A lack of information engagement among colorectal cancer screening non-attenders: cross-sectional survey

Questionnaire survey on cervical cancer screening and HPV awareness among patients at a local cancer center in Japan

BACKGROUND

The incidence of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia is increasing in Japan. Although human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination and cancer screening are crucial in preventing cancer-related mortality, the cervical cancer screening rate in Japan was only approximately 43.6% in 2022. This study aimed to conduct an epidemiological analysis of cervical cancer by collecting data from individual patients.

METHODS

A questionnaire survey was administered to patients who visited our hospital between January 2017 and July 2023 owing to abnormal cervical cytological findings or a cancer diagnosis. Patients answered questions regarding their history of cervical cancer screening as well as their knowledge of HPV and cervical cancer.

RESULTS

During the study period, 471 patients participated in the survey, with 35 declining to participate. Patients with Stage 1b1-4b primarily sought medical attention due to self-reported symptoms (P < 0.001); however, they were less likely to have undergone cervical cancer screening (P < 0.001). Additionally, older patients were less likely to be aware of the association of HPV with cervical and other cancers. Notably, 28 of the 129 patients with stage 1b1-4b cancer underwent cervical cancer screening within 2 years. The tumor location within the endocervical canal emerged as a significant factor contributing to the difficulty for an accurate diagnosis of precancerous or cervical cancer during cervical screening. Furthermore, non- squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) histology was another possible factor.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings suggest the need to widely disseminate information regarding the significance of cancer screening to increase cancer screening rates. Moreover, establishing strategies for improving the accuracy of detecting lesions during screening for non-SCC and endocervical canal tumors is crucial.

Attitudes to multi-cancer early detection (MCED) blood tests for population-based screening: A qualitative study in Great Britain

BACKGROUND

Trials are underway to test the clinical utility of multi-cancer early detection (MCED) blood tests for screening asymptomatic individuals. We sought to understand the acceptability of MCED blood test screening and potential barriers and facilitators to participation among the general public.

METHODS

We conducted eleven semi-structured online focus groups with 50-77-year-olds (n = 53) in April-November 2022. Participants were purposefully sampled to include a mix of socio-economic and ethnic backgrounds as well as people who would not want 'a blood test for cancer'. Participants were shown information about MCED blood tests. Transcripts were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

Participants showed enthusiasm for MCED screening. Perceived benefits included procedural familiarity and the potential to screen for many cancers. Enthusiasm was driven by beliefs that cancer is a real and increasing risk (both at population level and personally with age) and that early detection reduces treatment burden and cancer mortality. Some felt they would not want to know if they had cancer. The potential for MCED tests to raise anxiety was a concern, especially in a false-positive scenario. Participants wanted to avoid unpleasant and unnecessary procedures. The initial blood test was deemed "less invasive" than current screening tests, but potential follow-up procedures were a concern. Views on MCED screening were influenced by wider factors including dislike of uncertainty, desire for choice and control over one's health, and existing relationships with the NHS.

CONCLUSION

The introduction of MCED screening is likely to be appealing due to the simplicity and familiarity of the primary test procedure. Test accuracy needs to be high to facilitate acceptability and should be communicated from the outset. Some people would rather not know if they have cancer, and MCEDs will not appeal to all.

Personalised colorectal cancer screening strategies: Information needs of the target population

Prior faecal Hemoglobin (f-Hb) concentrations of a negative fecal immunochemical test (FIT) can be used for risk stratification in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Individuals with higher f-Hb concentrations may benefit from a shorter screening interval (1 year), whereas individuals with undetectable f-Hb concentrations could benefit from a longer screening interval (3 year). Individuals' views on personalised CRC screening and information needed to make a well-informed decision is unknown. We conducted three semi-structured focus groups among individuals eligible for CRC screening (i.e. men and women aged 55 to 75) in the Netherlands. Thematic analysis was used to analyse participants' information need on personalised CRC screening strategies. Fourteen individuals took part. The majority were positive about CRC screening and indicated that they would participate in personalised CRC screening. The rationale for a longer interval among those at lowest risk was, however, unclear for many. The preferred information on individual risk was variable: ranging from full information to only information on the personalised strategy without mentioning the risk. It was not possible to address everyone's need with a single approach. Additional communications, e.g. public media campaigns, billboards, videos on social media, were also suggested as necessary. This study showed that preferences on receiving information on individual CRC risk varied substantially and no consensus was reached. Introducing a personalised screening programme will require careful communication, particularly around the rationale for the strategy, and a layered approach to deliver information.

Socio-demographic and cultural factors related to non-participation in the Dutch colorectal cancer screening programme

BACKGROUND

High participation rates are essential for a screening programme to be beneficial. To reach non-participants in a targeted manner, insight in characteristics of non-participants is needed. We investigated demographic differences between participants and non-participants in the Dutch faecal immunochemical test-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programme.

METHODS

In this population-based cohort study, we included all invitees for CRC screening in 2018 and 2019. Participation status, birth year, and sex were extracted from the Dutch national screening information system and linked to demographic characteristics from Statistics Netherlands, including migration background, level of education, socioeconomic category, household composition, and household income. A multivariable logistic regression was used to assess the association between demographic factors and participation.

RESULTS

A total of 4,383,861 individuals were invited for CRC screening in 2018 and 2019, of which 3,170,349 (72.3%) participated. Individuals were less likely to participate when they were single and/or living with others (single with other residents versus couple: odds ratio [OR] 0.34, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.31-0.38), had a migration background (e.g. Moroccan migrant versus Dutch background: OR 0.43, 95% CI: 0.42-0.44), or had a low income (lowest versus highest quintile: OR 0.45, 95% CI: 0.44-0.45). Although to a lesser extent, non-participation was also significantly associated with being male, being younger, receiving social welfare benefits and having a low level of education.

CONCLUSION

We found that individuals who were single and/or living with others, immigrants from Morocco or individuals with low income were the least likely to participate in the Dutch CRC screening programme. Targeted interventions are needed to minimise inequities in CRC screening.

Factors influencing organised faecal occult blood test screening participation in culturally and linguistically diverse populations: a scoping review

OBJECTIVE

This review aims to provide a comprehensive overview of the literature examining factors influencing participation in organised faecal occult blood test (FOBT) screening programmes in culturally and linguistically diverse populations. This article addresses gaps in the literature by providing a mixed methods review of the multilevel influences on FOBT screening in culturally and linguistically diverse (CALD) populations. This review was guided by the question "What are the factors influencing participation in organised FOBT screening programs in CALD populations?"

STUDY DESIGN

Scoping review.

METHODS

A scoping review methodology was used to summarise the available evidence. A thematic analysis of the included studies was undertaken to identify factors influencing organised FOBT screening participation in CALD populations from the literature.

RESULTS

FOBT screening participation was lower by ethnicity, religion, birthplace and language spoken. Barriers to screening included, faecal aversion, fatalism, fear of cancer, language and literacy barriers, difficulty accessing translated materials and low colorectal screening knowledge and awareness. CALD populations also had lower perceived benefits, susceptibility and cues to action, higher perceived barriers and greater perceived external health locus control than non-CALD populations. Facilitators of screening included positive attitudes to screening, general practitioner recommendations and social support. Group education sessions and narrative-based screening information were found to increase screening participation.

CONCLUSION

This review highlights the range of interrelated factors influencing participation in organised FOBT screening programmes in CALD populations and proposes multicomponent interventions to address low screening uptake. Features of successful community-level interventions should be explored further. Narratives show promise for engaging CALD populations. Accessibility of screening information should be addressed at the system level. Leveraging the general practitioner relationship in promoting FOBT screening programmes may also be an effective strategy to target 'hard-to-reach' populations.

Acceptability of a standalone written leaflet for the National Health Service for England Targeted Lung Health Check Programme: A concurrent, think-aloud study

BACKGROUND

Many countries are introducing low-dose computed tomography screening programmes for people at high risk of lung cancer. Effective communication strategies that convey risks and benefits, including unfamiliar concepts and outcome probabilities based on population risk, are critical to achieving informed choice and mitigating inequalities in uptake.

METHODS

This study investigated the acceptability of an aspect of NHS England's communication strategy in the form of a leaflet that was used to invite and inform eligible adults about the Targeted Lung Health Check (TLHC) programme. Acceptability was assessed in terms of how individuals engaged with, comprehended and responded to the leaflet. Semi-structured, 'think aloud' interviews were conducted remotely with 40 UK screening-naïve current and former smokers (aged 55-73). The verbatim transcripts were analysed thematically using a coding framework based on the Dual Process Theory of cognition.

RESULTS

The leaflet helped participants understand the principles and procedures of screening and fostered cautiously favourable intentions. Three themes captured the main results of the data analysis: (1) Response-participants experienced anxiety about screening results and further investigations, but the involvement of specialist healthcare professionals was reassuring; (2) Engagement-participants were rapidly drawn to information about lung cancer prevalence, and benefits of screening, but deliberated slowly about early diagnosis, risks of screening and less familiar symptoms of lung cancer; (3) Comprehension-participants understood the main principles of the TLHC programme, but some were confused by its rationale and eligibility criteria. Radiation risks, abnormal screening results and numerical probabilities of screening outcomes were hard to understand.

CONCLUSION

The TLHC information leaflet appeared to be acceptable to the target population. There is scope to improve aspects of comprehension and engagement in ways that would support informed choice as a distributed process in lung cancer screening.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

The insight and perspectives of patient representatives directly informed and improved the design and conduct of this study.

Inequalities in cancer screening, prevention and service engagement between UK ethnic minority groups

More people in the UK are living with cancer than ever before. With an increasingly ethnically diverse population, greater emphasis must be placed on understanding factors influencing cancer outcomes. This review seeks to explore UK-specific variations in engagement with cancer services in minority ethnic groups and describe successful interventions. The authors wish to highlight that, despite improvement to engagement and education strategies, inequalities still persist and work to improve cancer outcomes across our communities still needs to be prioritised. There are many reasons why cancer healthcare inequities exist for minority communities, reported on a spectrum ranging from cultural beliefs and awareness, through to racism. Strategies that successfully enhanced engagement included language support; culturally-sensitive reminders; community-based health workers and targeted outreach. Focusing on the diverse city of Leicester the authors describe how healthcare providers, researchers and community champions have worked collectively, delivering targeted community-based strategies to improve awareness and access to cancer services.

Lung Screen Uptake Trial (LSUT): Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial Testing Targeted Invitation Materials

Rationale: Low uptake of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening, particularly by current smokers of a low socioeconomic position, compromises effectiveness and equity.Objectives: To compare the effect of a targeted, low-burden, and stepped invitation strategy versus control on uptake of hospital-based Lung Health Check appointments offering LDCT screening.Methods: In a two-arm, blinded, between-subjects, randomized controlled trial, 2,012 participants were selected from 16 primary care practices using these criteria: 1) aged 60 to 75 years, 2) recorded as a current smoker within the last 7 years, and 3) no prespecified exclusion criteria contraindicating LDCT screening. Both groups received a stepped sequence of preinvitation, invitation, and reminder letters from their primary care practitioner offering prescheduled appointments. The key manipulation was the accompanying leaflet. The intervention group's leaflet targeted psychological barriers and provided low-burden information, mimicking the concept of the U.K. Ministry of Transport's annual vehicle test ("M.O.T. For Your Lungs").Measurements and Main Results: Uptake was 52.6%, with no difference between intervention (52.3%) and control (52.9%) groups in unadjusted (odds ratio [OR], 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82-1.16) or adjusted (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.82-1.17) analyses. Current smokers were less likely to attend (adjusted OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.56-0.86) than former smokers. Socioeconomic deprivation was significantly associated with lower uptake for the control group only (P < 0.01).Conclusions: The intervention did not improve uptake. Regardless of trial arm, uptake was considerably higher than previous clinical and real-world studies, particularly given that the samples were predominantly lower socioeconomic position smokers. Strategies common to both groups, including a Lung Health Check approach, could represent a minimum standard.Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02558101) and registered prospectively with the International Standard Registered Clinical/Social Study (N21774741).

Effectiveness of a brief phone intervention to increase participation in a population-based colorectal cancer screening programme: a randomized controlled trial

AIM

Although colorectal cancer (CRC) screening reduces mortality and morbidity the uptake in target populations is suboptimal. The aim was to assess whether adding a brief phone intervention to the usual invitation process increases participation in a CRC screening programme based in Catalonia.

METHOD

This was a non-blinded prospective randomized control study of patients eligible for their first CRC screening test (immunochemical faecal occult blood test). Between March and December 2017, 512 invitees (age range 50-69 years) were randomized to receiving either a brief informative phone call prior to receiving the standard screening invitation (letter and informative brochure) or the standard screening invitation alone. The primary outcome was participation in the screening programme at 6 months.

RESULTS

In all, 492/512 patients (54.7% women; 45.3% men) could be analysed (239/256 intervention group; 253/256 control group). On an intention to treat basis, the intervention group (55% women; 45% men) saw an 11% increase in the participation rate (51.05% vs 40.32%, P = 0.017). The intervention was more effective in male patients (50.93% vs 33.91%, P = 0.01) and those patients aged between 50 and 54 years (54.32% vs 37.77%, P = 0.03). After adjusting for sex, age and geographic area, the benefit of the intervention remained statistically significant (adjusted OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.07-2.20).

CONCLUSION

Our data suggest that a brief, informative intervention by phone in addition to the usual invitation process is effective in increasing participation in a CRC screening programme. It may be a useful strategy to improve uptake in groups which are less likely to participate in CRC screening (clinicaltrials.gov NCT03082911).

Socio-demographic correlates of cervical cancer risk factor knowledge among screening non-participants in Great Britain

This study explored knowledge of cervical cancer risk factors among cervical screening non-participants in Great Britain. The aim was to identify knowledge gaps that could be targeted in screening information materials or public education campaigns. We used a cross-sectional design to survey women aged 25 to 64 years living in Great Britain, identified as cervical screening non-participants through self-report questions. Data were collected via a household survey. Survey questions measured awareness of risk factors for cervical cancer and socio-demographic factors. Screening non-participants were included in the study (n = 793) and classified into non-participant groups based on the Precaution Adoption Process Model. Across the sample, 57% of participants identified 'not going for regular smear tests' as a risk factor for cervical cancer. Women who intended to be screened were more likely to identify this risk factor than other non-participant groups (OR = 2.13, 95% CI: 1.51-2.99). Women age 55-64 years (OR = 0.60, 95% CI: 0.39-0.93) and women from non-white ethnic backgrounds (OR = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.52-0.94) were less likely to recognise this risk factor. Recognition was lower for 'infection with human papillomavirus' (41%). Just over half the sample were aware that screening non-attendance is associated with increased cervical cancer risk, suggesting that non-attendance at screening is not always based on an accurate understanding of the offer. Overall, non-participants are poorly informed about cervical cancer risk factors and further work is needed to ensure that women are making informed choices about (non-) participation.

Market segmentation tools provide insights into demographic variations in bowel cancer screening uptake

Background

The National Health Service Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (NHS BCSP) aims to detect individuals who have precancerous polyps or early stage cancer, when it is easier to treat. To be effective, a screening uptake of at least 52% is required. Variations in uptake by demographic characteristic are reported and the aim of this study was to better understand who participates in the NHS BCSP, to inform action to address inequalities in screening uptake.

Methods

Invitation-level data for the Derbyshire population were supplied by the NHS BCSP Eastern Hub for the period 1 April 2014 to 31 March 2016. Data were linked by postal code to the Mosaic Public Sector Segmentation tool. Descriptive analysis using 14 groups and 61 types within Mosaic was undertaken to offer insight into the demographic, lifestyle and behavioural traits of people living in small geographies against their screening uptake, with a particular focus on identifying population groups with an uptake below 52% and so at risk of health inequalities.

Results

180 176 screening invitations were dispatched with an overall uptake of 60.55%. Six Mosaic groups have an uptake below the 52% acceptable level: urban cohesion, rental hubs, transient renters, family basics, vintage value and municipal tenants. These groups are characterised by high levels of social-rented accommodation, multicultural urban communities and transient populations.

Conclusion

Segmentation tools offer an effective way to generate novel insights into bowel cancer screening uptake and develop tailored strategies for working with identified communities to increase participation.

Attitudes towards faecal immunochemical testing in patients at increased risk of colorectal cancer: an online survey of GPs in England

BACKGROUND

There is increasing interest in using a quantitative faecal immunochemical test (FIT) to rule out colorectal cancer (CRC) in patients with high-risk symptoms in primary care.

AIM

This study aimed to investigate GPs' attitudes and willingness to use a FIT over an urgent 2-week wait (2WW) referral.

DESIGN AND SETTING

A cross-sectional online survey involving 1024 GPs working across England.

METHOD

Logistic regression models were used to explore the likelihood of GPs using a FIT instead of a 2WW referral, and reported using odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs).

RESULTS

Just over one-third of GPs (n = 365) preferred to use a FIT as a rule-out test over a 2WW referral. GPs were more willing if they were: aged 36-45 years (OR 1.59 [95% CI = 1.04 to 2.44]); 46-55 years (OR 1.99 [95% CI = 1.14 to 3.47]); thought a FIT was highly accurate (OR 1.63 [95% CI = 1.16 to 2.29]); thought patients would benefit compared with having a colonoscopy (OR 2.02 [95% CI = 1.46 to 2.79]); and were highly confident about discussing the benefits of a FIT (OR 2.14 [95% CI = 1.46 to 3.16]). GPs were less willing if they had had >10 urgent referrals in the past year (OR 0.62 [95% CI = 0.40 to 0.94]) and thought that longer consultations would be needed (OR 0.61 [95% CI = 0.44 to 0.83]).

CONCLUSION

The study findings suggest that the acceptability of using a FIT as a rule-out test in primary care is currently low, with less than half of GPs who perceived the test to be accurate preferring it over colonoscopy. Any potential guideline changes recommending a FIT in patients with high-risk symptoms, instead of urgent referral to rule out CRC, are likely to require intensive supporting educational outreach to increase GP confidence in the accuracy and application of a FIT in this context.

PRISMA and AMSTAR show systematic reviews on health literacy and cancer screening are of good quality

OBJECTIVES

The objectives of this study were to evaluate the reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews (SRs) on health literacy and cancer screening and to investigate factors that may influence overall quality.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We reviewed SRs published between 2009 and 2017. We calculated indices to represent the included SRs' adherence to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) and A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR). To assess possible determinants of SRs' quality, we regressed the index scores on year and region of publication, journal impact factor, authors' reported use of PRISMA, and presence of funding statements.

RESULTS

We included 19 SRs, and median index scores were 0.86 for PRISMA (interquartile range [IQR] = 0.11; range = 0.32-1.00) and 0.67 for AMSTAR (IQR = 0.30; range = 0.22-1.00). Methodological and reporting problems pertained to protocol registration or publication, number of raters used, gray literature searches, excluded article lists, and unintegrated discussions of risk of bias and efficacy. Only journal impact factor was statistically significantly associated (positively) with PRISMA and AMSTAR index scores.

CONCLUSION

The quality of SRs on health literacy and cancer screening was generally good. Systematic reviewers should register or publish their protocols, include PRISMA and AMSTAR checklists when submitting SRs to journals, and self-evaluate their SRs before submission.

The NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Program: current perspectives on strategies for improvement

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer in the UK. The English National Health Service (NHS) Bowel Cancer Screening Program (BCSP) was introduced in 2006 to improve CRC mortality by earlier detection of CRC. It is now offered to patients aged 60-74 years and involves a home-based guaiac fecal occult blood test (gFOBt) biennially, and if positive, patients are offered a colonoscopy. This has been associated with a 15% reduction in mortality. In 2013, an additional arm to BCSP was introduced, Bowelscope. This offers patients aged 55 years a one-off flexible sigmoidoscopy, and if several adenomas are found, the patients are offered a completion colonoscopy. BCSP has been associated with a significant stage shift in CRC diagnosis; however, the uptake of bowel cancer screening remains lower than that for other screening programs. Further work is required to understand the reasons for nonparticipation of patients to ensure optimal uptake. A change of gFOBt kit to the fecal immunochemical tests (FIT) in the English BCSP may further increase patient participation. This, in addition to increased yield of neoplasia and cancers with the FIT kit, is likely to further improve CRC outcomes in the screened population.

A large proportion of fecal immunochemical test-positive participants in colorectal cancer screening is symptomatic

Background

Symptomatic invitees are advised not to participate in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening but to directly consult their general practitioner (GP), because fecal immunochemical test (FIT) sensitivity for cancer is not optimal. This recommendation may not always be followed in daily practice. We evaluated how many FIT-positive participants had CRC-related symptoms and whether the presence of symptoms was associated with the presence and location of CRC/advanced neoplasia.

Methods

We prospectively collected data on CRC-related symptoms in all FIT-positive participants in the Dutch CRC screening program, referred to our endoscopy centers between 2014 and 2016, and evaluated whether symptoms were associated with detected CRC/advanced neoplasia at colonoscopy.

Results

Of 527 FIT-positive participants, 314 had advanced neoplasia, of which 41 had CRC. Overall, 246 (47%; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.42–0.51) reported CRC-related symptoms. A change in bowel habits (odds ratio (OR) 2.86, CI 1.23–6.62) and visible blood in stool (OR 8.65, CI 2.34–32.0) were associated with the detection of CRC at colonoscopy. We did not observe significant associations between evaluated symptoms and advanced neoplasia.

Conclusions

A large proportion of FIT-positive screening participants have CRC-related symptoms. This suggests that current instructions do not retain symptomatic screening invitees from participation and awareness of CRC-related symptoms is inadequate.

Understanding the heterogeneity of cervical cancer screening non-participants: Data from a national sample of British women

BACKGROUND

Uptake of cervical cancer screening in the United Kingdom (UK) is falling year on year, and a more sophisticated understanding of non-participation may help design interventions to reverse this trend. This study ascertained the prevalence of different non-participant types using the Precaution Adoption Process Model (PAPM).

METHODS

Home-based computer-assisted interviews were carried out with 3113 screening-eligible women in Britain. Survey items assessed self-reported screening uptake and intention to attend in future. Responses to these items were used to classify women into one of five different types of non-participants.

RESULTS

Of 793 non-participants, 28% were unaware of screening, 15% had decided not to attend and 51% were intending to have screening but were currently overdue. Younger women were more likely to be unaware of screening or to intend to be screened, while older women were more likely to have decided not to be screened. Women from ethnic minority backgrounds were more likely to be unaware of screening than white women. Being in a lower social grade was associated with increased odds of all three types of non-participation.

CONCLUSION

The majority of cervical cancer screening non-participants are not making an active decision not to attend but rather are either unaware or unable to act. There are clear sociodemographic differences between non-participant types, which could be used to identify where tailored interventions may be best targeted.

A cross-sectional survey assessing factors associated with reading cancer screening information: previous screening behaviour, demographics and decision-making style

Background

There is broad agreement that cancer screening invitees should know the risks and benefits of testing before deciding whether to participate. In organised screening programmes, a primary method of relaying this information is via leaflets provided at the time of invitation. Little is known about why individuals do not engage with this information. This study assessed factors associated with reading information leaflets provided by the three cancer screening programmes in England.

Methods

A cross-sectional survey asked screening-eligible members of the general population in England about the following predictor variables: uptake of previous screening invitations, demographic characteristics, and ‘decision-making styles’ (i.e. the extent to which participants tended to make decisions in a way that was avoidant, rational, intuitive, spontaneous, or dependent). The primary outcome measures were the amount of the leaflet that participants reported having read at their most recent invitation, for any of the three programmes for which they were eligible. Associations between these outcomes and predictor variables were assessed using binary or ordinal logistic regression.

Results

After exclusions, data from 275, 309, and 556 participants were analysed in relation to the breast, cervical, and bowel screening programmes, respectively. Notable relationships included associations between regularity of screening uptake and reading (more of) the information leaflets for all programmes (e.g. odds ratio: 0.16 for participants who never/very rarely attended breast screening vs. those who always attended previously; p = .009). Higher rational decision-making scores were associated with reading more of the cervical and bowel screening leaflets (OR: 1.13, p < .0005 and OR: 1.11, p = .045, respectively). Information engagement was also higher for White British participants compared with other ethnic groups for breast (OR: 3.28, p = .008) and bowel (OR: 2.58, p = .015) information; an opposite relationship was observed for older participants (OR: 0.96, p = .048; OR: 0.92, p = .029).

Conclusions

Interventions that increase screening uptake may also increase subsequent engagement with information. Future research could investigate how to improve engagement at initial invitations. There may also be scope to reduce barriers to accessing non-English information and alternative communication strategies may benefit participants who are less inclined to weigh up advantages and disadvantages as part of their decision-making.