tookey S, Kerrison RS, Marshall S, Prentice A, Vulkan D, Duffy S, von Wagner C. Use of a GP-endorsed non-participant reminder letter to promote uptake of bowel scope screening: A randomised controlled trial in a hard-to-reach population. Prev Med 2020; 141:106268. [PMID: 33022321 PMCID: PMC7732700 DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2020.106268] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/05/2020] [Revised: 08/25/2020] [Accepted: 09/19/2020] [Indexed: 11/29/2022]
Abstract
Previous research suggests that sending non-participants a reminder letter, 1 year after their initial invitation, can improve coverage for bowel scope screening (BSS), also known as flexible sigmoidoscopy screening. We hypothesised that adding a general practitioner's (GPs) endorsement to the reminder letter could improve coverage even further. We conducted a randomised controlled trial in North West London, UK. Participants were screening-eligible men and women who had not responded to their initial BSS invitation at least 12 months prior to the trial period. Eligible adults were randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive either a GP-endorsed reminder letter, or a standard reminder letter from June to August 2019. Logistic regression models were used to test the effect of the GP endorsement on attendance at BSS, adjusting for sex, clinical commissioning group, and local area socioeconomic deprivation. In total, 1200 participants were enrolled into the study and randomised to either the control (n = 600) or the intervention (n = 600) group. Those who received the GP-endorsed reminder letter were only slightly more likely to attend BSS than those who received the standard reminder letter (4% vs. 3%); this difference was not statistically significant (Adjusted OR = 1.30; 95% CI: 0.69, 2.43). Adding a GP-endorsement to the annual reminder letter did not have an effect on attendance at BSS. One possible explanation for this is that the endorsement used was not personalised enough. Future research should examine stronger GP-endorsements or other methods to promote uptake.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Aradhna Kaushal
- Research Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK.
| | - Yasemin Hirst
- Research Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK
| | - Sara Tookey
- Research Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK
| | - Robert S Kerrison
- Research Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK
| | - Sarah Marshall
- St Mark's Bowel Cancer Screening Centre, London North West University Healthcare NHS Trust, Harrow, UK
| | - Andrew Prentice
- St Mark's Bowel Cancer Screening Centre, London North West University Healthcare NHS Trust, Harrow, UK
| | - Daniel Vulkan
- Policy Research Unit in Cancer Awareness, Screening and Early Diagnosis, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Stephen Duffy
- Policy Research Unit in Cancer Awareness, Screening and Early Diagnosis, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Christian von Wagner
- Research Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Travis E, Ashley L, Pownall M, O'Connor DB. Barriers to flexible sigmoidoscopy colorectal cancer screening in low uptake socio-demographic groups: A systematic review. Psychooncology 2020; 29:1237-1247. [PMID: 32539187 DOI: 10.1002/pon.5443] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/23/2020] [Revised: 06/03/2020] [Accepted: 06/06/2020] [Indexed: 12/12/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To synthesise qualitative evidence related to barriers and facilitators of flexible sigmoidoscopy screening (FSS) intention and uptake, particularly within low socio-demographic uptake groups. FSS uptake is lower amongst women, lower socio-economic status (SES), and Asian ethnic groups within the United Kingdom (UK) and United States of America. METHODS A total of 12 168 articles were identified from searches of four databases: EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Web of Science. Eligibility criteria included: individuals eligible to attend FSS and empirical peer-reviewed studies that analysed qualitative data. The Critical Appraisal Skills Program tool evaluated the methodological quality of included studies, and thematic synthesis was used to analyse the data. RESULTS Ten qualitative studies met the inclusion criteria. Key barriers to FSS intention and uptake centred upon procedural anxieties. Women, including UK Asian women, reported shame and embarrassment, anticipated pain, perforation risk, and test preparation difficulties to elevate anxiety levels. Religious and cultural-influenced health beliefs amongst UK Asian groups were reported to inhibit FSS intention and uptake. Competing priorities, such as caring commitments, particularly impeded women's ability to attend certain FSS appointments. The review identified a knowledge gap concerning factors especially associated with FSS participation amongst lower SES groups. CONCLUSIONS Studies mostly focussed on barriers and facilitators of intention to participate in FSS, particularly within UK Asian groups. To determine the barriers associated with FSS uptake, and further understand how screening intention translates to behaviour, it is important that future qualitative research is equally directed towards factors associated with screening behaviour.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Laura Ashley
- Leeds School of Social Sciences, Leeds Beckett University, Leeds, UK
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
8
|
Riordan F, Racine E, Smith SM, Murphy A, Browne J, Kearney PM, Bradley C, James M, Murphy M, McHugh SM. Feasibility of an implementation intervention to increase attendance at diabetic retinopathy screening: protocol for a cluster randomised pilot trial. Pilot Feasibility Stud 2020; 6:64. [PMID: 32426158 PMCID: PMC7216495 DOI: 10.1186/s40814-020-00608-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/27/2019] [Accepted: 04/23/2020] [Indexed: 02/07/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Diabetic retinopathy screening (DRS) leads to the earlier detection of retinopathy and treatment that can prevent or delay the development of diabetes-related blindness. However, uptake continues to be sub-optimal in many countries, including Ireland. Routine management of type 2 diabetes largely takes place in primary care. As such, there may be an opportunity in primary care to introduce interventions to improve DRS uptake. However, few studies test the feasibility of interventions to enhance DRS uptake in this context. Our aim is to investigate the feasibility of an implementation intervention (IDEAs (Improving Diabetes Eye screening Attendance)) delivered in general practice to improve the uptake of the national DRS programme, RetinaScreen. METHODS The IDEAs study is a cluster randomised pilot trial with an embedded process evaluation and economic evaluation. Following stratification by practice size, eight general practices (clusters) will be randomly allocated to intervention (n = 4) or wait-list control groups (n = 4). The intervention will be delivered for 6 months, after which, it will be administered to wait-list control practices. The intervention is multi-faceted and comprises provider-level components (training, audit and feedback, health care professional prompt, reimbursement) and patient-level components (GP-endorsed reminder with information leaflet delivered opportunistically face-to-face, and systematically by phone and letter). Patient inclusion criteria are type 1 or type 2 diabetes and DRS programme non-attendance. A multi-method approach will be used to determine screening uptake, evaluate the trial and study procedures and examine the acceptability and feasibility of the intervention from staff and patient perspectives. Quantitative and qualitative data will be collected on intervention uptake and delivery, research processes and outcomes. Data will be collected at the practice, health professional and patient level. A partial economic evaluation will be conducted to estimate the cost of delivering the implementation intervention in general practice. Formal continuation criteria will be used to determine whether IDEAs should progress to a definitive trial. DISCUSSION Findings will determine whether IDEAsis feasible and acceptable and will be used to refine the intervention and study procedures. A definitive trial will determine whether IDEAs is a cost-effective intervention to improve DRS uptake and reduce diabetes-related blindness. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03901898. Registered 3rd April 2019.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Fiona Riordan
- School of Public Health, University College Cork, Western Gateway Building, Western Rd, Cork, Ireland
| | - Emmy Racine
- School of Public Health, University College Cork, Western Gateway Building, Western Rd, Cork, Ireland
| | - Susan M. Smith
- Department of General Practice, Royal College of Surgeons of Ireland, Dublin, Ireland
| | - Aileen Murphy
- Department of Economics, Cork University Business School, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland
| | - John Browne
- School of Public Health, University College Cork, Western Gateway Building, Western Rd, Cork, Ireland
| | - Patricia M. Kearney
- School of Public Health, University College Cork, Western Gateway Building, Western Rd, Cork, Ireland
| | - Colin Bradley
- Department of General Practice, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland
| | - Mark James
- Medical Education Unit, University College Cork, Cork, Ireland
| | - Mark Murphy
- Department of General Practice, Royal College of Surgeons of Ireland, Dublin, Ireland
| | - Sheena M. McHugh
- School of Public Health, University College Cork, Western Gateway Building, Western Rd, Cork, Ireland
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Quaife SL, Ruparel M, Dickson JL, Beeken RJ, McEwen A, Baldwin DR, Bhowmik A, Navani N, Sennett K, Duffy SW, Wardle J, Waller J, Janes SM. Lung Screen Uptake Trial (LSUT): Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial Testing Targeted Invitation Materials. Am J Respir Crit Care Med 2020; 201:965-975. [PMID: 31825647 PMCID: PMC7159423 DOI: 10.1164/rccm.201905-0946oc] [Citation(s) in RCA: 75] [Impact Index Per Article: 18.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/07/2019] [Accepted: 12/10/2019] [Indexed: 12/25/2022] Open
Abstract
Rationale: Low uptake of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening, particularly by current smokers of a low socioeconomic position, compromises effectiveness and equity.Objectives: To compare the effect of a targeted, low-burden, and stepped invitation strategy versus control on uptake of hospital-based Lung Health Check appointments offering LDCT screening.Methods: In a two-arm, blinded, between-subjects, randomized controlled trial, 2,012 participants were selected from 16 primary care practices using these criteria: 1) aged 60 to 75 years, 2) recorded as a current smoker within the last 7 years, and 3) no prespecified exclusion criteria contraindicating LDCT screening. Both groups received a stepped sequence of preinvitation, invitation, and reminder letters from their primary care practitioner offering prescheduled appointments. The key manipulation was the accompanying leaflet. The intervention group's leaflet targeted psychological barriers and provided low-burden information, mimicking the concept of the U.K. Ministry of Transport's annual vehicle test ("M.O.T. For Your Lungs").Measurements and Main Results: Uptake was 52.6%, with no difference between intervention (52.3%) and control (52.9%) groups in unadjusted (odds ratio [OR], 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82-1.16) or adjusted (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.82-1.17) analyses. Current smokers were less likely to attend (adjusted OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.56-0.86) than former smokers. Socioeconomic deprivation was significantly associated with lower uptake for the control group only (P < 0.01).Conclusions: The intervention did not improve uptake. Regardless of trial arm, uptake was considerably higher than previous clinical and real-world studies, particularly given that the samples were predominantly lower socioeconomic position smokers. Strategies common to both groups, including a Lung Health Check approach, could represent a minimum standard.Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02558101) and registered prospectively with the International Standard Registered Clinical/Social Study (N21774741).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Mamta Ruparel
- Lungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, Division of Medicine, University College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Jennifer L. Dickson
- Lungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, Division of Medicine, University College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Rebecca J. Beeken
- Research Department of Behavioural Science and Health and
- Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom
| | - Andy McEwen
- National Centre for Smoking Cessation and Training, Dorchester, United Kingdom
| | - David R. Baldwin
- Respiratory Medicine Unit, David Evans Research Centre, Nottingham University Hospitals, Nottingham, United Kingdom
| | - Angshu Bhowmik
- Department of Thoracic Medicine, Homerton University Hospital, London, United Kingdom
| | - Neal Navani
- Department of Thoracic Medicine, University College London Hospital, London, United Kingdom
| | - Karen Sennett
- Killick Street Health Centre, London, United Kingdom
| | - Stephen W. Duffy
- Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom; and
| | - Jane Wardle
- Research Department of Behavioural Science and Health and
| | - Jo Waller
- Research Department of Behavioural Science and Health and
- School of Cancer and Pharmaceutical Sciences, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Samuel M. Janes
- Lungs for Living Research Centre, UCL Respiratory, Division of Medicine, University College London, London, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Kaminski MF, Robertson DJ, Senore C, Rex DK. Optimizing the Quality of Colorectal Cancer Screening Worldwide. Gastroenterology 2020; 158:404-417. [PMID: 31759062 DOI: 10.1053/j.gastro.2019.11.026] [Citation(s) in RCA: 96] [Impact Index Per Article: 24.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/01/2019] [Revised: 11/04/2019] [Accepted: 11/14/2019] [Indexed: 12/14/2022]
Abstract
Screening, followed by colonoscopic polypectomy (or surgery for malignant lesions), prevents incident colorectal cancer and mortality. However, there are variations in effective application of nearly every aspect of the screening process. Screening is a multistep process, and failure in any single step could result in unnecessary morbidity and mortality. Awareness of variations in operator- and system-dependent performance has led to detailed, comprehensive recommendations in the United States and Europe on how colonoscopy screening should be performed and measured. Likewise, guidance has been provided on quality assurance for nonprimary colonoscopy-based screening programs, including strategies to maximize adherence. Quality improvement is now a validated science, and there is clear evidence that higher quality prevents incident cancer and cancer death. Quality must be addressed at the levels of the system, provider, and individuals, to maximize the benefits of screening for any population. We review the important aspects of measuring and improving the quality of colorectal cancer screening.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michael F Kaminski
- Department of Gastroenterological Oncology, the Maria Sklodowska-Curie Memorial Cancer Center and Institute of Oncology, Warsaw, Poland; Department of Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Oncology, Medical Center for Postgraduate Education, Warsaw, Poland; Institute of Health and Society, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
| | - Douglas J Robertson
- Department of Veterans Affairs Medical Center, White River Junction, Vermont; The Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth and The Dartmouth Institute, Hanover, New Hampshire
| | - Carlo Senore
- Epidemiology and Screening Unit-CPO, University Hospital Città della Salute e della Scienza, Turin, Italy
| | - Douglas K Rex
- Division of Gastroenterology/Hepatology, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis, Indiana.
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Lim MA, Chong VH, Ong SK, Lim YC. Colorectal Cancer in Brunei Darussalam: An Overview and Rationale for National Screening Programme. Asian Pac J Cancer Prev 2019; 20:3571-3580. [PMID: 31870096 PMCID: PMC7173360 DOI: 10.31557/apjcp.2019.20.12.3571] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.2] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/23/2019] [Indexed: 12/26/2022] Open
Abstract
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer worldwide after lung and breast cancers, and ranks second in terms of cancer mortality globally. Brunei Darussalam reports high incidence of CRC in the Southeast Asian region and has no formal national screening programme for CRC. Screening for CRC in Brunei Darussalam is offered in an opportunistic fashion for individuals with average or above average risks for CRC, that is, the individual has a positive family history of CRC or neoplasms and is more than 50 years old. Opportunistic screening is widely practiced but this is not standardised. The Ministry of Health in Brunei Darussalam is currently in the process of implementing a CRC screening programme as part of a larger national health screening based on the increasing incidence of non-communicable diseases (NCDs). This review article assesses the situation of CRC in Brunei Darussalam from the 1980s to present day, including incidence of CRC in different age groups, ethnicities and genders; relevant non-modifiable and modifiable risk factors of CRC in Brunei Darussalam setting; and common CRC screening techniques used in Brunei Darussalam as well as other Asia-Pacific countries. The review also discusses the merits of a national CRC screening programme. With the increasing incidence of CRC worldwide and in Brunei Darussalam, national screening for CRC in Brunei Darussalam is an important strategy to lower morbidity and mortality rates. A review of the progress and outcome of the national screening programme will be available a few years after rollout.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mei Ann Lim
- PAPRBS Institute of Health Sciences, Universiti Brunei Darussalam, Brunei Darussalam
| | - Vui Heng Chong
- Ministry of Health, Bandar Seri Begawan, Brunei Darussalam
| | - Sok King Ong
- Ministry of Health, Bandar Seri Begawan, Brunei Darussalam
| | - Ya Chee Lim
- PAPRBS Institute of Health Sciences, Universiti Brunei Darussalam, Brunei Darussalam
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Cox B, Sneyd MJ, Hingston G, McBride D, Bagshaw PF. Enhancing bowel screening: Preventing colorectal cancer by flexible sigmoidoscopy in New Zealand. Public Health 2019; 179:27-37. [PMID: 31726398 DOI: 10.1016/j.puhe.2019.09.021] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/25/2019] [Revised: 09/10/2019] [Accepted: 09/30/2019] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES The prevention of colorectal cancer (CRC) attainable from introducing once-in-a-lifetime flexible sigmoidoscopy (FSIG) screening was assessed. STUDY DESIGN This is a review of relevant available information for the assessment of the impact and resource demands of FSIG in New Zealand. METHODS The reduction in bowel cancer incidence achievable by one-off FSIG screening from 50 to 59 years of age, an age group for which bowel screening is not currently offered, was reviewed. The prevention of CRC attainable from an offer of screening at 55 years of age in New Zealand was also estimated. The number and cost of the FSIG screening procedures required and referrals for colonoscopies and the savings in treatment were calculated. RESULTS Annually, about 27,500 FSIG screening procedures would be required if 50% of those turning 55 years of age accepted an offer of once-in-a-lifetime FSIG screening. This would result in three-four-fold fewer people being referred for colonoscopy than in the national 2-yearly faecal immunochemical test (FIT) screening programme and subsequently reduce demand for colonoscopy from a false-positive FIT. The number of CRC cases prevented would increase over 17 years to more than 300 per year by 2033. After 10-15 years of screening, the annual savings in health service costs, primarily from CRC prevented, were sufficient to completely fund the FSIG screening. CONCLUSIONS Inclusion of FSIG screening in the national bowel screening programme would significantly reduce both the incidence and mortality of CRC in New Zealand, reduce the colonoscopy demand of current bowel screening and reduce long-term health service costs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- B Cox
- Hugh Adam Cancer Epidemiology Unit, Department of Preventive and Social Medicine, Dunedin School of Medicine, University of Otago, PO Box 56, Dunedin, 9054, New Zealand.
| | - M J Sneyd
- Hugh Adam Cancer Epidemiology Unit, Department of Preventive and Social Medicine, Dunedin School of Medicine, University of Otago, PO Box 56, Dunedin, 9054, New Zealand.
| | - G Hingston
- Department of Surgical Sciences, University of New England, Port Macquarie private hospital, Ramsay Health Care, Eight Highfields Circuit, Port Macquarie, NSW, 2444, Australia.
| | - D McBride
- Hugh Adam Cancer Epidemiology Unit, Department of Preventive and Social Medicine, Dunedin School of Medicine, University of Otago, PO Box 56, Dunedin, 9054, New Zealand.
| | - P F Bagshaw
- Canterbury Charity Hospital Trust, PO Box 20409, Christchurch, 8054, New Zealand.
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Rapid review of factors associated with flexible sigmoidoscopy screening use. Prev Med 2019; 120:8-18. [PMID: 30597228 DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2018.12.018] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/23/2018] [Revised: 12/04/2018] [Accepted: 12/24/2018] [Indexed: 01/19/2023]
Abstract
Flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) screening has been shown to reduce colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality among screened adults. The aim of this review was to identify patient-related factors associated with the screening test's use. We searched PubMed for studies that examined the association between FS screening use and one or more factors. To determine the eligibility of studies, we first reviewed titles, then abstracts, and finally the full paper. We started with a narrow search, which we expanded successively (by adding 'OR' terms) until the number of new publications eligible after abstract review was <1% of the total number of publications. We then abstracted factors from eligible papers and reported the number of times each was found to be positively or negatively associated with FS screening use. We identified 42 papers, most of which reported studies conducted in the United States of America (n = 21, 50%) and the United Kingdom (n = 13, 31%). Across studies, a wide range of factors were examined (n = 123), almost half of which were found to be associated with FS screening use at least once (n = 60). Sociodemographic and health and lifestyle factors that were frequently positively associated with FS screening use included: male gender, higher socioeconomic status and a family history of CRC. Frequently positively associated psychosocial factors included low perceived barriers and high perceived benefits. Findings suggest that future research should focus on developing a theoretical framework of cancer screening behaviour to allow a greater level of consistency and specificity in measuring key constructs.
Collapse
|
14
|
von Wagner C, Hirst Y, Tookey S, Kerrison RS, Marshall S, Prentice A, Vulkan D, Macleod U, Duffy S. Use of a GP-endorsed 12 months' reminder letter to promote uptake of bowel scope screening: protocol for a randomised controlled trial in a hard-to-reach population. BMJ Open 2018; 8:e022263. [PMID: 29730633 PMCID: PMC5942414 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-022263] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/21/2022] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) screening is associated with reduced colorectal cancer incidence and mortality when offered as a one-off test to men and women aged 55-64. The test, also referred to as the 'bowel scope screening' (BSS) test, was added to England's national Bowel Cancer Screening Programme in March 2013, where it is offered to men and women aged 55. Since its implementation, uptake of the BSS test has been low, with only 43% of the eligible population attending an appointment. Sending non-participants a reminder at age 56 has been shown to improve uptake by up to nine percentage points at a single centre in London; we hypothesise that adding a general practitioners (GPs) endorsement to the reminder could improve uptake even further. METHODS AND ANALYSIS This paper describes the protocol for a randomised controlled trial which will examine the effectiveness of adding a GPs endorsement to a reminder for BSS non-participants aged 56. All screening-eligible adults who have not responded to a BSS appointment at London North West Healthcare NHS Trust within 12 months of their initial invitation will be randomised to receive either a GP-endorsed reminder letter or reminder letter without GP endorsement. The primary outcome will be the proportion of individuals screened within each group 8 weeks after the reminder. Statistical comparisons will be made using univariate and multivariate logistic regression, with 'uptake' as the outcome variable, GP reminder group as the exposure and sociodemographic variables as covariates. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION The study was approved by the Yorkshire & Humber-Bradford Leeds Research Ethics Committee (16/YH/0298) and the Confidentiality Advisory Group (17/CAG/0162). The results will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal in accordance with the Consort statement and will be made available to the public. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER ISRCTN82867861.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Christian von Wagner
- Research Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK
| | - Yasemin Hirst
- Research Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK
| | - Sara Tookey
- Research Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK
| | - Robert S. Kerrison
- Research Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK
| | - Sarah Marshall
- St Mark’s Bowel Cancer Screening Centre, London North West Healthcare NHS Trust, Harrow, UK
| | - Andrew Prentice
- St Mark’s Bowel Cancer Screening Centre, London North West Healthcare NHS Trust, Harrow, UK
| | - Daniel Vulkan
- Policy Research Unit in Cancer Awareness, Screening and Early Diagnosis, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| | - Una Macleod
- Centre for Health and Population Sciences, Hull York Medical School, University of York, Heslington, UK
| | - Stephen Duffy
- Policy Research Unit in Cancer Awareness, Screening and Early Diagnosis, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Barts and The London School of Medicine and Dentistry, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
| |
Collapse
|