Development of the Informed Choice in Mammography Screening Questionnaire (IMQ): factor structure, reliability, and validity

The validity of instruments to measure knowledge in population-based cancer screening targeting individuals at average risk - A systematic review

OBJECTIVES

Relevant knowledge is essential for informed choices about (non)participation in population-based cancer screening. Many instruments have been proposed to assess residents' knowledge about cancer screening programmes but their measurement properties are unknown. This systematic review aims to identify and critically evaluate the measurement properties of instruments to measure knowledge about cancer screening in individuals eligible for population-based screening.

METHODS

A literature search was undertaken in PubMed, PsycINFO, Embase, CINAHL, Scopus and Web of Science in August 2023. The review included any study reporting one or more measurement properties of the questionnaire or sub-scale used measuring knowledge of cancer screening including breast, colorectal and/or cervical cancer screening. Studies including males aged 45 or older and females aged 20 or older were included. Two independent reviewers screened the articles and assessed the included articles using the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN).

RESULTS

We included 24 instruments, which varied in number and characteristics of items. All instruments were assessed as having an inadequate instrument development. The results of structural validity, internal consistency, criterion validity and reliability were assessed as indeterminate, while construct validity and responsiveness were assessed as sufficient.

CONCLUSION

This systematic review identified no instruments to measure knowledge about cancer screening where the measurement properties were sufficiently evaluated. There is a lack of focus on content validity and structural validity, and further validation of the instruments is needed. The results indicate a lack of shared understanding or agreement of what constitutes relevant knowledge about cancer screening.

Men's Perception of Being Invited for Prostate Cancer Testing and the Information About Its Pros and Cons-A Survey from Two Population-based Testing Programmes

Background

There is no national screening programme for prostate cancer in Sweden. Instead, population-based organised prostate cancer testing (OPT) projects are introduced to make information and testing more equal and effective.

Objective

To evaluate men's perception of being invited to OPT and of the information in the invitation letter, and whether their perception is influenced by educational level.

Design setting and participants

A questionnaire was sent out to men invited to OPT in 2020: 600 50-yr-old men in Region Västra Götaland and 1000 50-, 56-, and 62-yr-old men in Region Skåne.

Outcome measurements and statistical analysis

Responses were evaluated on a Likert scale. The chi-square test was used to compare proportions.

Results and limitations

A total of 534 men (34%) responded. Almost all considered the OPT concept as very good (84%) or good (13%). Among men not previously undergone a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test, a larger proportion with nonacademic (53%) than with academic education (41%) responded that the text about disadvantages was very clear (p = 0.03). A similar difference was observed for the text about advantages (68% vs 58%, p = 0.09). There was no association between education and searching for more information elsewhere. The low response rate is the main limitation.

Conclusions

Almost all responding men evaluating the invitation letter for OPT were positive about making a personal decision regarding whether or not to have a PSA test. Most were content with the brief information. Men with academic education were somewhat less likely to find the information very clear. This shows a need for further research about how best to describe the advantages and disadvantages of prostate cancer testing.

Patient summary

Almost all men who responded to a questionnaire to evaluate the invitation letter for organised prostate cancer testing were positive about the opportunity to make a personal decision regarding whether or not to have a prostate-specific antigen test.

Factors affecting intention to screen after being informed of benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: a study in 5 European countries in 2021

BACKGROUND

Participation in mammography screening comes with harms alongside benefits. Information about screening provided to women should convey this information yet concerns persist about its effect on participation. This study addressed factors that may influence the intention to screen once a woman has been informed about benefits and harms of participation.

METHODS

A cross-sectional survey of women from five countries (Belgium, France, Italy, Spain, and the United Kingdom) was performed in January 2021. The survey contained a statement regarding the benefits and harms of mammography screening along with items to measure cognitive variables from the theory of planned behaviour and health belief model and the 6-item version of the European Health Literacy Survey Questionnaire (HLS-EU-Q6). Logistic regression and mediation analysis were performed to investigate the effect of cognitive and sociodemographic variables.

RESULTS

A total of 1180 participants responded to the survey. 19.5% of participants (n = 230) were able to correctly identify that mammography screening carries both benefits and harms. 56.9% of participants (n = 672) responded that they would be more likely to participate in screening in the future after being informed about the benefits and harms of mammography screening. Perceived behavioural control and social norms demonstrated were significant in predicting intention, whereas, the effect of health literacy was limited.

CONCLUSIONS

Informing women about the presence of benefits and harms of in mammography screening participation did not negatively impact upon intention to be screened. Information should also address perception on implementation factors alongside messages on benefits and harms. Overall, screening programme managers should not be discouraged by the assumption of decreased participation through increasing efforts to address the lack of knowledge on benefits and harms.

Factors associated with attendance at screening for breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

OBJECTIVE

Attendance at population-based breast cancer (mammographic) screening varies. This comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis assesses all identified patient-level factors associated with routine population breast screening attendance.

DESIGN

CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Embase, Medline, OVID, PsycINFO and Web of Science were searched for studies of any design, published January 1987-June 2019, and reporting attendance in relation to at least one patient-level factor.

DATA SYNTHESIS

Independent reviewers performed screening, data extraction and quality appraisal. OR and 95% CIs were calculated for attendance for each factor and random-effects meta-analysis was undertaken where possible.

RESULTS

Of 19 776 studies, 335 were assessed at full text and 66 studies (n=22 150 922) were included. Risk of bias was generally low. In meta-analysis, increased attendance was associated with higher socioeconomic status (SES) (n=11 studies; OR 1.45, 95% CI: 1.20 to 1.75); higher income (n=5 studies; OR 1.96, 95% CI: 1.68 to 2.29); home ownership (n=3 studies; OR 2.16, 95% CI: 2.08 to 2.23); being non-immigrant (n=7 studies; OR 2.23, 95% CI: 2.00 to 2.48); being married/cohabiting (n=7 studies; OR 1.86, 95% CI: 1.58 to 2.19) and medium (vs low) level of education (n=6 studies; OR 1.24, 95% CI: 1.09 to 1.41). Women with previous false-positive results were less likely to reattend (n=6 studies; OR 0.77, 95% CI: 0.68 to 0.88). There were no differences by age group or by rural versus urban residence.

CONCLUSIONS

Attendance was lower in women with lower SES, those who were immigrants, non-homeowners and those with previous false-positive results. Variations in service delivery, screening programmes and study populations may influence findings. Our findings are of univariable associations. Underlying causes of lower uptake such as practical, physical, psychological or financial barriers should be investigated.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42016051597.