Public awareness of and responses to media coverage of invitation errors in the Breast Screening Programme in England: a cross-sectional population survey

U.S. Newspaper Coverage of Lung Cancer Screening From 2010 to 2022

BACKGROUND. Newspapers are an important source of information for the public about low-dose CT (LDCT) lung cancer screening (LCS) and may influence public perception and knowledge of this important cancer screening service. OBJECTIVE. The purpose of this article was to evaluate the volume, content, and other characteristics of articles pertaining to LCS that have been published in U.S. newspapers. METHODS. The ProQuest U.S. Newsstream database was searched for U.S. newspaper articles referring to LCS published between January 1, 2010 (the year of publication of the National Lung Screening Trial results), and March 28, 2022. Search terms included "lung cancer screening(s)," "lung screening(s)," "low dose screening(s)," and "LDCT." Search results were reviewed to identify those articles mentioning LCS. Characteristics of included articles and originating newspapers were extracted. Articles were divided among nine readers, who independently assessed article sentiment regarding LCS and additional article content using a standardized form. RESULTS. The final analysis included 859 articles, comprising 816 nonsyndicated articles published in a single newspaper and 43 syndicated articles published in multiple newspapers. Sentiment regarding LCS was positive in 76% (651/859) of articles, neutral in 21% (184/859), and negative in 3% (24/859). Frequency of positive sentiment was lowest (61%) for articles published from 2010 to 2012; frequency of negative sentiment was highest (8%) for articles published in newspapers in the highest quartile for weekly circulation. LCS enrollment criteria were mentioned in 52% of articles, smoking cessation programs in 28%, need for annual CT in 27%, and shared decision-making in 4%. Cost or insurance coverage for LCS was mentioned in 33% in articles. A total of 64% of articles mentioned at least one benefit of LCS (most commonly early detection or possible cure of lung cancer), and 23% mentioned at least one harm (most commonly false-positives). A total of 9% of articles interviewed or mentioned a radiologist. CONCLUSION. The sentiment of U.S. newspaper articles covering LCS from 2010 to 2022 was overall positive. However, certain key elements of LCS were infrequently mentioned. CLINICAL IMPACT. The findings highlight areas for potential improvement of LCS media coverage; radiologists have an opportunity to take a more active role in this coverage.

The National Patient Notification Exercise: How well did local breast screening services cope with the additional workload?

OBJECTIVE

To describe how three English breast screening services responded to the 2018 Patient Notification Exercise, a national intervention whereby women who had potentially missed their final screening invitation were offered new appointments. To compare key performance indicators for women thus invited with key performance indicators for women invited routinely in the same period.

METHODS

Uptake, assessment and cancer detection for 9439 women aged over 70 in the Patient Notification Exercise were compared with key performance indicators for 14,824 women, of similar age, who were routinely invited in the same period, using chi squared (χ²) tests. Invitation cancellation and attendance levels were also compared.

RESULTS

Uptake was significantly lower among Patient Notification Exercise women sent a new, timed appointment than for women who were routinely invited (67.3% and 70.8%, respectively, p = 0.001). Assessment rates were higher for Patient Notification Exercise women (5.2% vs. 4.4%, p = 0.192) as were cancer detection rates (1.87% vs. 1.28%, p = 0.080). Services achieved national round-length standards for routine invitations during and after the Patient Notification Exercise but screen-to-assessment standards were breached (80%) in the smallest service. More Patient Notification Exercise women than routinely invited women rebooked appointments (43.6% and 33.2%, respectively); they were also slightly more likely to miss their appointments (24.5% vs. 21.2%).

CONCLUSIONS

Screening invitation performance can be maintained whilst responding to an additional demand of ∼5%. Larger services that cover a compact geographical area may find it easier to respond. Women affected by the incident are not more likely to attend but may require relatively more assessment capacity in incidents where invitations have been delayed.