The Barriers to Bowel Cancer Screening Scale: Examining Structural Validity, Measurement Invariance, and Criterion Validity

OBJECTIVE

The success of national cancer screening programs, such as the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program (NBCSP) in Australia, depends on public participation, which is currently an alarming 43.5% for the NBCSP. Understanding the barriers that impede screening participation requires valid measurement instruments. This study aims to cross-validate such an instrument with a new, large, and varied sample, as well as assess measurement invariance across subsamples at a greatest risk of nonparticipation (ie, testing whether the scale functions in similar ways across groups).

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

A cross-sectional sample of 1158 participants from the target screening population (50-74 years) provided demographic information, responses to the Barriers to Home Bowel Screening (BB-CanS) scale, and information on their previous screening participation.

RESULTS

Both the full and the brief versions of the BB-CanS scale showed good model fit for the full sample and for gender and age subsamples. Despite the inter-factor correlations being high, the unidimensional and bi-factor models exhibited poorer fit. Improvement in fit was observed with scale refinement involving the removal of 7 items. All versions of the BB-CanS scale were invariant across gender and age subsamples. Age and gender differences emerged across several barriers and variance in all 4 barriers significantly predicted prior screening participation.

CONCLUSION

The BB-CanS scale is a valid measure of 4 highly correlated barriers to home bowel cancer screening: disgust relating to screening, avoidance of test outcomes, practical difficulty (or challenges), and the need for a sense of greater autonomy. All versions of the instrument measure the equivalent construct across age and gender groups. Observed differences in barriers across at-risk groups provide targets for future intervention.

The impact of pre-notifications and reminders on participation in colorectal cancer screening - A randomised controlled trial

This study aimed to test whether participation in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening can be increased by combining the standard invitation procedure with a pre-notification and/or an extra reminder. In a non-blinded randomised controlled trial nested in a population-based CRC screening programme employing the faecal immunochemical test, Group I received a three-staged invitation procedure (pre-notification, invitation and one reminder), Group II received a three-staged invitation procedure (invitation and two reminders) and Group III received a four-staged invitation procedure (pre-notification, invitation and two reminders). The control group received the invitation and one reminder (usual procedure). A total of 59,041 participants were included in the analyses. Overall participation rates increased from 66.9% in the control group to 69.8% in the four-staged invitation procedure corresponding to an increase in overall participation rate of 2.9% (95% CI: 1.8 to 4.0). In the age group 50-59 years, the four-staged invitation procedure increased the participation rate by 4.0% (95% CI: 2.4 to 5.6). An extra reminder increased participation with 2.7% (95% CI: 1.1; 4.2) for males compared to 1.1% (95% CI: -0.3; 2.5) for females. In conclusion, the four-staged invitation procedure was the most effective invitation procedure indicating that multiple invitation procedures are most effective, especially in the youngest age group. If a three-staged invitation procedure is applied, a second reminder should be preferred over a pre-notification. Trial registration The project was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov on 26 February 2020 and patient enrolment began in August 2020. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04292366.

Barriers and Facilitators to Participation in Health Screening: an Umbrella Review Across Conditions

Screening is an essential prevention practice for a number of health conditions. However, screening coverage remains generally low. Studies that investigate determinants of screening participation are becoming more common, but oftentimes investigate screening for health conditions in an individualized rather than integrated fashion. In routine clinical practice, however, healthcare professionals are often confronted with situations in which several screening procedures are recommended for the same patient. The consideration of their common determinants may support a more integrated screening approach. The objectives of this umbrella review were therefore to examine: 1) the determinants (barriers and facilitators) that have been identified in relation to recommended health screening procedures; and 2) the modifiable determinants (in primary care) common across health conditions or specific to individual procedures. Results were presented through a narrative synthesis. PubMed, PsycInfo and Cochrane were searched up to January 2022. Systematic reviews reporting determinants of participation in health screening procedures with grade A or B recommendation according to the US Preventive Services Task Force were included. A total of 85 systematic reviews were included, most which contained both qualitative and quantitative studies on determinants that describe individual factors (961 occurrences), social factors (113 occurrences, healthcare professional factors (149 occurrences), health system factors (105 occurrences) and screening procedure factors (99 occurrences). The most studied screening procedures concerned cervical cancer/human papillomavirus (n = 33), breast cancer (n = 28), colorectal cancer (n = 25) and the human immunodeficiency virus (n = 12). Other conditions have been under-studied (e.g. cardiovascular problems, lung cancer, syphilis). The individual domain, including determinants such as knowledge, beliefs and emotions, was the most covered across health conditions. Healthcare professional's recommendations and the quality of patient-provider communication were identified to have a strong influence on screening participation in most conditions. The other three domains included determinants which were more specific to a condition or a population. Various determinants modifiable in primary care were found in the individual domain and in the health system, healthcare professional and screening procedure domains. Quality was assessed as low for most systematic reviews included. The identification of various modifiable determinants common across conditions highlights the potential of an integrated screening participation approach. Interventions may address common determinants in a broader person-centred framework within which tailoring to specific procedures or populations can be considered. This approach needs to be explored in intervention studies. The systematic review registration is PROSPERO CRD42019126709.

A health action process approach for developing invitee endorsed interventions to increase mail-out bowel cancer screening

Theory‐based, user‐informed interventions are needed to increase the low participation rates of population‐based faecal occult blood test (FOBT) bowel cancer screening. This study investigated the theoretical fit of the health action process approach (HAPA) for home FOBT screening and measured screening invitees' attitudes towards different intervention strategies. A cross‐sectional sample (n = 377), aged 50–74 years, participated in this study. Two scales were created for this study. The process approach to mail‐out screening (PAMS) scale measured HAPA constructs, and the user ratings of mail‐out screening interventions (UR‐MSI) scale measured attitudes towards different intervention strategies. Structural equation modelling was used to assess the fit of PAMS scale responses to the HAPA model, and descriptive statistics were calculated for UR‐MSI responses. PAMS results showed acceptable model fit, CFI = .968, RMSEA = .050 and explained 49.9% of the variation in FOBT screening participation. Positive ratings of interventions ranged from 20.47%, an intervention prompting planning to complete the FOBT kit, to 72.25%, an intervention promoting the positive health outcome associated with FOBT screening. Intervention strategies should be combined such that they target all factors specified within the HAPA model. User‐informed intervention design should be used to effectively facilitate FOBT uptake in the community.

The SMARTscreen Trial: a randomised controlled trial investigating the efficacy of a GP-endorsed narrative SMS to increase participation in the Australian National Bowel Cancer Screening Program

BACKGROUND

Increasing participation in the Australian National Bowel Cancer Screening Program (NBCSP) is the most efficient and cost-effective way of reducing mortality associated with colorectal cancer by detecting and treating early-stage disease. Currently, only 44% of Australians aged 50-74 years complete the NBCSP. This efficacy trial aims to test whether this SMS intervention is an effective method for increasing participation in the NBCSP. Furthermore, a process evaluation will explore the barriers and facilitators to sending the SMS from general practice.

METHODS

We will recruit 20 general practices in the western region of Victoria, Australia to participate in a cluster randomised controlled trial. General practices will be randomly allocated with a 1:1 ratio to either a control or intervention group. Established general practice software will be used to identify patients aged 50 to 60 years old who are due to receive a NBCSP kit in the next month. The SMS intervention includes GP endorsement and links to narrative messages about the benefits of and instructions on how to complete the NBCSP kit. It will be sent from intervention general practices to eligible patients prior to receiving the NBCSP kit. We require 1400 eligible patients to provide 80% power with a two-sided 5% significance level to detect a 10% increase in CRC screening participation in the intervention group compared to the control group. Our primary outcome is the difference in the proportion of eligible patients who completed a faecal occult blood test (FOBT) between the intervention and control group for up to 12 months after the SMS was sent, as recorded in their electronic medical record (EMR). A process evaluation using interview data collected from general practice staff (GP, practice managers, nurses) and patients will explore the feasibility and acceptability of sending and receiving a SMS to prompt completing a NBCSP kit.

DISCUSSION

This efficacy trial will provide initial trial evidence of the utility of an SMS narrative intervention to increase participation in the NBCSP. The results will inform decisions about the need for and design of a larger, multi-state trial of this SMS intervention to determine its cost-effectiveness and future implementation.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12620001020976 . Registered on 17 October 2020.

The implementation of colorectal cancer screening interventions in low-and middle-income countries: a scoping review

BACKGROUND

Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) experienced increasing rates of colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence in the last decade and lower 5-year survival rates compared to high-income countries (HICs) where the implementation of screening and treatment services have advanced. This review scoped and mapped the literature regarding the content, implementation and uptake of CRC screening interventions as well as opportunities and challenges for the implementation of CRC screening interventions in LMICs.

METHODS

We systematically followed a five-step scoping review framework to identify and review relevant literature about CRC screening in LMICs, written in the English language before February 2020. We searched Medline, Embase, Web of Science and Google Scholar for studies targeting the general, asymptomatic, at-risk adult population. The TIDieR tool and an implementation checklist were used to extract data from empirical studies; and we extracted data-informed insights from policy reviews and commentaries.

RESULTS

CRC screening interventions (n = 24 studies) were implemented in nine middle-income countries. Population-based screening programmes (n = 11) as well as small-scale screening interventions (n = 13) utilised various recruitment strategies. Interventions that recruited participants face-to-face (alone or in combination with other recruitment strategies) (10/15), opportunistic clinic-based screening interventions (5/6) and educational interventions combined with screening (3/4), seemed to be the strategies that consistently achieved an uptake of > 65% in LMICs. FOBT/FIT and colonoscopy uptake ranged between 14 and 100%. The most commonly reported implementation indicator was 'uptake/reach'. There was an absence of detail regarding implementation indicators and there is a need to improve reporting practice in order to disseminate learning about how to implement programmes.

CONCLUSION

Opportunities and challenges for the implementation of CRC screening programmes were related to the reporting of CRC cases and screening, cost-effective screening methods, knowledge about CRC and screening, staff resources and training, infrastructure of the health care system, financial resources, public health campaigns, policy commitment from governments, patient navigation, planning of screening programmes and quality assurance.

Barriers to home bowel cancer screening

OBJECTIVE

To develop and test a psychometric instrument for measuring common barriers to completing and returning home bowel cancer screening kits.

METHODS

One hundred and ten items were reviewed by an expert panel (n = 15) and presented in an online cross-sectional survey with 427 Australian adults. Exploratory factor analysis was used to identify an optimal factor solution of latent barrier types and aggregated factor scores were examined and compared between demographic groups.

RESULTS

Common barriers included having already been screened (32.3%), forgetting about the kit (24.4%), and a lack of planning (21.8%). Barriers reflecting hygiene concerns were also endorsed by over 15% of the sample. Four clear barrier types were evident reflecting disgust, avoidance, lack of autonomy, and physical difficulties.

CONCLUSIONS

Findings support calls to apply multi-faceted interventions strategies that address a broad range of barrier types, particularly that which encourage planning, and prompt and facilitate easy stool collection.

The Effects of Different Invitation Schemes on the Use of Fecal Occult Blood Tests for Colorectal Cancer Screening: Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials

Simple Summary

There is large heterogeneity in invitation schemes and participation rates in colorectal cancer screening programs offering fecal occult blood tests (nowadays mostly fecal immunochemical tests). It is unclear what the most effective invitation strategies are for fecal occult blood tests. In this systematic review, advance notification, mailed fecal occult blood test, and reminders had major, consistent, and complementary potential to increase participation in fecal occult blood test-based colorectal cancer screening. Our findings show that the effectiveness of invitations for fecal occult blood test-based colorectal cancer screening can be substantially increased across several settings by the implementation of comprehensive invitation strategies.

Abstract

Personal invitations for fecal occult blood tests (nowadays mostly fecal immunochemical tests) are increasingly used to raise their usage for colorectal cancer screening. However, there is a large heterogeneity in applied invitation schemes. We aimed to review evidence for the effectiveness of various invitation schemes. The main outcome was the fecal occult blood test usage rate. A systematic search was performed in Medline and Web of Science (up to 9 July 2020). Randomized controlled trials or cluster-randomized controlled trials were eligible, which reported on general invitations for fecal occult blood test-based colorectal cancer screening sent to the general population at average colorectal cancer risk. (PROSPERO 2020 CRD42020169409). Overall, 34 studies were included. Invitations with an attached, i.e., mailed fecal occult blood test consistently increased test usage by 4–19.7% points, compared to other methods of test provision. Likewise, the introduction of advance notification consistently led to a higher usage rate, with an increase of 3.3–10.8% points. Reminders showed positive but varying effects by method. With an increase of 8.5–15.8% points, letter or email reminders were more effective than reminders by phone call or text message (0.6–6.5% points). Inconsistent results were found for financial incentives ((−8.4)–20% points) and for added or changed invitation material ((−3.5)–11.8% points). With 3.5–24.7% points, the strongest increases in use were achieved by multifaceted invitation, implementing multiple components. Any invitation scheme was superior over no invitation. Advance notification, mailing of fecal occult blood test, and reminders were consistently shown to have major, complementary potential to increase participation in fecal occult blood test-based colorectal cancer screening settings.

Cluster randomized controlled trial of volitional and motivational interventions to improve bowel cancer screening uptake: A population-level study

OBJECTIVES

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a leading cause of cancer death worldwide, although effective uptake of bowel cancer screening is below 60% in England. This trial investigated the influence of volitional and motivational interventions and their combination on increasing guaiac fecal occult blood testing (gFOBT) screening uptake.

METHOD

In total, 34,633 participants were recruited (via North-East of England bowel cancer screening hub) into a 2×2 factorial cluster randomized controlled trial. Social norm-based motivational intervention (SNA); Implementation intention-based Volitional Help Sheet (VHS); Combined intervention (SNA+VHS); Treatment as usual control. Screening rate (gFOBT kit return rate within 8 weeks of invitation) was the primary outcome.

RESULTS

Screening kits were returned by 60% of participants (N=20,847/34,633). A substantial imbalance was observed in participant characteristics, participants in the combined intervention group were younger and more likely to be first time invitees. Adjusted analyses found insufficient evidence that any of the interventions were different to control (Combined: OR = 1.18, 95% CI 0.97-1.44; SNA alone: OR=0.93; 95% CI: 0.76-1.15; VHS alone OR= 0.88; 95% CI: 0.75-1.03). Subgroup analyses demonstrated a significant beneficial effect of the combined intervention in the youngest age group compared to control (OR = 1.27; 95% CI: 1.05-1.54).

CONCLUSIONS

The study did not support any benefit of either VHS or SNA interventions alone on bowel cancer screening uptake. The combined SNA+VHS intervention was significantly different from control only in the youngest age group in adjusted analyses. However, the magnitude of effect in the youngest age group suggests that further testing of VHS plus SNA interventions in carefully targeted populations may be warranted.

Implementation Strategies for Interventions Aiming to Increase Participation in Mail-Out Bowel Cancer Screening Programs: A Realist Review

Background: Bowel cancer is the third most commonly diagnosed cancer and the third most common cause of cancer-related death, with 1,849,518 new cases of bowel diagnosed and 880,792 deaths reported globally in 2018 alone. Survival can be improved through early detection via national mail-out bowel cancer screening programs; however, participation remains low in many countries. Behavior change is therefore required to increase participation. This realist review aims to (a) identify the behavior change techniques (BCTs) used in each intervention, (b) understand the mechanisms of action (MoAs) responsible for the BCT effectiveness, and (c) apply a behavior change model to inform how MoAs can be combined to increase screening participation.

Methods: We systematically reviewed the literature for interventions aiming to increase participation in mail-out bowel cancer screening. We used a four-stage realist synthesis approach whereby (1) interventions were extracted from each study; (2) BCTs applied in each intervention were identified and coded using the BCT Taxonomy-v1; (3) the Theory and Techniques Tool was used to link BCTs to their MoA; and (4) BCTs and MoAs were categorized according to their effectiveness and what Health Action Process Approach (HAPA) stage of change they would affect.

Results: We identified 68 intervention trials using 26 unique BCTs and 13 MoAs to increase participation. Sixteen BCTs and 10 MoAs were identified within the interventions that successfully increased participation rates. Interventions targeting both stages of the HAPA model had a higher success rate (80%) than those targeting one stage of change (51%). When targeting only one stage, interventions targeting the volitional stage had a higher success rate (71%) than interventions targeting only the motivational stage of change (26%).

Conclusion: Importantly, this review identified a suite of BCTs and MoAs effective for increasing participation in mail-out bowel cancer screening programs. With increased participation in bowel cancer screening leading to improved survival, our findings are key to informing the improvement of policy and interventions that aim to increase screening using specific strategies at key stages of health decision-making.

The impact of interventions addressing socioeconomic inequalities in cancer-related outcomes in high-income countries: A systematic review

Background: High cancer mortality is a major source of burden. Population-wide programs have been developed to improve cancer outcomes, and although effective in improving outcomes overall, the socioeconomically disadvantaged population have disproportionately benefited. This systematic review evaluated interventions aimed at addressing inequalities in cancer-related outcomes between low and high socioeconomic groups within high-income countries. Materials and Methods: The Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, and PubMed searches were completed in October 2018. Data extraction and quality appraisal were guided by established mechanisms. Impact of interventions, using odds ratios, with respective 95% confidence intervals were presented, where available. Results: Sixteen studies reporting on 19 interventions were included. Seven interventions (37%) reduced socioeconomic inequalities in cancer-related outcomes, focusing on participation in cancer screening. Interventions included pre-formulated implementation intentions; GP-endorsed screening invitations; enhanced reminder letters; text message reminders; and implementation of an organised screening program. Conclusions: This systematic review found limited evidence on the efficacy of existing interventions that aimed to reduce inequalities in cancer-related outcomes between people living in low and high socioeconomic areas among high-income countries. Future interventions should consider the specific needs of people living in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas to improve the efficacy of an intervention.