Assessing knowledge and attitudes towards screening among users of Faecal Immunochemical Test (FIT)

A digital intake tool to avert outpatient visits in a FIT-based colorectal cancer screening population: study protocol of a multicentre, prospective non-randomized trial - the DIT-trial

BACKGROUND

Currently all participants of the Dutch colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program with a positive faecal immunochemical test (FIT) are seen at the outpatient clinic to assess their health status, receive information on colonoscopy and CRC risk, and provide informed consent. However, for many patients this information could probably also safely be exchanged in an online setting, in order to reduce the burden for patients, healthcare system, and environment. In this study we will evaluate if a face-to-face pre-colonoscopy consultation can be replaced by a Digital Intake Tool (DIT) in a CRC screening population.

METHODS

This is a prospective multicentre single-arm, non-randomized study with a non-inferiority design. The DIT will triage a total of 1000 participants and inform them about CRC risk, colonoscopy, sedation, and provide bowel preparation instructions. Participants identified as high-risk (i.e., red-triaged) will be contacted by phone or scheduled for an appointment at the outpatient clinic. The primary outcome measure will be adequate bowel preparation rate, defined as the proportion of participants with a Boston Bowel Preparation (BBPS) score ≥ 6. To compare our primary outcome, we will use colonoscopy data from 1000 FIT positive participants who visited the outpatient clinic for pre-colonoscopy consultation. Secondary outcomes will include participation rate, colonoscopy adherence rate, patient experience in terms of satisfaction and anxiety, knowledge transfer, number of outpatient visits that can be averted by the DIT, and cost-effectiveness of the tool. Ethical approval was obtained from the Medical Ethical Committee of the Erasmus Medical Center (MEC-2021-0098).

DISCUSSION

This study aims to assess if a face-to-face pre-colonoscopy consultation can be replaced by an eHealth assessment and education tool in a FIT-based CRC screening program. In case favourable results are established, the intervention evaluated in this study could significantly impact CRC screening programs, benefiting both patients and healthcare systems on a (inter)national scale. Additionally, it would enable more personalized care as the DIT can be easily customized and made feasible in other languages, thereby enhancing healthcare accessibility.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Dutch Trial Register: NL9315 , date of registration: March 8th, 2021.

Measuring the Impact of Quantitative Information on Patient Understanding: Approaches for Assessing the Adequacy of Patient Knowledge about Colorectal Cancer Screening

Background. Guidelines recommend that decision aids disclose quantitative information to patients considering colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, but the impact on patient knowledge and decision making is limited. An important challenge for assessing any disclosure involves determining when an individual has “adequate knowledge” to make a decision. Methods. We analyzed data from a trial that randomized 213 patients to view a decision aid about CRC screening that contained verbal information (qualitative arm) versus one containing verbal plus quantitative information (quantitative arm). We analyzed participants’ answers to 8 “qualitative knowledge” questions, which did not cover the quantitative information, at baseline (T0) and after viewing the decision aid (T1). We introduce a novel approach that defines adequate knowledge as correctly answering all of a subset of questions that are particularly relevant because of the participant’s test choice (“Choice-Based Knowledge Assessment”). Results. Participants in the quantitative arm answered a higher mean number of knowledge questions correctly at T1 than did participants in the qualitative arm (7.3 v. 6.9, P < 0.05), and they more frequently had adequate knowledge at T1 based on a cutoff of 6 or 7 correct out of 8 (94% v. 83%, P < 0.05, and 86% v. 71%, P < 0.05, respectively). Members of the quantitative group also more frequently had adequate knowledge at T1 when assessed by Choice-Based Knowledge Assessment (87% v. 76%, P < 0.05). Conclusions. Patients who viewed quantitative information in addition to verbal information had greater qualitative knowledge and more frequently had adequate knowledge compared with those who viewed verbal information alone, according to most ways of defining adequate knowledge. Quantitative information may have helped participants better understand qualitative or gist concepts.

Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ID# NCT01415479

Highlights

Patients who viewed quantitative information in a decision aid about colorectal cancer screening were more knowledgeable about nonquantitative information and were more likely to have adequate knowledge according to a variety of approaches for assessing that, compared with individuals who viewed only qualitative information. This result supports the inclusion of quantitative information in decision aids. Researchers assessing patient understanding should consider a variety of ways to define adequate knowledge when assessing decision quality.

Selection of patients for large mailed fecal immunochemical test colorectal cancer screening outreach programs: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

Digital health care offers an opportunity to scale and personalize cancer screening programs, such as mailed outreach for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. However, studies that describe the patient selection strategy and process for CRC screening are limited. Our objective was to evaluate implementation strategies for selecting patients for CRC screening programs in large health care systems.

METHODS

We conducted a systematic review of 30 studies along with key informant surveys and interviews to describe programmatic implementation strategies for selecting patients for CRC screening. PubMed and Embase were searched since inception through December 2018, and hand searches were performed of the retrieved reference lists but none were incorporated (n = 0). No language exclusions were applied.

RESULTS

Common criteria for outreach exclusion included: being up-to-date with routine CRC screening (n = 22), comorbidities (n = 20), and personal history (n = 22) or family history of cancer (n = 9). Key informant surveys and interviews were performed (n = 28) to understand data sources and practices for patient outreach selection, and found that 13 studies leveraged electronic medical care records, 10 studies leveraged a population registry (national, municipal, community, health), 4 studies required patient opt-in, and 1 study required primary care provider referral. Broad ranges in fecal immunochemical test completion were observed in community clinic (n = 8, 31.0-59.6%), integrated health system (n = 5, 21.2-82.7%), and national regional CRC screening programs (n = 17, 23.0-64.7%). Six studies used technical codes, and four studies required patient self-reporting from a questionnaire to participate.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review provides health systems with the diverse outreach practices and technical tools to support efforts to automate patient selection for CRC screening outreach.

Question Prompt List to Support Patient-Provider Communication in the Use of the 21-Gene Recurrence Test: Feasibility, Acceptability, and Outcomes

PURPOSE

The 21-gene recurrence score (RS) assay is used to guide breast cancer treatment decisions but can be poorly understood by patients. We examined the effects of a question prompt list (QPL) on knowledge, distress, and decisional conflict related to genomic testing and treatment in early-stage breast cancer.

METHODS

We describe the feasibility and acceptability of the QPL and the impact of the QPL on knowledge, distress, and decisional conflict before and after the receipt of the QPL (MEND 2, N = 65). We also compared distress and decisional conflict between women who received the QPL (MEND 2, N = 65) and a comparable group of women who did not receive the QPL who participated in an earlier observational study within the same clinics (MEND 1, N = 136).

RESULTS

MEND 2 participants indicated high acceptability and feasibility using the QPL. Knowledge increased post-QPL (P < .01) but did not decrease distress. Decisional conflict was lower among women in MEND 2 compared with those in MEND 1 (P < .01), with no statistically significant differences in distress.

CONCLUSION

The findings suggest that the QPL is feasible, acceptable, can improve knowledge and decrease decisional conflict in the large group of women deciding treatment while integrating RS test results.

The LEAD trial-The effectiveness of a decision aid on decision making among citizens with lower educational attainment who have not participated in FIT-based colorectal cancer screening in Denmark: A randomised controlled trial

OBJECTIVES

This trial tested the effectiveness of a self-administered web-based decision aid, targeted at citizens with lower educational attainment, on informed choice about colorectal cancer screening participation as assessed by group levels of knowledge, attitudes and uptake.

METHODS

The randomised controlled trial was conducted among 2702 screening-naïve Danish citizens, 53-74 years old, with lower educational attainment. Baseline questionnaire respondents (62%) were allocated to intervention and control groups. Intervention group citizens received the decision aid. Outcomes were informed choice, worries and decisional conflict.

RESULTS

Analyses were conducted among 339 eligible citizens. The mean difference in knowledge score change between intervention and control group was 0.00 (95% confidence interval (CI): -0.38;0.38). Trends towards more positive screening attitudes (mean difference in score change: 0.72, 95% CI: -0.38;1.81) and higher screening uptake (7.6%, 95% CI:-2.2;17.4%) were observed. Worries (-0.33, 95% CI: -0.97;0.32) and decisional conflict (mean difference: -3.5, 95%CI: -7.0;-0.1) were slightly reduced.

CONCLUSIONS

The decision aid did not affect informed choice or knowledge. However, there were trends towards increased screening uptake and more positive screening attitudes.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Being a simple intervention and easily administered, the decision aid could represent a cost-effective way of enhancing screening uptake, and some elements of informed decision-making.

The Role of Health Literacy in Explaining the Relation between Educational Level and Decision Making about Colorectal Cancer Screening

Little is known about why educational inequalities exist in informed decision making in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Insight into the role and impact of health literacy is essential for intervention development. This study investigates associations between health literacy and informed decision making in CRC screening and explores to what extent health literacy mediates the association between education and informed decision making in CRC screening. In total, 696 individuals eligible for CRC screening (55–75 years of age) were recruited from online panels and filled in an online questionnaire at T0 (n = 696), T1 (n = 407) and T2 (n = 327). A hypothetical mediation model was tested using structural equation modelling. Outcomes included CRC knowledge, CRC screening knowledge, attitude, injunctive norm, descriptive norm, risk perception, self-efficacy, decisional conflict and decisional certainty. Health literacy domains included Comprehension, Application, Numeracy and Communication. Comprehension, Application and Numeracy, were found to mediate the association between education and knowledge about CRC and CRC screening, injunctive norm, descriptive norm, decisional conflict and decisional certainty. In light of these findings, targeting multiple health literacy domains in decision-support interventions is essential for facilitating informed decision making in CRC screening.

Development and pilot-testing of a colorectal cancer screening decision aid for individuals with varying health literacy levels

OBJECTIVE

Making an informed decision about colorectal cancer screening requires health literacy. Our aim was to develop and pilot-test a computer-based decision aid to support informed decision making about whether or not to participate in colorectal cancer screening for individuals with varying health literacy levels in the Netherlands.

METHODS

First, we designed and adapted the decision aid prototype among 25 individuals with low (n = 15) and adequate (n = 10) health literacy. Second, we used a before/after study to assess changes in knowledge, attitude, intention, decisional conflict, deliberation, anxiety and risk perception in an online survey among 81 individuals eligible for colorectal cancer screening with low (n = 35) and adequate (n = 46) health literacy.

RESULTS

The decision aid was acceptable, comprehensible, reduced decisional conflict, increased deliberation and improved knowledge about colorectal cancer screening, but not about colorectal cancer, among individuals with adequate and low health literacy. Usability was slightly higher for participants with adequate health literacy compared to those with low health literacy.

CONCLUSION

The decision aid is promising in supporting informed decision making about colorectal cancer screening, also among individuals with lower health literacy.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Further refinement of interactive features, such as videos, animations and the values clarification exercise, is needed to increase the usability of the decision aid.

Knowledge, attitudes, and worries among different health literacy groups before receiving first invitation to colorectal cancer screening: Cross-sectional study

Background

Colorectal cancer screening uptake is associated with knowledge, attitudes and worries about screening. People with higher levels of health literacy usually have higher screening-related knowledge, but its association with attitudes and worries is sparsely described.The aim of this study was to describe knowledge, attitudes, and worries about colorectal cancer screening among unscreened citizens, and to estimate the association between these and health literacy.

Methods

In a cross-sectional study 10,030 53-74 year-old Central Denmark Region citizens received a questionnaire assessing knowledge, attitudes, worry and health literacy. Socioeconomic and -demographic data were linked from Statistics Denmark after data collection.

Results

In total, 7142 (71.2%) questionnaires were completed. A good general level of knowledge was observed (4.91 and 5.13 out of 7 for men and women, respectively). Citizens tended to be positive towards screening (21.4 and 21.3 on a 4-28 range scale for men and women respectively), and showed low levels of worries (8.8 and 9.09 on a 3-15 range scale for men and women respectively). Knowledge decreased and worries increased with lower levels of health literacy. Further, attitudes tended to be more positive with higher levels of health literacy.

Conclusions

In general, citizens tend to have good knowledge, positive attitudes and few worries about colorectal cancer screening. People with lower health literacy could benefit from targeted interventions that address knowledge and worries about screening to support informed decision making.

Do people with a different goal-orientation or specific focus make different decisions about colorectal cancer-screening participation?

Objective

Previous studies have shown that having promotion-oriented goals (e.g. wanting to become healthy) or prevention-oriented goals (e.g. wanting to avoid getting ill) can affect people’s health-related decisions and behaviour by emphasising aspects and information that seem relevant in light of what they want to achieve. However, this issue has not yet been researched regarding colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. With our study, we aimed to examine the relationship between people’s goal-orientation or focus on advantages or disadvantages and their CRC screening participation, as this could provide insights for supporting people in making this complex decision.

Methods

An online survey was carried out among a sample of first-time CRC screening invitees (1282 respondents, response rate 49%). We assessed people’s goal-orientation (i.e. promotion-orientation and prevention-orientation), focus on the advantages or disadvantages of CRC screening, screening participation and main considerations (e.g. cancer is a serious illness) concerning their screening decision.

Results

Generally, CRC screening participants scored higher on both promotion-orientation and prevention-orientation than non-participants. Both CRC screening participation and non-participation were not associated with a dominant goal-orientation. CRC screening participants did show a dominant focus on the advantages of CRC screening. Mediation analysis showed support for our premise that the relationship between people’s goal-orientation or focus on advantages or disadvantages and their screening participation could be (partially) mediated by people’s main considerations concerning CRC screening.

Conclusion

CRC screening participants and non-participants differed in their goal-orientation and focus on advantages or disadvantages. CRC screening participation appears to be associated with a focus on the advantages of CRC screening, which could impede the making of an informed decision. CRC screening non-participation appears not to be associated with any clear goal-orientation or focus, or we have not yet managed to capture this, which could be either beneficial or problematic for making an informed decision.

Women's attitude towards routine human platelet antigen-screening in pregnancy

INTRODUCTION

Fetal and neonatal alloimmune thrombocytopenia is a potentially life-threatening disease with excellent preventative treatment available for subsequent pregnancies. To prevent index cases, the effectiveness of a population-based screening program has been suggested repeatedly. Therefore, we aimed to evaluate women's attitude towards possible future human platelet antigen-screening in pregnancy.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We performed a cross-sectional questionnaire study among healthy pregnant women receiving prenatal care in one of seven participating midwifery practices. Attitude was assessed using a questionnaire based on the validated Multidimensional Measurement of Informed Choice model, containing questions assessing knowledge, attitude and intention to participate.

RESULTS

A total of 143 of the 220 women (65%) completed and returned the questionnaire. A positive attitude towards human platelet antigen-screening was expressed by 91% of participants, of which 94% was based on sufficient knowledge. Attitude was more likely to be negatively influenced by the opinion that screening can be frightening. Informed choices were made in 87% and occurred significantly less in women from non-European origin, 89% in European women vs. 60% in non-European women (p = 0.03).

CONCLUSIONS

Pregnant women in the Netherlands expressed a positive attitude towards human platelet antigen-screening in pregnancy. We therefore expect a high rate of informed uptake when human platelet antigen-screening is implemented. In future counseling on human platelet antigen-screening, ethnicity and possible anxiety associated with a screening test need to be specifically addressed.

Accessibility of standardized information of a national colorectal cancer screening program for low health literate screening invitees: A mixed method study

OBJECTIVE

To explore the accessibility of standardized printed information materials of the national Dutch colorectal cancer screening program among low health literate screening invitees and to assess the effect of the information on their knowledge about colorectal cancer and the screening program.

METHODS

Linguistic tools were used to analyze the text and design characteristics. The accessibility, comprehensibility and relevance of the information materials were explored in interviews and in observations (n=25). The effect of the information on knowledge was assessed in an online survey (n=127).

RESULTS

The materials employed a simple text and design. However, respondents expressed problems with the amount of information, and the difference between screening and diagnostic follow-up. Knowledge significantly increased in 10 out of 16 items after reading the information but remained low for colorectal cancer risk, sensitivity of testing, and the voluntariness of colorectal cancer screening.

CONCLUSION

Despite intelligible linguistic and design characteristics, screening invitees with low health literacy had problems in accessing, comprehending and applying standard information materials on colorectal cancer screening, and lacked essential knowledge for informed decision-making about participation.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

To enable equal access to informed decision-making, information strategies need to be adjusted to the skills of low health literate screening invitees.

The Dutch public are positive about the colorectal cancer-screening programme, but is this a well-informed opinion?

BACKGROUND

Population-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is widely recommended, and members of the eligible screening population seem to be positive about it. However, it is not well known how people outside the eligible screening population view CRC screening, and whether they are supportive of the government providing this. Public opinion may affect people's personal views and their screening decision. The aim of our study was to examine the opinion of the Dutch general public regarding the national CRC screening programme.

METHOD

An online survey was carried out in a Dutch population sample of adults aged 18 and older, assessing level of support, personal attitude, collective attitude, perceived social norm, awareness, and knowledge regarding the CRC screening programme.

RESULTS

The response rate was 56% (n = 1679/3000). Generally, the Dutch public are positive about and supportive of the CRC screening programme. We found the biggest proportion of support (86%) when people were asked directly. A smaller proportion (48%) was supportive when people had to choose between other options concerning how the government could possibly deal with CRC. People report knowing more about the benefits of CRC screening than about its possible harms and risks. Many people found it difficult to answer the knowledge questions that asked about numerical information concerning CRC screening correctly.

CONCLUSION

People were less supportive of the CRC screening programme when having to choose between other options concerning dealing with CRC, and their support may not be based on a full comprehension of what CRC screening entails. Further research is needed to establish what knowledge people need in order to form a well-founded opinion.

Knowledge and Informed Decision-Making about Population-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening Participation in Groups with Low and Adequate Health Literacy

Objective. To analyze and compare decision-relevant knowledge, decisional conflict, and informed decision-making about colorectal cancer (CRC) screening participation between potential screening participants with low and adequate health literacy (HL), defined as the skills to access, understand, and apply information to make informed decisions about health. Methods. Survey including 71 individuals with low HL and 70 with adequate HL, all eligible for the Dutch organized CRC screening program. Knowledge, attitude, intention to participate, and decisional conflict were assessed after reading the standard information materials. HL was assessed using the Short Assessment of Health Literacy in Dutch. Informed decision-making was analyzed by the multidimensional measure of informed choice. Results. 64% of the study population had adequate knowledge of CRC and CRC screening (low HL 43/71 (61%), adequate HL 47/70 (67%), p > 0.05). 57% were informed decision-makers (low HL 34/71 (55%), adequate HL 39/70 (58%), p > 0.05). Intention to participate was 89% (low HL 63/71 (89%), adequate HL 63/70 (90%)). Respondents with low HL experienced significantly more decisional conflict (25.8 versus 16.1; p = 0.00). Conclusion. Informed decision-making about CRC screening participation was suboptimal among both individuals with low HL and individuals with adequate HL. Further research is required to develop and implement effective strategies to convey decision-relevant knowledge about CRC screening to all screening invitees.

Knowledge, attitudes and beliefs regarding colorectal cancer screening among ethnic minority groups in the Netherlands - a qualitative study

BACKGROUND

Research has shown that ethnic minority groups are less likely to participate in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening than the majority population and hence less likely to be diagnosed at an early stage when treatment is potentially more successful.

OBJECTIVE

To explore knowledge, attitudes and beliefs regarding CRC and CRC screening among ethnic minority groups in the Netherlands.

DESIGN

We conducted qualitative interviews with 30 first-generation immigrants born in Turkey, Morocco and Surinam. We based the topic guide on the health belief model. Framework analysis was used to analyse our data.

RESULTS

Although knowledge of CRC and CRC screening was limited, all respondents felt susceptible to CRC. CRC screening was perceived to mainly benefit those individuals with poor health and symptoms. Although most respondents had a positive attitude towards CRC screening, knowledge about its potential harms was limited and self-efficacy to participate was low. Adult children acted as important mediators in providing access to information. The language barrier and low literacy formed serious barriers to informed participation in CRC screening.

CONCLUSION

To ensure that all eligible individuals, including ethnic minority groups, have equal opportunities to informed participation in screening, targeted communication strategies should be developed, such as oral and visual channels, and face-to-face communication in the mother tongue. This will help ethnic minority groups to make an informed decision about participation in CRC screening.