1
|
Anderson LE, Collins KE, Myers L, Ireland MJ, Omar M, Drummond A, Goodwin BC. Decisions and prompts to screen for cervical, bowel, and breast cancer. PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING 2024; 122:108174. [PMID: 38295667 DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2024.108174] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/21/2023] [Revised: 01/17/2024] [Accepted: 01/23/2024] [Indexed: 02/25/2024]
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To investigate what makes Australians decide to screen and follow through for breast, cervical, and bowel cancer population screening programs. METHODS A convenience sample (N = 962) answered open-text questions about their decision to screen and what prompted them to act in an online survey. Open text responses were coded based on shared meaning using content analysis. Frequencies of each code were calculated. RESULTS For breast and cervical screening, decisions were commonly based on screening being routine (32.58%breast and 35.19%cervical) or receiving a reminder (20.53% breast 13.07% cervical), and similarly, common prompts were receiving a reminder (40.68% breast and 29.13% cervical), screening being routine (22.05% breast and 18.65% cervical). Participants reported deciding to screen for bowel cancer due to arrival of home screening test kit (40.50%) or the experience of loved one's cancer (13.57%) and were prompted by arrival of home test kit (23.58%), and convenience (15.72%). CONCLUSIONS Findings can inform the development of interventions targeting non-participants of cancer screening programs. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS Messages to encourage breast and cervical cancer screening should frame screening as part of regular healthcare routine. Messages to encourage bowel cancer screening should encourage immediate use of the screening kit upon arrival.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Laura E Anderson
- National Centre for Youth Substance Use, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, QLD, Australia; Viertel Cancer Research Centre, Cancer Council Queensland, Fortitude Valley, QLD, Australia.
| | - Katelyn E Collins
- Viertel Cancer Research Centre, Cancer Council Queensland, Fortitude Valley, QLD, Australia; School of Psychology and Wellbeing, University of Southern Queensland, Springfield, QLD, Australia
| | - Larry Myers
- Viertel Cancer Research Centre, Cancer Council Queensland, Fortitude Valley, QLD, Australia; School of Psychology and Wellbeing, University of Southern Queensland, Springfield, QLD, Australia
| | - Michael J Ireland
- Centre for Health Research, University of Southern Queensland, Springfield, QLD, Australia; School of Psychology and Wellbeing, University of Southern Queensland, Springfield, QLD, Australia
| | - Mariam Omar
- Viertel Cancer Research Centre, Cancer Council Queensland, Fortitude Valley, QLD, Australia
| | - Allanah Drummond
- School of Psychology and Wellbeing, University of Southern Queensland, Springfield, QLD, Australia
| | - Belinda C Goodwin
- Viertel Cancer Research Centre, Cancer Council Queensland, Fortitude Valley, QLD, Australia; Centre for Health Research, University of Southern Queensland, Springfield, QLD, Australia; Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Myers L, Ireland MJ, Viljoen B, Goodwin B. Evaluating changes to home bowel cancer screening kits: an end-user perspective study. Cancer Causes Control 2023; 34:583-594. [PMID: 37081155 DOI: 10.1007/s10552-023-01695-x] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/09/2022] [Accepted: 04/03/2023] [Indexed: 04/22/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Many people do not participate in mail-out bowel cancer screening programs due to difficulties using the screening kit. The current study investigated the ways the screening kit could be modified to improve usability. METHODS 1,109 people evaluated 15 different screening kit modifications. Participants reported on how these kit modifications would affect their screening barriers, their future screening intentions, and how much they would recommend that the modification is made to the current screening kit used the program. All responses were given via an online survey conducted between April and December of 2021. RESULTS Seventeen percent of previous NBCSP non-participators indicated that a one-sample test would increase their intention to participate. Recommendation ratings demonstrated higher levels of support for modifications that included providing a barcode naming label (M = 9.06, 95% CI [8.81, 9.31]), having a larger diameter opening of the collection tube (M = 8.42, 95% CI [8.10, 8.74]), and highlighting the expiry date on the kit packaging (M = 8.59, 95% CI [8.29, 8.89]). There were lower levels of support for modifications that reduced the size of the packaging the kit is sent in (M = 6.47, 95% CI [6.09, 6.85]), removed branding from kit packaging (M = 5.98, 95% CI [5.57, 6.39]), and removed the information booklet that comes with the screening kit (M = 5.25, 95% CI [4.78, 5.72]). CONCLUSION These findings highlight multiple ways in which bowel cancer screening kits can be changed to increase usability for invitees of national bowel cancer screening programs. Findings have implications for all screening programs that use immunochemical-based bowel cancer screening kits.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- L Myers
- Cancer Council Queensland, 553 Gregory Terrace, Fortitude Valley, Brisbane, QLD, 4006, Australia.
- School of Psychology and Well-Being, University of Southern Queensland, Springfield, Australia.
| | - M J Ireland
- School of Psychology and Well-Being, University of Southern Queensland, Springfield, Australia
- Centre for Health Research, University of Southern Queensland, Springfield, Australia
| | - B Viljoen
- Cancer Council Queensland, 553 Gregory Terrace, Fortitude Valley, Brisbane, QLD, 4006, Australia
- School of Nursing and Midwifery, University of Southern Queensland, Toowoomba, Australia
- Centre for Health Research, University of Southern Queensland, Springfield, Australia
| | - B Goodwin
- Cancer Council Queensland, 553 Gregory Terrace, Fortitude Valley, Brisbane, QLD, 4006, Australia
- Centre for Health Research, University of Southern Queensland, Springfield, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Bongaerts THG, Büchner FL, Crone MR, van Exel J, Guicherit OR, Numans ME, Nierkens V. Perspectives on cancer screening participation in a highly urbanized region: a Q-methodology study in The Hague, the Netherlands. BMC Public Health 2022; 22:1925. [PMID: 36243684 PMCID: PMC9571478 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-022-14312-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/06/2022] [Accepted: 10/04/2022] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The Netherlands hosts, as many other European countries, three population-based cancer screening programmes (CSPs). The overall uptake among these CSPs is high, but has decreased over recent years. Especially in highly urbanized regions the uptake rates tend to fall below the minimal effective rate of 70% set by the World Health Organization. Understanding the reasons underlying the decision of citizens to partake in a CPS are essential in order to optimize the current screening participation rates. The aim of this study was to explore the various perspectives concerning cancer screening among inhabitants of The Hague, a highly urbanized region of the Netherlands. METHODS A Q-methodology study was conducted to provide insight in the prevailing perspectives on partaking in CSPs. All respondents were inhabitants of the city of The Hague, the Netherlands. In an online application they ranked a set of 31 statements, based on the current available literature and clustered by the Integrated Change model, into a 9-column forced ranking grid according to level of agreement, followed by a short survey. Respondents were asked to participate in a subsequent interview to explain their ranking. By-person factor analysis was used to identify distinct perspectives, which were interpreted using data from the rankings and interviews. RESULTS Three distinct perspectives were identified: 1). "Positive about participation", 2). "Thoughtful about participation", and 3). "Fear drives participation". These perspectives provide insight into how potential respondents, living in an urbanized region in the Netherlands, decide upon partaking in CSPs. CONCLUSIONS Since CSPs will only be effective when participation rates are sufficiently high, it is essential to have insight into the different perspectives among potential respondents concerning partaking in a CSP. This study adds new insights concerning these perspectives and suggests several ideas for future optimization of the CSPs.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Thomas H G Bongaerts
- Health Campus The Hague, Leiden University Medical Center, The Hague, The Netherlands. .,Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands.
| | - Frederike L Büchner
- Health Campus The Hague, Leiden University Medical Center, The Hague, The Netherlands.,Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Matty R Crone
- Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Job van Exel
- Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.,Erasmus Centre for Health Economics Research, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Onno R Guicherit
- University Cancer Center Leiden - The Hague, at Haaglanden Medical Center, The Hague, The Netherlands
| | - Mattijs E Numans
- Health Campus The Hague, Leiden University Medical Center, The Hague, The Netherlands.,Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| | - Vera Nierkens
- Department of Public Health and Primary Care, Leiden University Medical Center, Leiden, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Kotzur M, Macdonald S, O'Carroll RE, O'Connor RC, Irvine A, Steele RJC, Robb KA. What are common barriers and helpful solutions to colorectal cancer screening? A cross-sectional survey to develop intervention content for a planning support tool. BMJ Open 2022; 12:e062738. [PMID: 36691140 PMCID: PMC9445780 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-062738] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/09/2022] [Accepted: 08/05/2022] [Indexed: 02/01/2023] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Colorectal screening using faecal immunochemical tests (FITs) can save lives if the people invited participate. In Scotland, most people intend to complete a FIT but this is not reflected in uptake rates. Planning interventions can bridge this intention-behaviour gap. To develop a tool supporting people willing to do colorectal screening with planning to complete a FIT, this study aimed to identify frequently experienced barriers and solutions to these barriers. DESIGN This is a cross-sectional study. SETTING Participants were recruited through the Scottish Bowel Screening Programme to complete a mailed questionnaire. PARTICIPANTS The study included 2387 participants who had completed a FIT (mean age 65 years, 40% female) and 359 participants who had not completed a FIT but were inclined to do so (mean age 63 years, 39% female). OUTCOME MEASURES The questionnaire assessed frequency of endorsement of colorectal screening barriers and solutions. RESULTS Participants who had not completed a FIT endorsed significantly more barriers than those who had completed a FIT, when demographic, health and behavioural covariates were held constant (F(1,2053)=13.40, p<0.001, partial η2=0.01). Participants who completed a FIT endorsed significantly more solutions than those who did not (U=301 585.50, z=-3.21, p<0.001, r=0.06). This difference became insignificant when covariates were controlled. Participants agreed on the most common barriers and solutions regardless of screening history. Barriers included procrastination, forgetting, fear of the test result, screening anxiety, disgust and low self-efficacy. Solutions included hand-washing, doing the FIT in private, reading the FIT instructions, benefit of early detection, feelings of responsibility, high self-efficacy and seeing oneself as a person who looks after one's health. CONCLUSION This survey identified six barriers and seven solutions as key content to include in the development of a planning tool for colorectal screening using the FIT. Participatory research is required to codesign an engaging and accessible planning tool.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Marie Kotzur
- School of Health & Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
| | - Sara Macdonald
- School of Health & Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
| | | | - Rory C O'Connor
- School of Health & Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
| | | | | | - Kathryn A Robb
- School of Health & Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Thijsen A, Gemelli CN, Davison TE, Masser B. Using the Health Action Process Approach to predict blood donation intentions and return behavior following a vasovagal reaction for whole blood and plasma donors. Transfusion 2022; 62:1791-1798. [PMID: 35924722 DOI: 10.1111/trf.17052] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/15/2021] [Revised: 06/02/2022] [Accepted: 06/02/2022] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND To inform the development of interventions to retain donors following a vasovagal reaction (VVR), the aim of this study is to use the Health Action Process Approach (HAPA) to identify predictors of intentions to re-donate and actual return behavior among whole blood (WB) and plasma donors who experienced a VVR. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS A total of 1136 WB donors (Mage = 32.4 ± 12.5 years; 73.4% female) and 1141 plasma donors (Mage = 36.5 ± 14.4 years; 73.3% female) completed an online survey after experiencing a VVR. Two hierarchical regression analyses were conducted for each donation type. In the first analysis, donation intentions were regressed onto the motivational HAPA constructs and social support. In the second analysis, donor return within 6 months was regressed onto social support, intentions, and the volitional HAPA constructs. RESULTS The motivational and social support variables accounted for 47.2% of the variance in intentions to return in WB donors and 15.7% in plasma donors. For both groups, task self-efficacy, positive and negative outcome expectancies, and social support were significant predictors of intentions to return. Intentions and action planning were significant predictors of donor return in both groups, and recovery self-efficacy was significant for plasma only. CONCLUSION The HAPA model can provide guidance to blood collection agencies to design phase-specific and individually-focused interventions to retain WB and plasma donors following a VVR.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Amanda Thijsen
- Clinical Services and Research, Australian Red Cross Lifeblood, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Carley N Gemelli
- Clinical Services and Research, Australian Red Cross Lifeblood, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Tanya E Davison
- Clinical Services and Research, Australian Red Cross Lifeblood, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.,Monash Art Design and Architecture, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
| | - Barbara Masser
- School of Psychology, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.,Clinical Services and Research, Australian Red Cross Lifeblood, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia
| |
Collapse
|