"Whilst you are here…" Acceptability of providing advice about screening and early detection of other cancers as part of the breast cancer screening programme

Increasing coverage in cervical and colorectal cancer screening by leveraging attendance at breast cancer screening: A cluster-randomised, crossover trial

BACKGROUND

Screening participation remains suboptimal in cervical cancer (CC) and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening despite their effectiveness in reducing cancer-related morbidity and mortality. We investigated the effectiveness of an intervention by leveraging the high participation rate in breast cancer (BC) screening as an opportunity to offer self-sampling kits to nonparticipants in CC and CRC screening.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

A pragmatic, unblinded, cluster-randomised, multiple period, crossover trial was conducted in 5 BC screening units in the Central Denmark Region (CDR) between September 1, 2021 and May 25, 2022. On each of 100 selected weekdays, 1 BC screening unit was randomly allocated as the intervention unit while the remaining units served as controls. Women aged 50 to 69 years attending BC screening at the intervention unit were offered administrative check-up on their CC screening status (ages 50 to 64 years) and CRC screening status (aged 50 to 69), and women with overdue screening were offered self-sampling. Women in the control group received only standard screening offers according to the organised programmes. The primary outcomes were differences between the intervention group and the control group in the total screening coverage for the 2 programmes and in screening participation among women with overdue screening, measured 6 months after the intervention. These were assessed using intention-to-treat analysis, reporting risk differences with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A total of 27,116 women were included in the trial, with 5,618 (20.7%) in the intervention group and 21,498 (79.3%) in the control group. Six months after the intervention, total coverage was higher in the intervention group as compared with the control group in CC screening (88.3 versus 83.5, difference 4.8 percentage points, 95% CI [3.6, 6.0]; p < 0.001) and in CRC screening (79.8 versus 76.0, difference 3.8 percentage points, 95% CI [2.6, 5.1]; p < 0.001). Among women overdue with CC screening, participation in the intervention group was 32.0% compared with 6.1% in the control group (difference 25.8 percentage points, 95% CI [22.0, 29.6]; p < 0.001). In CRC screening, participation among women overdue with screening in the intervention group was 23.8% compared with 8.9% in the control group (difference 14.9 percentage points, 95% CI [12.3, 17.5]; p < 0.001). Women who did not participate in BC screening were not included in this study.

CONCLUSIONS

Offering self-sampling to women overdue with CC and CRC screening when they attend BC screening was a feasible intervention, resulting in an increase in participation and total coverage. Other interventions are required to reach women who are not participating in BC screening.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05022511. The record of processing activities for research projects in the Central Denmark Region (R. No.: 1-16-02-217-21).

Advice after urgent suspected cancer referral when cancer is not found in England: Survey of patients' preferences and perceived acceptability

Objective

No standardised approach exists to provide advice after urgent suspected cancer (USC) referral when cancer is not found. This study aimed to assess preferences and acceptability of receiving advice after USC referral related to: 1) managing ongoing symptoms, 2) responding to early symptoms of other cancers, 3) cancer screening, 4) reducing risks of future cancer.

Methods

2,541 patients from two English NHS Trusts were mailed a survey 1-3 months after having no cancer found following urgent suspected gastrointestinal or head and neck cancer referral. Participants were asked about: willingness to receive advice; prospective acceptability; preferences related to mode, timing and who should provide advice; and previous advice receipt.

Results

406 patients responded (16.0%) with 397 in the final analyses. Few participants had previously received advice, yet most were willing to. Willingness varied by type of advice: fewer were willing to receive advice about early symptoms of other cancers (88.9%) than advice related to ongoing symptoms (94.3%). Acceptability was relatively high for all advice types. Reducing the risk of future cancer advice was more acceptable. Acceptability was lower in those from ethnic minority groups, and with lower levels of education. Most participants preferred to receive advice from a doctor; with results or soon after; either face to face or via the telephone.

Conclusions

There is a potential unmet need for advice after USC referral when no cancer is found. Equitable intervention design should focus on increasing acceptability for people from ethnic minority groups and those with lower levels of education.

Application of the theoretical framework of acceptability in a surgical setting: Theoretical and methodological insights

PURPOSE

Methods for assessing acceptability of healthcare interventions have been inconsistent until the development of the theoretical framework of acceptability (TFA). Despite its rapid adoption in healthcare research, the TFA has rarely been used to assess acceptability of surgical interventions. We sought to explore the sufficiency of the TFA in this context and provide methodological guidance to support systematic use of this framework in research.

METHOD

Acceptability was assessed in a consecutive sample of 15 patients at least 3 months post-joint replacement surgery via theory-informed semi-structured interviews. A detailed description of the application of the TFA is reported. This includes: development of the interview guide (including questions to assess theoretical sufficiency), analysis of interview data and interpretation of findings.

RESULTS

Interview data were substantially codable into the TFA constructs but required the addition of a construct, labelled 'perceived safety and risk', and relabelling and redefining an existing construct (new label: 'opportunity costs and gains'). Methodological recommendations for theory-informed interview studies include producing interview support material to enhance precision of the intervention description, conducting background conversations with a range of stakeholders in the healthcare setting, and conducting first inductive and then deductive thematic analysis.

CONCLUSION

The sufficiency of the TFA could be enhanced for use when assessing interventions with an identifiable risk profile, such as surgery, by the inclusion of an additional construct to capture perceptions of risk and safety. We offer these methodological recommendations to guide researchers and facilitate consistency in the application of the TFA in theory-informed interview studies.

Concurrent participation in breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening programmes in Denmark: A nationwide registry-based study

Women in Denmark are invited to breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening in their fifties and sixties. We determined the patterns of concurrent participation in the three programmes. Participation in organised cancer screening was determined using the highly complete Danish population and health care registers for all women aged 53-65 years on 31 March 2018 who continuously resided in Denmark since 1 April 2012. Data were linked using unique personal identification numbers. We studied overall and cancer-specific proportions of women undergoing screening for all three, two, one, and none of the cancers. Among all 468,507 women, 406,306 (87%) participated in breast, 345,768 (74%) in cervical, and 316,496 (68%) in colorectal cancer screening. Despite high participation, only 255,698 (55%) women were screened for all three cancers, while 123,469 (26%) were screened for two, 54,538 (12%) for one, and 34,802 (7%) were not screened for any cancer. Cancer-specific patterns were highly heterogeneous across the population but changed little after accounting for women's medical history. A significant proportion of women who are screened for a specific cancer remain unscreened for other cancers. The consistency of these data at the international level requires a reconsideration of invitational practices for organised screening.

“It's cancer screening after all”. Barriers to cervical and colorectal cancer screening and attitudes to promotion of self-sampling kits upon attendance for breast cancer screening

Objectives

To explore barriers to cervical and colorectal cancer screening and attitudes to promotion of self-sampling kits upon attendance for breast cancer screening.

Methods

Interview study with women who had not responded to one or more invitations to cervical or colorectal cancer screening. A semi-structured interview guide was used and interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Concepts from Temporal Motivation Theory were used to structure and analyse the data.

Results

Twenty-two women were interviewed. Screening was highly valued but the women perceived screening for cervical cancer and colorectal cancer as more troublesome to participate in, compared with participation in breast cancer screening. The lack of a pre-booked appointment or a suggested deadline attenuated the perceived value of cervical and colorectal cancer screening and this further increased procrastination. Promotion of self-sampling kits for cervical and colorectal cancer screening upon attendance for breast cancer screening was considered a feasible way to increase salience of both types of screening.

Conclusion

A high number of micro steps and absence of a deadline in cervical and colorectal cancer screening diverted attention away from screening participation in cervical and colorectal cancer screening. The main facilitator could be reduction of micro actions, proposing a suggested deadline, and promotion of self-sampling kits when attending breast cancer screening to increase salience and a renewed attention to all three screening programmes.

Three birds with one stone: a protocol for a randomised intervention study to increase participation in cervical and colorectal cancer screening among women attending breast cancer screening

INTRODUCTION

The participation rate is higher in breast cancer screening than in cervical cancer (CCU) and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. In this cluster-randomised study, we aim to evaluate an intervention offering home-based CCU and CRC screening to women when attending breast cancer screening if they are overdue for CCU and/or CRC screening.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

On intervention days, one of the five breast cancer screening units in the Central Denmark Region will be randomly allocated to intervention, whereas the remaining units will serve as control. Women attending breast cancer screening in the intervention unit will be offered information regarding their CCU and CRC screening history, and, if overdue, they will be offered self-sampling screening kits. For CCU screening, women aged 50-64 years will be offered a vaginal self-sampling kit for human papillomavirus testing. For CRC screening, women aged 50-69 years will be offered a kit to obtain a faecal immunochemical test. Women attending the control units will receive only standard care.After the intervention, a survey will be sent to all women in the intervention and control group, asking about their experience while attending breast cancer screening.Primary outcomes will be difference in the coverage in CCU and CRC screening 6 months after intervention between the intervention and the control group, and difference in participation rates 6 months after intervention for those who were overdue for CCU and/or CRC screening at the time of the intervention.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The project is listed in the record of processing activities for research projects in the Central Denmark Region (R. No.: 1-16-02-217-21). According to the Danish Consolidation Act on Research Ethics Review of Health Research Project, this study was not notifiable to the Committee (R. No.: 1-10-72-1-21). The findings will be disseminated in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05022511.

A qualitative exploration of women's perspectives and acceptability of including new cancer awareness information in all-clear breast or cervical screening results

Objective

This study explored women's perspectives on the acceptability of including new cancer information with an all‐clear breast or cervical screening result letter (using ovarian cancer as a case study).

Methods

In 2016, six focus group discussions were conducted with women aged 25–70 years old, eligible for invitation to the NHS breast or cervical screening programme and resident in England. The focus groups lasted 60–90 min and were held in community venues. Data were analysed using thematic analysis.

Results

Thirty‐eight women aged 25–67 years old participated in the focus groups. Data analysis yielded six descriptive themes: general cancer awareness, taking advantage of a ‘teachable moment’, a double‐edge sword, barriers to accepting and using new cancer information, motivators for accepting and using new cancer information and wider strategies to increase cancer awareness in women. Women welcomed the inclusion of new cancer information in all‐clear screening results but highlighted pertinent lessons to be considered to maximise the usefulness of the approach.

Conclusion

While women perceived this approach as acceptable, it is pertinent to note the potential of the new cancer information to stimulate anxiety and potentially widen inequalities by excluding non‐attenders at screening programmes. Specific complementary and tailored approaches are necessary to mitigate these limitations.