The importance of people's values and preferences for colorectal cancer screening participation

Anxiety and Health Literacy Levels of Patients Undergoing Colonoscopy

This descriptive, correlational study was conducted to determine the anxiety and health literacy levels of patients undergoing colonoscopy and the variables affecting them. The study population consisted of individuals who presented for colonoscopy to the endoscopy department of a state hospital. The sample consisted of 160 individuals who met the inclusion criteria. Three data collection tools (Identifying Information Form, State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, and Health Literacy Scale) were used to determine anxiety and health literacy levels. Findings show that the state-trait anxiety of individuals who would undergo colonoscopy for the first time was moderate, and their health literacy scores were inadequate, problematic, and weak. There was a positive and significant relationship between patients' anxiety and health literacy levels. Variables such as age, gender, marital status, education level, employment status, disease-related symptoms, a family history of cancer, and fear of colonoscopy influenced anxiety and health literacy. Based on these findings, we recommend that individuals' anxiety and health literacy status be determined before a colonoscopy procedure to improve gastroenterology nurses' management of these patients.

Interactive or tailored digital interventions to increase uptake in cervical, breast, and colorectal cancer screening to reduce health inequity: a systematic review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Significant health inequities exist in screening uptake for certain types of cancer. The review question was to identify and describe interactive, tailored digital, computer, and web-based interventions to reduce health inequity in cancer screening and review the effectiveness of such interventions in increasing screening rates versus usual care.

METHODS

We searched four medical literature databases for randomized control trials (RCTs) published until 12 January 2023 that evaluated interventions aimed at increasing the percentage of breast, prostate, cervical, or colorectal cancer screening uptake. Meta-analysis was not conducted due to heterogeneity among studies.

RESULTS

After screening 4200 titles and abstracts, 17 studies were included. Studies focused on colorectal ( n  = 10), breast ( n  = 4), cervical ( n  = 2), and prostate ( n  = 1) cancer screening. All were based in the USA except two. Most studies focused on ethnicity/race, while some included low-income populations. Intervention types were heterogeneous and used computer programs, apps, or web-based methods to provide tailored or interactive information to participants about screening risks and options. Some studies found positive effects for increasing cancer screening uptake in the intervention groups compared to usual care, but results were heterogeneous.

CONCLUSION

Interventions that use individual and cultural tailoring of cancer screening educational material should be further developed and investigated outside of the USA. Designing effective digital intervention strategies, with components that can be adapted to remote delivery may be an important strategy for reducing health inequities in cancer screening during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.

Perceived Importance of the Benefits and Harms of Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Best-Worst Scaling Study

OBJECTIVES

To elicit the relative importance of the benefits and harms of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening among potential screening participants in the Dutch population.

METHODS

In a consensus meeting with 11 experts, risk reduction of CRC and CRC deaths (benefits) and complications from colonoscopy, stress of receiving positive fecal immunological test (FIT) results, as well as false-positive and false-negative FIT results (harms) were selected as determinant end points to consider during decision making. We conducted an online best-worst scaling survey among adults aged 55 to 75 years from the Dutch Health Care Consumer Panel of The Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research to elicit preference values for these outcomes. The preference values were estimated using conditional logit regression.

RESULTS

Of 265 participants, 234 (89%) had ever participated in CRC screening. Compared with the stress of receiving a positive FIT result, the outcome perceived most important was the risk of CRC death (odds ratio [OR] 4.5; 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.9-5.1), followed by risk of CRC (OR 4.1; 95% CI 3.6-4.7), a false-negative FIT result (OR 3.1; 95% CI 2.7-3.5), colonoscopy complications (OR 1.6; 95% CI 1.4-1.8), and a false-positive FIT result (OR 1.4; 95% CI 1.3-1.6). The magnitude of these differences in perceived importance varied according to age, educational level, ethnic background, and whether the individual had previously participated in CRC screening.

CONCLUSION

Dutch men and women eligible for FIT-based CRC screening perceive the benefits of screening to be more important than the harms.

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

INTRODUCTION

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSION

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

PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

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

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

BACKGROUND

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

METHODS

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

RESULTS

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

OBJECTIVE

To investigate knowledge, values and preferences, and involvement among screening participants and non-participants in relation to colorectal cancer (CRC) and screening decision.

METHODS

Individuals (N = 2748) from the Screening of Swedish Colons trial were invited to respond to the SCREESCO questionnaire, assessing information/knowledge, values/preferences, and involvement.

RESULTS

Respondents' (screening participants, n = 1320; non-participants, n = 161) knowledge varied across items; 90 % recognised faecal blood as a CRC symptom, but less than half cited overweight, smoking, alcohol, and physical inactivity as risk factors. Incidence and case fatality were often over- and underestimated, respectively (>45 and 40 %). Non-participants were more uncertain about their CRC risk (p = 0.015) and less convinced that screening reduces the risk of dying from CRC (p < 0.001). In decision-making, screening participants took most into consideration the importance of early detection and CRC worry, and non-participants the risk of discomfort and complications due to the screening examination (p < 0.001). Most individuals made the decision without involving others.

CONCLUSION

For informed and shared decisions, efforts need to be made to increase public knowledge about CRC and to develop interventions to support individuals in decision-making.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

These results can inform and guide future initiatives to facilitate high quality decisions and CRC screening uptake in Sweden.

Aspects of colorectal cancer screening, methods, age and gender

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is, besides breast, prostate, lung and skin cancers, the most common cancer worldwide and is suitable for screening. The incidence of CRC varies considerably in different parts of the world: in well-developed countries, the incidence is between 30 and 70 per 100 000 inhabitants, whereas in less-developed countries such as sub-Saharan Africa, it is 10-20/100 000 inhabitants. Women have a lower incidence of CRC, which is usually one-third of total incidence. Several studies have shown that it is possible to decrease mortality from CRC with about 20%, which is evidenced through the data from countries with screening programmes. Though the method of choice to identify blood samples in faecal matter is under debate, the most feasible way is to perform colonoscopy. Other methods include more advanced faecal analyses, testing for mutations from CRC, sigmoidoscopy, CT colonoscopy or optical colonoscopy. Colonoscopy is in most countries not available in sufficient amount and has to be carried out with great accuracy; otherwise, lesions will be missed to identify, thus leading to complications. Gender is an issue in CRC screening, as women have about 20% fewer colorectal adenomas and CRCs, but they also have more right-sided lesions, which are more difficult to detect with tests for faecal blood since they create less blood in faeces. Thus, other strategies may have to be developed for women in order for screening to have the same effect. It is essential to introduce colorectal cancer screening in all countries together with other clinical pieces of advice such as information on smoking, obesity and exercise in order to reduce one of the most dangerous cancers.

Experiences of Patients Undergoing Bowel Preparation and Colonoscopy: A Qualitative Longitudinal Study

Introduction

Colonoscopy remains the reference standard for diagnosing and monitoring colorectal cancer and for diagnosis and surveillance of inflammatory bowel disease. However, there is a limited knowledge of the patients’ needs when undergoing colonoscopy and the challenges within in order to reduce the number of cancelled colonoscopies. The purpose of the study was to explore the experiences of undergoing bowel preparation and colonoscopy.

Methods

The study was designed as a qualitative longitudinal interview study with an inductive research approach. Patients were considered for inclusion consecutively and selected based on the following criteria of variation: way of referral for colonoscopy (outpatient or screening), age and gender. The interviews were analyzed using qualitative content analysis, and results reported according to COREQ guidelines.

Results

Based on the findings, three categories emerged: To weigh up participation, A greater challenge than expected, and Not so challenging after all. Throughout these categories, the experience of uncertainty was reported.

Discussion

The process of undergoing bowel preparation and colonoscopy was influenced by uncertainty due to insufficient information. There is a need to strengthen the patient-centered care by adjusting the information to patient’s needs to better support them in decision-making for participation, to better prepare them for the bowel preparation and to better prepare them for the procedure. In addition, it is vital that patients are provided with results of the colonoscopy that correspond to the timeframe specified in written information.

Gender, having a positive FIT and type of hospital are important factors for colonoscopy experience in colorectal cancer screening - findings from the SCREESCO study

OBJECTIVES

Assessing the experience of screening procedures is crucial for improving the quality and acceptance of colonoscopy in colorectal cancer screening. The aim of the study was to investigate the colonoscopy experience and associated factors among individuals who underwent a colonoscopy in the Screening of Swedish Colons (SCREESCO) study.

METHODS

Participants in the Screening of Swedish Colons (SCREESCO; n = 7593) randomized clinical trial (colonoscopy vs. faecal immunochemical test (FIT)) were enrolled. The primary outcome was overall colonoscopy experience measured with a study-specific questionnaire. Secondary endpoints were measured using multiple regression analyses with factors that included sex, randomization group, geographical regions, university hospital, complications, sedation, clean bowel, time to cecum, and presence of polyps or cancer.

RESULTS

A total of 6572 (87%) individuals responded to the questionnaire. The majority was satisfied with the information, care and treatment. Women reported more worry, discomfort and pain, but also better information, care and treatment compared with men. The FIT group was more worried and perceived more discomfort and pain than the colonoscopy group. Type of hospital (geographical region; university hospital vs. not university hospital) was also a significant predictor for the colonoscopy experience.

CONCLUSIONS

Although most participants were satisfied with the colonoscopy experience, the study has highlighted areas for improvement. Important factors for colonoscopy experience were gender, randomization group, and type of hospital and therefore crucial to bear in mind when designing screening programs.

Citizen consultation and organized breast cancer screening

Scientific controversies on breast cancer screening have induced the French authorities to launch online citizen consultation. The objective of this netnography was to identify the knowledge and values underlying contributors' choices. The choice of supporters was often based on emotions: impression of disease severity and efficacy of screening, fearfulness stemming from personal experience and testimony from relatives. Opponents emphasized the risks of the screening and the doctors' perceived lack of relational and technical skills. The 'non-decision' profile was explained by information deemed simplistic, guilt-inducing and partial. Future research should focus on how to appeal to emotions to support shared decision.

Psychometric properties of the SCREESCO questionnaire used in a colorectal cancer screening programme-A Rasch analysis

INTRODUCTION

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the most common cancer diagnoses among both sexes. Sweden has not yet implemented any CRC screening programme, but a study, Screening of Swedish Colons (SCREESCO), is ongoing. The movement within the health care sector towards a more participatory perspective has led to the increased importance of shared decision making (SDM), and this is suggestively applied when deciding upon screening participation. There is no Swedish questionnaire for assessing the level of SDM in relation to CRC screening. Therefore, the CRC screening module of the National Survey of Medical Decisions was translated and culturally adapted into a Swedish context: the SCREESCO questionnaire.

AIM

The SCREESCO questionnaire requires further evaluation, and therefore, the aim, by using the Rasch approach, was to evaluate the psychometric properties of the SCREESCO questionnaire.

METHODS

A Rasch partial credit model was chosen to investigate the psychometric properties. The sample consisted of individuals invited to the SCREESCO programme, who have answered the SCREESCO questionnaire.

RESULTS

Rating scale structures indicated stability for the response structure used. Satisfactory evidence for validity of internal structure was also shown for the whole questionnaire and two of three concepts/subscales, after deletion of a few items. Validity in response processes indicated acceptable, or close to acceptable, findings, while the results for unidimensionality and differential item functioning (DIF) were somewhat mixed. Separation index revealed less satisfactory results, both for the whole questionnaire and the concepts/subscales.

CONCLUSION

This Rasch analysis of the SCREESCO questionnaire revealed that the questionnaire in its current form has difficulties to assess the level of SDM in relation to CRC screening. The achieved results will guide further evaluation and development with the long-term goal of having a Swedish questionnaire, to be used in the health care sector, assessing the level of SDM in relation to CRC screening.

Women's perceptions of personalized risk-based breast cancer screening and prevention: An international focus group study

Objective

Increased knowledge of breast cancer risk factors enables a shift from one‐size‐fits‐all breast cancer screening to a risk‐based approach, tailoring screening policy to a woman's individual risk. New opportunities for prevention will arise. However, before this novel screening and prevention program is introduced, its acceptability from a woman's perspective needs to be explored.

Methods

Women eligible for breast cancer screening in the Netherlands, United Kingdom, and Sweden were invited to take part in focus groups. A total of 143 women participated. Data were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using thematic analysis.

Results

Analysis identified five themes across the three countries. The first theme “impact of knowledge” describes women's concern of not being able to unlearn their risk, perceiving it as either a motivator for change or a burden which may lead to stigma. The second theme “belief in science” explains women's need to trust the science behind the risk assessment and subsequent care pathways. Theme three “emotional impact” explores, eg, women's perceived anxiety and (false) reassurance, which may result from knowing their risk. Theme four “decision making” highlights cultural differences in shared versus individual decision making. Theme five “attitude to medication” explores the controversial topic of offering preventative medication for breast cancer risk reduction.

Conclusions

Acceptability of risk‐based screening and prevention is mixed. Women's perceptions are informed by a lack of knowledge, cultural norms, and common emotional concerns, which highlights the importance of tailored educational materials and risk counselling to aid either shared or individual informed decision making.

Are anxiety levels associated with the decision to participate in a Swedish colorectal cancer screening programme? A nationwide cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programmes are commonly challenged by low uptake, limiting their potential to reduce CRC burden. We aimed to investigate anxiety levels related to the decision to participate or not in CRC screening among screening participants and non-participants. Further to explore associations between higher anxiety levels related to the decision and individuals' characteristics.

DESIGN

A nationwide cross-sectional study conducted with individuals included in a national randomised controlled CRC screening trial, the Screening of Swedish Colons (SCREESCO).

PARTICIPANTS

A total of 1409 individuals, 60-62 years, recruited from SCREESCO during 2015-2016 participated in the study; 1256 had participated in CRC screening (faecal immunochemical test: n=958; colonoscopy: n=298) and 153 had declined screening participation.

MEASURES

Anxiety levels were assessed with the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) S-Anxiety Scale. Health literacy (HL) was assessed with the Swedish Functional and Communicative and Critical Health Literacy Scales.

RESULTS

Altogether, 79% of survey participants reported lower anxiety levels regarding their CRC screening decision (STAI S-Anxiety <40). Anxiety levels did not differ between screening participants and non-participants (mean STAI S-Anxiety score=34.1 vs 33.9, p=0.859). The odds of reporting higher anxiety levels increased by female sex (OR=1.37; CI 1.04 to 1.80; p=0.025) and previous faecal sampling (OR=1.53; CI 1.14 to 2.05; p=0.004), and decreased if living with partner (OR=0.65; CI 0.48 to 0.88; p=0.005), working (OR=0.72; CI 0.53 to 0.96; p=0.027) or having sufficient HL (functional: OR=0.49; CI 0.33 to 0.73, p≤0.001; communicative and critical: OR=0.55; CI 0.38 to 0.82; p=0.003).

CONCLUSIONS

Anxiety levels did not differ between screening participants and non-participants. Higher anxiety scores were associated with certain characteristics. Interventions accounting for these characteristics can be applied to reduce anxiety and facilitate programme acceptance.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02078804; Results.

Health literacy levels and views about being invited to a colorectal cancer screening program

BACKGROUND

Sweden has not yet implemented a national screening program for colorectal cancer, but a nationwide study is ongoing; the Screening of Swedish Colons (SCREESCO). Previous research shows that the use of health care services, together with several health-related outcomes, is associated with an individual's level of health literacy. However, the relation between health literacy and participation in colorectal cancer screening has produced varying results reported within the few studies addressing this issue and therefore, further research is warranted.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The aim was to explore health literacy and views about being invited to screening, among participants and non-participants in a national colorectal cancer screening program. They were randomly sampled to fecal immunochemical test or colonoscopy and a mixed methods approach was applied, using questionnaires, focus group discussions and interviews.

RESULTS

The majority of individuals, whether they were participants or non-participants in the SCREESCO program, had an acceptable level of health literacy and no significant differences in health literacy levels between the groups were found. Participants expressed that it was important and appreciated to be able to choose information sources on an individual basis. Among non-participants, the importance of receiving invitations with a clear message that quickly draws one's attention was highlighted. However, both groups expressed a positive outlook towards the invitation. The mixed methods approach revealed that findings from interviews and focus group discussions corresponded to items in the health literacy scales.

CONCLUSION

A majority of individuals displayed acceptable levels of health literacy, regardless of whether they chose to participate or not. Similarities between the groups were seen in the qualitative findings regarding views of the invitation. Currently, the SCREESCO invitation letter is distributed by regular mail, but in the future a more dynamic approach could be valuable to increase clarity in the message about importance of screening.