Do invitations for cervical screening provide sufficient information to enable informed choice? A cross-sectional study of invitations for publicly funded cervical screening

Perspectives of international experts and the Danish citizens on the 'relevant knowledge' that citizens need for making informed choices about participation in cancer screening: Qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

This study aimed to investigate the perspectives of international experts and Danish citizens on relevant knowledge about population-based breast, colorectal and cervical cancer screening.

METHODS

This was a qualitative interview study with focus group interviews with experts and Danish citizens eligible for breast, colorectal and/or cervical cancer screening. Data were collected using semi-structured interview guides, audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. A thematic analysis was conducted.

RESULTS

Participants were nine international experts from Germany, Canada, the USA, Sweden, the Netherlands and Australia, and 54 citizens from Denmark. Most citizens had 'adequate' or 'problematic' levels of health literacy. Themes that experts and citizens agreed on were: knowledge about the disease and symptoms, practical information about screening, benefits of screening, the option of non-participation and the importance of having numeric information of possible screening outcomes. Experts agreed on the importance of knowledge about the harms of screening, but only a minority of citizens considered this important.

CONCLUSIONS

The experts and citizens disagreed on the relevance of knowledge about harms of screening and agreed on other relevant knowledge.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

What experts and citizens find important may not align when making informed decisions. Therefore, experts and citizens needs to be involved when developing questionnaires.

Danish Women Make Decisions about Participation in Breast Cancer Screening prior to Invitation Information: An Online Survey Using Experimental Methods

INTRODUCTION

At mammography screening invitation, the Danish Health Authority recommends women aged 50 to 69 y make an informed decision about whether to be screened. Previous studies have shown that women have very positive attitudes about screening participation. Therefore, we hypothesized that Danish women may already have decided to participate in breast cancer screening prior to receiving their screening invitation at age 50 y.

METHODS

We invited a random sample of 2,952 Danish women aged 44 to 49 y (prescreening age) to complete an online questionnaire about barriers to informed screening decision making using the official digital mailbox system in Denmark. We asked participants about their screening intentions using 3 different questions to which women were randomized: screening presented 1) as an opportunity, 2) as a choice, and 3) as an opportunity plus a question about women's stage of decision making. All women completed questions about background characteristics, intended participation in the screening program, use and impact of screening information, and preferences for the decision-making process. Data were linked to sociodemographic register data.

RESULTS

A total of 790 (26.8%) women participated in the study. Herein, 97% (95% confidence interval: 96%-98%) reported that they wanted to participate in breast cancer screening when invited at age 50 y. When presented with the choice compared with the opportunity framing, more women rejected screening. When asked about their stage of decision making, most (87%) had already made a decision about screening participation and were unlikely to change their mind.

CONCLUSION

In our study, almost all women of prescreening age wanted to participate in breast cancer screening, suggesting that providing information at the time of screening invitation may be too late to support informed decision making.

HIGHLIGHTS

Almost all women of prescreening age (44-49 y) in our study wanted to participate in the Danish national mammography screening program starting at age 50 y.Early decision making represents a barrier for informed decision making as women in this study had intentions to participate in breast cancer screening prior to receiving an official screening invitation, and therefore, providing information at the time of screening invitation may be too late to support informed decision making.Very few women rejected screening participation; however, more women rejected screening when the information was framed as an active choice between having or declining breast cancer screening (continue with usual care) compared with presenting only the option of screening with no description of the alternative.Two-thirds of women reading the screening information in this study had unchanged attitudes toward screening after reading the presented information.

Women's experiences with opting out of cervical cancer screening and the role of the nurse in the women's decision-making process

AIM

To explore Danish women's experiences with opting out of cervical cancer screening and the role of the nurse in the women's decision-making process.

DESIGN

A qualitative study using semi-structured, individual interviews with a phenomenological-hermeneutic approach.

METHODS

Interviews were conducted with 13 women with experience in opting out of cervical cancer screening. Women were recruited through a public flyer and interviewed virtually or by phone. The interviews were analysed using the theory of interpretation from Paul Ricoeur and consisted of three levels: naïve reading, structural analysis, and critical discussion and analysis. The present study adheres to the COREQ guidelines.

RESULTS

The women experience various personal causes for opting out of cervical cancer screening, such as low accessibility of screening appointments, discomfort during the smear test, fear of being sick, and insufficient information about the relevance of screening to the individual woman. The perceived disadvantages of screening outweighed their perceived advantages. The women's experiences did not include the role of the nurse in the procedures and knowledge sharing related to cervical cancer screening. However, nurses were described as having good communicative and relational qualifications relevant to being involved in cervical cancer screening.

CONCLUSION

It was challenging for the women to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of cervical cancer screening and thus to make an informed decision about participation. They expressed a need for more information on which to base their decision. This places nurses in a much needed, yet unexplored, role of identifying and lowering potential personal barriers that may outweigh the women's perceived benefits of participating in screening.

IMPLICATION FOR THE PROFESSION AND/OR PATIENT CARE

Nurses should play a more active role in cervical cancer screening such as improving general knowledge and facilitating two-way communication about its relevance.

REPORTING METHOD

The present study adheres to the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) guidelines.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

No patient or public contribution.

Deaths and cardiopulmonary events following colorectal cancer screening-A systematic review with meta-analyses

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer screening programmes (CRCSPs) are implemented worldwide despite recent evidence indicating more physical harm occurring during CRCSPs than previously thought. Therefore, we aimed to review the evidence on physical harms associated with endoscopic diagnostic procedures during CRCSPs and, when possible, to quantify the risk of the most serious types of physical harm during CRCSPs, i.e. deaths and cardiopulmonary events (CPEs).

METHODS

Systematic review with descriptive statistics and random-effects meta-analyses of studies investigating physical harms following CRCSPs. We conducted a systematic search in the literature and assessed the risk of bias and the certainty of the evidence.

RESULTS

We included 134 studies for review, reporting findings from 151 unique populations when accounting for multiple screening interventions per study. Physical harm can be categorized into 17 types of harm. The evidence was very heterogeneous with inadequate measurement and reporting of harms. The risk of bias was serious or critical in 95% of assessments of deaths and CPEs, and the certainty of the evidence was very low in all analyses. The risk of death was assessed for 57 populations with large variation across studies. Meta-analyses indicated that 3 to 23 deaths occur during CRCSPs per 100,000 people screened. Cardiopulmonary events were assessed for 55 populations. Despite our efforts to subcategorize CPEs into 17 distinct subtypes, 41% of CPE assessments were too poorly measured or reported to allow quantification. We found a tendency towards lower estimates of deaths and CPEs in studies with a critical risk of bias.

DISCUSSION

Deaths and CPEs during CRCSPs are rare, yet they do occur during CRCSPs. We believe that our findings are conservative due to the heterogeneity and low quality of the evidence. A standardized system for the measurement and reporting of the harms of screening is warranted.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO Registration number CRD42017058844.

Questioning 'Informed Choice' in Medical Screening: The Role of Neoliberal Rhetoric, Culture, and Social Context

Participation in medical screening programs is presented as a voluntary decision that should be based on an informed choice. An informed choice is often emphasized to rely on three assumptions: (1) the decision-maker has available information about the benefits and harms, (2) the decision-maker can understand and interpret this information, and (3) the decision-maker can relate this information to personal values and preferences. In this article, we empirically challenge the concept of informed choice in the context of medical screening. We use document analysis to analyze and build upon findings and interpretations from previously published articles on participation in screening. We find that citizens do not receive neutral or balanced information about benefits and harms, yet are exposed to manipulative framing effects. The citizens have high expectations about the benefits of screening, and therefore experience cognitive strains when informed about the harm. We demonstrate that decisions about screening participation are informed by neoliberal arguments of personal responsibility and cultural healthism, and thus cannot be regarded as decisions based on individual values and preferences independently of context. We argue that the concept of informed choice serves as a power technology for people to govern themselves and can be considered an implicit verification of biopower.

The practice of hope in public health interventions: a qualitative single-case study

This study examines hope practices in the context of participation in a public health intervention. Theoretically, the study builds upon Cheryl Mattingly’s notion of hope as a practice, which renders the possibility of examining participants actions, interactions and challenges with participating. This analytical lens contributes knowledge about how interventions are incorporated into participants’ hopes for a future life and the consequences of intervening in peoples’ everyday lives. The study builds on empirical material from a pilot study of the primary preventive intervention known as TOF (Tidlig Opsporing og Forebyggelse—a Danish acronym for ‘Early Detection and Prevention’) which aimed to identify high risk individuals and provide targeted preventive services. A by-product of a larger qualitative study, itself based on the TOF pilot study in 2019, this single-case study illustrates how participants’ life situation influence how they interpret and manage activities in a public health intervention. The study shows how the practice of hope in public health interventions is closely linked to participants’ own interpretations of how participation can lead to a life worth living. The findings, which show that participants’ needs, and life situation influence the ways in which they respond to an intervention, adds to the complexity in intervention research. Further, the study illustrates some of the ethical challenges that arise when researchers intervene in people’s everyday life. It reinforces the need for ongoing critical reflection and attention to be directed at how those being studied articulate and practice hope.

Understanding patient factors to increase uptake of cancer screening: a review

Early detection of cancer through organized screening is a central component of population-level strategies to reduce cancer mortality. For screening programs to be effective, it is important that those invited to screening participate. However, uptake rates are suboptimal in many populations and vary between screening programs, indicating a complex combination of patient factors that require elucidation to develop evidence-based strategies to increase participation. In this review, the authors summarize individual-level (sociodemographic and psychosocial) factors associated with cancer screening uptake and evidence for the effectiveness of behavioral interventions to increase uptake. The authors reflect on current trends and future directions for behavioral cancer screening research to overcome challenges and address unmet needs in reducing cancer mortality.

Categories of systematic influences applied to increase cancer screening participation: a literature review and analysis

BACKGROUND

Health authorities can influence citizens in subtle ways that render them more likely to participate in cancer screening programmes, and thereby possibly increase the beneficial effects. If the influences become too severe, the citizens' ability to make a personal choice may be lost on the way. The purpose of this analysis was to identify and categorize the influences while questioning whether they still permit the citizens to make their own choices regarding participation.

METHODS

A two-stringed approach was used to obtain empirical examples of systematic influences that aim to raise participation rates in cancer screening programmes: First, a systematic literature search was conducted on three databases. Second, relevant experts were contacted via internationally based e-mail lists and asked for examples of systematic influences in cancer screening. The present analysis was based on direct, conventional content analysis to address different categories of systematic influences.

RESULTS

The literature search yielded 19 included articles and the expert inquiry yielded 11 empirical examples of which content analysis of the empirical examples generated six major categories of systematic influence: (i) misleading presentation of statistics, (ii) misrepresentation of harms vs. benefits, (iii) opt-out systems, (iv) recommendation of participation, (v) fear appeals and (vi) influencing the general practitioners and other healthcare professionals.

CONCLUSION

The six categories of identified influences work through psychological biases and personal costs and are still in widely use. The use of these types of influence remains ethically questionable in cancer screening programmes since they might compromise informed decision making.

Providing more balanced information on the harms and benefits of cervical cancer screening: A randomized survey among US and Norwegian women

•

Additional information did not impact intentions to participate in CC screening.

•

Additional information increased uncertainty to seek precancer treatment in Norway.

•

Women reported strong system-specific preferences for sources of information.

•

Having a prior Pap-test was an important predictor of intentions-to-participate.

•

Socioeconomic factors influenced follow-up intentions in the U.S. but not in Norway.

We aimed to identify how additional information about benefits and harms of cervical cancer (CC) screening impacted intention to participate in screening, what type of information on harms women preferred receiving, from whom, and whether it differed between two national healthcare settings. We conducted a survey that randomized screen-eligible women in the United States (n = 1084) and Norway (n = 1060) into four groups according to the timing of introducing additional information. We found that additional information did not significantly impact stated intentions-to-participate in screening or follow-up testing in either country; however, the proportion of Norwegian women stating uncertainty about seeking precancer treatment increased from 7.9% to 14.3% (p = 0.012). Women reported strong system-specific preferences for sources of information: Norwegians (59%) preferred it come from a national public health agency while Americans (59%) preferred it come from a specialist care provider. Regression models revealed having a prior Pap-test was the most important predictor of intentions-to-participate in both countries, while having lower income reduced the probabilities of intentions-to-follow-up and seek precancer treatment among U.S. women. These results suggest that additional information on harms is unlikely to reduce participation in CC screening but could increase decision uncertainty to seek treatment. Providing unbiased information would improve on the ethical principle of respect for autonomy and self-determination. However, the clinical impact of additional information on women’s understanding of the trade-offs involved with CC screening should be investigated. Future studies should also consider country-specific socioeconomic barriers to screening if communication re-design initiatives aim to improve CC screening participation.

Knowledge and perceptions regarding triage among human papillomavirus-tested women: A qualitative study of perspectives of low-income women in Argentina

Objectives:

Among cancer prevention studies, little is known about knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs toward triage adherence in the context of the human papillomavirus self-collection test. This formative research aims to identify knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs related to human papillomavirus and cervical cancer prevention specifically about adherence to Pap triage among women residing in a low-income province in Argentina.

Methods:

We conducted six focus groups, stratified by residence and age. All participants were aged 30 or older and had performed human papillomavirus self-collection. Data collection and thematic analysis were carried out using constructs from the Health Belief Model.

Results:

Misinformation regarding human papillomavirus and cervical cancer was common and was a source of distress. Women could not distinguish Pap screening from triage; human papillomavirus risk perception was limited but cervical cancer was perceived as a threatening disease. Women were willing to follow-up after receiving an abnormal screening result. Negative views about clinician-collected screening/triage were common, defined as painful and shameful, and comes with an economic cost (transport/time). Lack of help from family/friends was an obstacle to adhering to triage. Health issues in the family’s records and a physician’s recommendation were a cue to adhere to triage.

Conclusion:

Lack of knowledge or misinformation of the causes of cervical cancer, human papillomavirus, and the multi-step screening and triage process are barriers to follow-up adherence. Interventions to improve communication between women and health providers about screening results and follow-up are needed. Also, health services should be organized to respond to women’s needs and reduce access barriers to follow-up.

How is cervical cancer screening information communicated in UK websites? Cross-sectional analysis of content and quantitative presentation formats

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether UK websites about cervical cancer screening targeted to the public include (1) information about benefits and risks of screening, possible screening results and cervical cancer statistics, (2) quantitative presentation formats recommended in the risk communication literature and (3) appeals for participation and/or informed decision-making.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional analysis of websites using a comprehensive checklist of information items on screening benefits, risks, possible results and cervical cancer statistics.

OUTCOME MEASURES

We recorded the number of websites that contained each of the information items, and the presentation format used for probabilistic information (no quantification provided, verbal quantifiers only, different types of numerical formats and/or graphs). We also recorded the number of websites containing appeals for participation and/or informed decision-making.

SETTING

Websites were identified through the most common Google search terms used in the UK to find information on cervical screening, according to GoogleTrends and a commercial internet-monitoring programme. Two additional websites were identified by the authors as relevant.

RESULTS

After applying exclusion criteria, 14 websites were evaluated, including websites of public and private health service providers, charities, a medical society and a pharmacy. The websites mentioned different benefits, risks of screening and possible results. However, specific content varied between websites. Probabilistic information was often presented using non-recommended formats, including relative risk reductions to express screening benefits, and verbal quantifiers without numbers to express risks. Appeals for participation were present in most websites, with almost half also mentioning informed decision-making.

CONCLUSIONS

UK websites about cervical cancer screening were generally balanced. However, benefits and risks were presented using different formats, potentially hindering comparisons. Additionally, recommendations from the literature to facilitate understanding of quantitative information and facilitate informed decisions were often not followed. Designing websites that adhere to existing recommendations may support informed screening uptake.

How Do Women Interpret the NHS Information Leaflet about Cervical Cancer Screening?

Background. Organized screening programs often rely on written materials to inform the public. In the United Kingdom, women invited for cervical cancer screening receive a leaflet from the National Health Service (NHS) to support screening decisions. However, information about screening may be too complex for people to understand, potentially hindering informed decision making. Objectives. We aimed to identify women's difficulties in interpreting the leaflet used in England and negative and positive responses to the leaflet. Methods. We used a sequential mixed-methods design involving 2 steps: cognitive think-aloud interviews (n = 20), followed by an England-wide survey (n = 602). Data were collected between June 2017 and December 2018, and participants included women aged 25 to 64 y with varying sociodemographics. Results. Interview results revealed misunderstandings concerning screening results, benefits, and additional tests and treatment, although participants tended to react positively to numerical information. Participants were often unfamiliar with the potential harms associated with screening (i.e., screening risks), key aspects of human papillomavirus, and complex terms (e.g., dyskaryosis). Survey results indicated that interpretation difficulties were common (M correct items = 12.5 of 23). Lower understanding was associated with lower educational level (β's >0.15, P's <0.001), lower numeracy scores (β = 0.36, P < 0.001), and nonwhite ethnicity (β = 0.10, P = 0.007). The leaflet was evaluated positively overall. Conclusions. Despite previous user testing of the leaflet, key information may be too complex for some recipients. As a consequence, they may struggle to make informed decisions about screening participation based on the information provided. We discuss implications for the improvement of communications about screening and decision support.

How does information on the harms and benefits of cervical cancer screening alter the intention to be screened?: a randomized survey of Norwegian women

Cervical cancer (CC) is the 13th most frequent cancer among women in Norway, but the third most common among women aged 25-49 years. The national screening program sends information letters to promote screening participation. We aimed to evaluate how women's stated intention to participate in screening and pursue treatment changed with the provision of additional information on harms associated with screening, and to assess women's preferences on the timing and source of such information. We administered a web-based questionnaire to a panel of Norwegian women aged 25-69 years and randomized into three groups on the basis of when in the screening process additional information was introduced: (i) invited for routine screening, (ii) recommended an additional test following detection of cellular abnormalities, and (iii) recommended precancer treatment. A fourth (control) group did not receive any additional information. Results show that among 1060 respondents, additional information did not significantly alter women's stated intentions to screen. However, it created decision uncertainty on when treatment was recommended (8.76-9.09 vs. 9.40; 10-point Likert scale; P=0.004). Over 80% of women favored receiving information on harms and 59% preferred that information come from a qualified public health authority. Nearly 90% of women in all groups overestimated women's lifetime risk of CC. In conclusion, additional information on harms did not alter Norwegian women's stated intention to screen for CC; yet, it resulted in greater decision uncertainty to undergo precancer treatment. Incorporating information on harms into invitation letters is warranted as it would increase women's ability to make informed choices.

What benefits and harms are important for a decision about cervical screening? A study of the perspective of different subgroups of women

Background: In cervical screening programs, women typically receive information leaflets to support their decision about participation. However, these leaflets are often based on what experts consider important benefits and harms of screening and not what women themselves consider important to know. Objective: To identify which benefits and harms women consider important for making a decision about cervical screening. Design: Cross-sectional study. Setting and participants: Women from the Dutch target group of cervical screening (N=248; 30-60 years), recruited through an online access panel. Main variables studied: Perceived importance of different benefits and harms of cervical screening, assessed through two rating items ("How important is the information about [this harm/benefit] for your decision?" and "For me it is a [benefit/harm] that participating in the screening program leads to [the benefit/harm]"), and one ranking item ("Rank the information according to their importance for your own choice"). Results: Women overall considered the benefits of cervical screening more important than the harms or disadvantages. The most important harm according to women was the chance of false positive results (M=4.88; SD=1.75). Differences between those with lower and higher numeracy/health literacy were found regarding several aspects, e.g. for the chance of false positive results, the chance of false negative results, the chance of overtreatment. Discussion and conclusion: The results suggest that leaflets could include more explicit information about false positive results.

Effects of numerical information on intention to participate in cervical screening among women offered HPV vaccination: a randomised study

OBJECTIVES

To investigate the effects of different types of information about benefits and harms of cervical screening on intention to participate in screening among women in the first cohorts offered human papilloma virus (HPV) vaccination.

DESIGN

Randomised survey study.

SETTING

Denmark.

SUBJECTS

A random sample of women from the birth cohorts 1993, 1994 and 1995 drawn from the general population.

INTERVENTIONS

A web-based questionnaire and information intervention. We randomised potential respondents to one of the following four different information modules about benefits and harms of cervical screening: no information; non-numerical information; and two numerical information modules. Moreover, we provided HPV-vaccinated women in one of the arms with numerical information about benefits and harms in two steps: firstly, information without consideration of HPV vaccination and subsequently information conditional on HPV vaccination.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE

Self-reported intention to participate in cervical screening.

RESULTS

A significantly lower proportion intended to participate in screening in the two groups of women receiving numerical information compared to controls with absolute differences of 10.5 (95% CI: 3.3-17.6) and 7.7 (95% CI: 0.4-14.9) percentage points, respectively. Among HPV-vaccinated women, we found a significantly lower intention to participate in screening after numerical information specific to vaccinated women (OR of 0.38).

CONCLUSIONS

Women are sensitive to numerical information about the benefits and harms of cervical screening. Specifically, our results suggest that HPV-vaccinated women are sensitive to information about the expected changes in benefits and harms of cervical screening after implementation of HPV vaccination. KEY POINTS Women were less likely to participate in cervical screening when they received numerical information about benefits and harms compared to non-numerical or no information. Specifically, numerical information about the potential impact of the reduced risk of cervical cancer among HPV-vaccinated women reduced the intention to participate among vaccinated women.