1
|
Usher-Smith JA, Masson G, Godoy A, Burge SW, Kitt J, Farquhar F, Cartledge J, Kimuli M, Burbidge S, Crosbie PAJ, Eckert C, Hancock N, Iball GR, Rogerson S, Rossi SH, Smith A, Simmonds I, Wallace T, Ward M, Callister MEJ, Stewart GD. Acceptability of adding a non-contrast abdominal CT scan to screen for kidney cancer and other abdominal pathology within a community-based CT screening programme for lung cancer: A qualitative study. PLoS One 2024; 19:e0300313. [PMID: 38950010 PMCID: PMC11216619 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0300313] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/25/2023] [Accepted: 02/27/2024] [Indexed: 07/03/2024] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVES The Yorkshire Kidney Screening Trial (YKST) is a feasibility study of adding non-contrast abdominal CT scanning to screen for kidney cancer and other abdominal malignancies to community-based CT screening for lung cancer within the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial (YLST). This study explored the acceptability of the combined screening approach to participants and healthcare professionals (HCPs) involved in the trial. METHODS We conducted semi-structured interviews with eight HCPs and 25 participants returning for the second round of scanning within YLST, 20 who had taken up the offer of the additional abdominal CT scan and five who had declined. Transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis, guided by the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability. RESULTS Overall, combining the offer of a non-contrast abdominal CT scan alongside the low-dose thoracic CT was considered acceptable to participants, including those who had declined the abdominal scan. The offer of the additional scan made sense and fitted well within the process, and participants could see benefits in terms of efficiency, cost and convenience both for themselves as individuals and also more widely for the NHS. Almost all participants made an instant decision at the point of initial invitation based more on trust and emotions than the information provided. Despite this, there was a clear desire for more time to decide whether to accept the scan or not. HCPs also raised concerns about the burden on the study team and wider healthcare system arising from additional workload both within the screening process and downstream following findings on the abdominal CT scan. CONCLUSIONS Adding a non-contrast abdominal CT scan to community-based CT screening for lung cancer is acceptable to both participants and healthcare professionals. Giving potential participants prior notice and having clear pathways for downstream management of findings will be important if it is to be offered more widely.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Juliet A. Usher-Smith
- Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Golnessa Masson
- Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Angela Godoy
- Department of Oncology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Sarah W. Burge
- Department of Oncology, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Jessica Kitt
- Department of Surgery, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Fiona Farquhar
- Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, United Kingdom
| | - Jon Cartledge
- Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, United Kingdom
| | - Michael Kimuli
- Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, United Kingdom
| | - Simon Burbidge
- Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, United Kingdom
| | - Philip A. J. Crosbie
- Faculty of Biology, Medicine and Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
| | - Claire Eckert
- Leeds Institute of Health Science, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom
| | - Neil Hancock
- Leeds Institute of Health Science, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom
| | - Gareth R. Iball
- Faculty of Health Studies, University of Bradford, Bradford, United Kingdom
| | | | - Sabrina H. Rossi
- Department of Surgery, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | - Andrew Smith
- Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, United Kingdom
| | - Irene Simmonds
- Leeds Institute of Health Science, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom
| | - Tom Wallace
- Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, United Kingdom
| | - Matthew Ward
- Leeds Institute of Health Science, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom
| | - Matthew E. J. Callister
- Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, United Kingdom
- Leeds Institute of Health Science, University of Leeds, Leeds, United Kingdom
| | - Grant D. Stewart
- Department of Surgery, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Røssell EL, Bekker HL, Schonberg MA, Sønbø Kristiansen I, Borgquist S, Støvring H. Danish Women Make Decisions about Participation in Breast Cancer Screening prior to Invitation Information: An Online Survey Using Experimental Methods. Med Decis Making 2024:272989X241248142. [PMID: 38703097 DOI: 10.1177/0272989x241248142] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 05/06/2024]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Hilary Louise Bekker
- Leeds Unit of Complex Intervention Development (LUCID), Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, School of Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
- Research Centre of Patient Involvement Interventions (ResCenPI), DPH, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
| | - Mara A Schonberg
- Division of General Medicine, Department of Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center, Boston, Massachusetts, USA
| | - Ivar Sønbø Kristiansen
- Department of Health Management and Health Economics, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
- Research Unit of General Practice, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
| | - Signe Borgquist
- Department of Oncology, Aarhus University Hospital, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
| | - Henrik Støvring
- Department of Public Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Fransen MP, Damman OC, Bas S, Uiters E, Timmermans DR. Decision-making in breast cancer screening: A qualitative exploration of the match between women's beliefs and screening information in the Netherlands. PATIENT EDUCATION AND COUNSELING 2024; 122:108155. [PMID: 38325207 DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2024.108155] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/06/2023] [Revised: 01/12/2024] [Accepted: 01/14/2024] [Indexed: 02/09/2024]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE Decision-making about breast cancer screening requires balanced and understandable information that takes prior beliefs of screening invitees into account. METHODS In qualitative interviews with 22 Dutch women who were invited for screening for the first time (49-52 years of age, varying health literacy levels), we gained insight in their beliefs on breast cancer and breast cancer screening, and explored how the current screening information matched these beliefs. RESULTS Breast cancer was perceived as an unpredictable, severe, and uncontrollable disease. Women considered screening as self-evident and an important mean to gain some control over breast cancer. Information on benefits of screening was in line with women's prior beliefs and confirmed women's main reasons to participate. Information about false-positive outcomes, overtreatment, and false negative outcomes did not correspond to women's prior beliefs and this information was generally not considered relevant for decision-making. Preferences for additional information merely concerned practical information on the screening procedure. CONCLUSION Complex information on the harms of screening does not match women's beliefs and is not taken into account in their decision-making. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS Information regarding breast cancer screening could be further aligned to prior beliefs by taking into account values, filling knowledge gaps and correct misconceptions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mirjam P Fransen
- National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Centre for Prevention, Lifestyle and Health, Bilthoven, the Netherlands; Amsterdam UMC, Location University of Amsterdam, Public and Occupational Health, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Amsterdam Public Health Research institute, Quality of Care, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
| | - Olga C Damman
- Amsterdam Public Health Research institute, Quality of Care, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Amsterdam UMC, Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Public and Occupational Health, Van der Boechorststraat 7 1081 Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Sharell Bas
- National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Centre for Prevention, Lifestyle and Health, Bilthoven, the Netherlands
| | - Ellen Uiters
- National Institute for Public Health and the Environment, Centre for Prevention, Lifestyle and Health, Bilthoven, the Netherlands
| | - Daniëlle Rm Timmermans
- Amsterdam Public Health Research institute, Quality of Care, Amsterdam, the Netherlands; Amsterdam UMC, Location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Public and Occupational Health, Van der Boechorststraat 7 1081 Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Landais LL, Jelsma JG, Verhagen EA, Timmermans DR, Damman OC. Awareness of a disconnect between the value assigned to health and the effort devoted to health increases the intention to become more physically active. Health Psychol Behav Med 2023; 11:2242484. [PMID: 37529054 PMCID: PMC10388799 DOI: 10.1080/21642850.2023.2242484] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/14/2022] [Accepted: 07/22/2023] [Indexed: 08/03/2023] Open
Abstract
Background Intrinsic values and priorities influence decision-making and are, therefore, important to consider explicitly in intervention development. Although health is generally considered an important value, individuals often make unhealthy choices, indicating a values disconnect. Study aim To investigate how becoming aware of a disconnect between the value assigned to health and the effort devoted to health is related to intentions and commitment for behavioural change and physical activity among inactive adults. Methods We performed a secondary exploratory analysis on previously collected data. The intervention included a values exercise based on the Disconnected Values Model (DVM) that made disconnected values explicit to participants in two study arms. We compared participants with a disconnect (n = 138) with participants without a disconnect (n = 101) regarding intentions and commitment for behavioural change and physical activity and sitting time 2-4 weeks follow-up. Logistic and linear regression analyses were performed to analyse the data. Results Between-group differences were found for the intention to devote more effort to health (OR = 3.75; 95%CI: 2.05; 6.86) and for the intention to become more physically active (OR = 2.21; 95%CI: 1.10; 4.46), indicating that significantly more participants with a disconnect were motivated to change, compared to participants without a disconnect. No between-group differences were found for commitment, intention strength, follow-up physical activity and sitting time. Conclusion Making explicit a disconnect regarding health in an active choice intervention was associated with intentions to become more physically active. Still, it did not translate in significant behaviour change at 2-4 weeks follow-up. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT04973813. Retrospectively registered. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT04973813..
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lorraine L. Landais
- Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam UMC location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Health Behaviors & Chronic Diseases, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Quality of Care, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Judith G.M. Jelsma
- Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam UMC location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Health Behaviors & Chronic Diseases, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Quality of Care, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Evert A.L.M. Verhagen
- Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam UMC location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Health Behaviors & Chronic Diseases, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Amsterdam Collaboration on Health & Safety in Sports, Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam Movement Sciences, Amsterdam UMC location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Danielle R.M. Timmermans
- Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam UMC location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Quality of Care, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Olga C. Damman
- Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam UMC location Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Quality of Care, Amsterdam Public Health research institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Duchange N, Poiseuil M, Rollet Q, Piette C, Cosson M, Quertier MC, Moutel G, Darquy S. How do women comply with cancer screenings? A study in four regions of France. BMC Womens Health 2023; 23:190. [PMID: 37085818 PMCID: PMC10122322 DOI: 10.1186/s12905-023-02311-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/04/2021] [Accepted: 03/27/2023] [Indexed: 04/23/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND This article looks at the behaviour of women facing different cancer screening options available to them from the age of 50 onward. The study was conducted in 2019 in four departments of the French territory with the objective of identifying the factors that influence acceptance of a population-based screening proposal. METHODS A questionnaire was sent to women who had received three invitations to organised screenings (OS) for both breast and colorectal cancer. The categories of participants in both OS were designed from data from the regional cancer screening coordination centres in each department. Participation in opportunistic cervical cancer screening was evaluated as self-reported data. RESULTS 4,634 questionnaires were returned out of the 17,194 sent, giving a global return rate of 27%. The highest rate of return (73.5%) was obtained from women who had participated at least once in both breast and colorectal cancer OS. An intermediate rate was obtained from women participating in breast cancer OS only (18.7%). Poor levels of return came from women who had participated in colorectal cancer OS only (3.6%) and from non-participants (4.1%). Our results suggest that women with lower educational levels tend to be the most regular attendants at OS (50.3%), compared to highly educated women (39.7%). 11.8% of women were overdue in their opportunistic cervical cancer screening. This percentage rose to 35.4% in the category of non-participants. In addition, women's comments provide a better understanding of the reasons for irregular attendance and non-participation. CONCLUSION Overall, similar behaviours towards screening were observed in the four departments. Our analysis suggests that participation in one cancer OS increases the likelihood of participating in others. This adhesion could be an interesting lever for raising women's awareness of other cancer screenings.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Nathalie Duchange
- Normandie univ, UNICAEN, Inserm U1086, ANTICIPE, Caen, 14000, France
| | - Marie Poiseuil
- Cancer et expositions environnementales, Univ. Bordeaux, Inserm U1219, EPICENE, Bordeaux, 33000, France
| | - Quentin Rollet
- Normandie univ, UNICAEN, Inserm U1086, ANTICIPE, Caen, 14000, France
| | - Christine Piette
- Centre Régional de Coordination du Dépistage des Cancers (CRCDC), Bretagne, France
| | - Mathilde Cosson
- Centre Régional de Coordination du Dépistage des Cancers (CRCDC), Bretagne, France
| | | | - Grégoire Moutel
- Normandie univ, UNICAEN, Inserm U1086, ANTICIPE, Caen, 14000, France
| | - Sylviane Darquy
- Cancer et expositions environnementales, Univ. Bordeaux, Inserm U1219, EPICENE, Bordeaux, 33000, France.
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
How effective are digital technology-based interventions at promoting colorectal cancer screening uptake in average-risk populations? A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Prev Med 2022; 164:107343. [PMID: 36368343 DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2022.107343] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/03/2022] [Revised: 10/31/2022] [Accepted: 11/05/2022] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
Abstract
Despite the global prevalence of colorectal cancer (CRC) and efforts in screening advocacy, screening uptake remains relatively low. Considering the greater accessibility and popularity of telemedicine in behaviour change interventions, this meta-analysis seeks to examine the usefulness of digital interventions in promoting CRC screening uptake as compared to existing non-digital strategies. A systematic search on five databases identified articles published before September 2022. Randomized controlled trials comparing the effectiveness of digital interventions to usual care were included and assessed using the Cochrane's Risk of Bias tool. Effectiveness of interventions was measured by CRC screening completion rates, and pooled effect sizes were computed for both digital intervention subtypes identified - decision-making aids and tailored educational interventions. 14 studies (17,075 participants) assessed to have low or some risk of bias were included in this meta-analysis. A random-effects model revealed that digital interventions were more likely to promote CRC screening uptake (OR = 1.31, 95% CI: 1.11-1.56), and using a decision-making aid was almost 1.5 times more likely to result in screening completion (i.e., completed a colorectal investigation using stool-based or direct visualization test) (OR = 1.42, 95% CI: 1.24-1.63). Meanwhile, the tailored educational intervention subtype failed to achieve statistical significance in promoting screening uptake, bearing in mind the significant heterogeneity across studies (I2 = 88.6%). Digital decision-making aids significantly improved CRC screening uptake compared to tailored digital educational interventions and usual care. However, as all included studies were conducted in Western settings, its role in augmenting existing CRC screening promotion strategies especially among Asians should be further evaluated.
Collapse
|
7
|
Bolt ILLE, Schermer MHN, Bomhof-Roordink H, Timmermans DRM. Informed Decision-Making and Capabilities in Population-based Cancer Screening. Public Health Ethics 2022; 15:289-300. [PMID: 36727101 PMCID: PMC9883722 DOI: 10.1093/phe/phac023] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/04/2023] Open
Abstract
Informed decision-making (IDM) is considered an important ethical and legal requirement for population-based screening. Governments offering such screening have a duty to enable invitees to make informed decisions regarding participation. Various views exist on how to define and measure IDM in different screening programmes. In this paper we first address the question which components should be part of IDM in the context of cancer screening. Departing from two diverging interpretations of the value of autonomy-as a right and as an ideal-we describe how this value is operationalized in the practice of informed consent in medicine and translate this to IDM in population-based cancer screening. Next, we specify components of IDM, which is voluntariness and the requirements of disclosure and understanding. We argue that whereas disclosure should contain all information considered relevant in order to enable authentic IDM, understanding of basic information is sufficient for a valid IDM. In the second part of the paper we apply the capability approach in order to argue for the responsibility of the government to warrant equal and real opportunities for invitees for IDM. We argue that additional conditions beyond mere provision of information are needed in order to do so.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ineke L L E Bolt
- Corresponding author: Ineke Bolt, Department of Medical Ethics, Philosophy & History of Medicine, Erasmus MC, Wytemaweg 80, 3015 CN, Rotterdam, The Netherlands.
| | | | - Hanna Bomhof-Roordink
- Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Danielle R M Timmermans
- Department of Public and Occupational Health, Amsterdam UMC, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Office workers' perspectives on physical activity and sedentary behaviour: a qualitative study. BMC Public Health 2022; 22:621. [PMID: 35354447 PMCID: PMC8966601 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-022-13024-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/12/2021] [Accepted: 03/15/2022] [Indexed: 01/02/2023] Open
Abstract
Background Office workers spend a significant part of their workday sitting. Interventions that aim to reduce sedentary behaviour and increase physical activity might be more effective if greater attention is paid to individual perspectives that influence behavioural choices, including beliefs and values. This study aimed to gain insight into office workers' perspectives on physical activity and sedentary behaviour. Methods Sixteen Dutch office workers (50% female) from different professions participated in semi-structured face-to-face interviews in March 2019. To facilitate the interviews, participants received a sensitizing booklet one week before the interview. The booklet aimed to trigger them to reflect on their physical activity and sedentary behaviour and on their values in life. All interviews were audiotaped, transcribed verbatim and coded following codebook thematic analysis. Results Six themes were identified: 1) beliefs about health effects are specific regarding physical activity, but superficial regarding sedentary behaviour; 2) in addition to ‘health’ as a value, other values are also given priority; 3) motivations to engage in physical activity mainly stem from prioritizing the value ‘health’, reflected by a desire to both achieve positive short/mid-term outcomes and to prevent long-term negative outcomes; 4) attitudes towards physical inactivity and sedentary behaviour are diverse and depend on individual values and previous experiences; 5) perceived barriers depend on internal and external factors; 6) supporting factors are related to support and information in the social and physical environment. Conclusions The great value that office workers attach to health is reflected in their motivations and attitudes regarding physical activity. Increasing office workers' knowledge of the health risks of prolonged sitting may therefore increase their motivation to sit less. Although ‘health’ is considered important, other values, including social and work-related values, are sometimes prioritized. We conclude that interventions that aim to reduce sedentary behaviour and increase physical activity among office workers could be improved by informing about health effects of sedentary behaviour and short/mid-term benefits of physical activity, including mental health benefits. Moreover, interventions could frame physical activity as congruent with values and support value-congruent choices. Finally, the work environment could support physical activity and interruption of sedentary behaviour. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12889-022-13024-z.
Collapse
|
9
|
Hoare S, Powell A, Modi RN, Armstrong N, Griffin SJ, Mant J, Burt J. Why do people take part in atrial fibrillation screening? Qualitative interview study in English primary care. BMJ Open 2022; 12:e051703. [PMID: 35296474 PMCID: PMC8928318 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-051703] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/22/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVES There is insufficient evidence to support national screening programmes for atrial fibrillation (AF). Nevertheless, some practitioners, policy-makers and special interest groups have encouraged introduction of opportunistic screening in primary care in order to reduce the incidence of stroke through earlier detection and treatment of AF. The attitudes of the public towards AF screening are unknown. We aimed to explore why AF screening participants took part in the screening. DESIGN Semistructured longitudinal interview study of participant engagement in the SAFER study (Screening for Atrial Fibrillation with ECG to Reduce stroke). We undertook initial interviews face to face, with up to two follow-up telephone interviews during the screening process. We thematically analysed and synthesised these data to understand shared views of screening participation. SETTING 5 primary care practices in the East of England, UK. PARTICIPANTS 23 people taking part in the SAFER study first feasibility phase. RESULTS Participants were supportive of screening for AF, explaining their participation in screening as a 'good thing to do'. Participants suggested screening could facilitate earlier diagnosis, more effective treatment, and a better future outcome, despite most being unfamiliar with AF. Participating in AF screening helped attenuate participants' concerns about stroke and demonstrated their commitment to self-care and being a 'good patient'. Participants felt that the screening test was non-invasive, and they were unlikely to have AF; they therefore considered engaging in AF screening was low risk, with few perceived harms. CONCLUSIONS Participants assessed the SAFER AF screening programme to be a legitimate, relevant and safe screening opportunity, and complied obediently with what they perceived to be a recommendation to take part. Their unreserved acceptance of screening benefit and lack of awareness of potential harms suggests that uptake would be high but reinforces the importance of ensuring participants receive balanced information about AF screening initiatives. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER ISRCTN16939438; Pre-results.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sarah Hoare
- The Healthcare Improvement Studies Institute, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Alison Powell
- The Healthcare Improvement Studies Institute, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Rakesh Narendra Modi
- Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Natalie Armstrong
- Department of Health Sciences, University of Leicester, Leicester, UK
| | - Simon J Griffin
- Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
- MRC Epidemiology Unit, Institute of Metabolic Science, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Jonathan Mant
- Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| | - Jenni Burt
- The Healthcare Improvement Studies Institute, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Bertels L, Knottnerus B, Bastiaans L, Danquah A, van H, Dekker E, van K. Decision-making in screening positive participants who follow up with colonoscopy in the Dutch colorectal cancer screening programme: A mixed-method study. Psychooncology 2021; 31:245-252. [PMID: 34535928 PMCID: PMC9291115 DOI: 10.1002/pon.5814] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/12/2021] [Revised: 06/15/2021] [Accepted: 08/11/2021] [Indexed: 12/18/2022]
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To explore worry and decision-making processes used by faecal immunochemical test (FIT)-positive participants in the Dutch national screening programme for colorectal cancer. METHODS A mixed-methods study consisting of 22 semi-structured interviews in FIT-positive participants who underwent the recommended colonoscopy within 4-6 months after the FIT result, followed by a widespread questionnaire in a larger target population (N = 1495). RESULTS In the interviews, we recognised two different decision-making processes. The first is an affective heuristic decision process where the decision to participate is made instantly and is paired with high-risk perception, worry and (severe) emotional turmoil. The second is a more time-consuming analytical decision process in which participants describe discussing options with others. In the questionnaire, high levels of cancer worry (CWS > 9) were reported by 34% of respondents. Decisional difficulties were reported by 15% of respondents, and 34% of respondents reported discussing the positive FIT result with their GP. Individuals with high levels of cancer worry contacted their GP less often than those with low levels. CONCLUSIONS The Dutch two-step screening programme may result in high levels of cancer worry in a non-cancer population. More research is needed to monitor worry and its role in decision-making in cancer screening, as well as ways to facilitate decision-making for participants.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lucinda Bertels
- Department of General Practice, Cancer Center Amsterdam and Amsterdam Public Health, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Socio-Medical Sciences, Erasmus School of Health Policy and Management, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Bart Knottnerus
- Department of General Practice, Cancer Center Amsterdam and Amsterdam Public Health, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.,Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research (Nivel), Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - Lottie Bastiaans
- Department of General Practice, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Augustina Danquah
- Department of General Practice, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Henk van
- Department of General Practice, Cancer Center Amsterdam and Amsterdam Public Health, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Evelien Dekker
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Kristel van
- Department of General Practice, Cancer Center Amsterdam and Amsterdam Public Health, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Bertels L, Lucassen P, van Asselt K, Dekker E, van Weert H, Knottnerus B. Motives for non-adherence to colonoscopy advice after a positive colorectal cancer screening test result: a qualitative study. Scand J Prim Health Care 2020; 38:487-498. [PMID: 33185121 PMCID: PMC7781896 DOI: 10.1080/02813432.2020.1844391] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/18/2022] Open
Abstract
SETTING Participants with a positive faecal immunochemical test (FIT) in screening programs for colorectal cancer (CRC) have a high risk for colorectal cancer and advanced adenomas. They are therefore recommended follow-up by colonoscopy. However, more than ten percent of positively screened persons do not adhere to this advice. OBJECTIVE To investigate FIT-positive individuals' motives for non-adherence to colonoscopy advice in the Dutch CRC screening program. SUBJECTS Non-adherent FIT-positive participants of the Dutch CRC screening program. DESIGN We conducted semi structured in-depth interviews with 17 persons who did not undergo colonoscopy within 6 months after a positive FIT. Interviews were undertaken face-to-face and data were analysed thematically with open coding and constant comparison. RESULTS All participants had multifactorial motives for non-adherence. A preference for more personalised care was described with the following themes: aversion against the design of the screening program, expectations of personalised care, emotions associated with experiences of impersonal care and a desire for counselling where options other than colonoscopy could be discussed. Furthermore, intrinsic motives were: having a perception of low risk for CRC (described by all participants), aversion and fear of colonoscopy, distrust, reluctant attitude to the treatment of cancer and cancer fatalism. Extrinsic motives were: having other health issues or priorities, practical barriers, advice from a general practitioner (GP) and financial reasons. CONCLUSION Personalised screening counselling might have helped to improve the interviewees' experiences with the screening program as well as their knowledge on CRC and CRC screening. Future studies should explore whether personalised screening counselling also has potential to increase adherence rates. Key points Participants with a positive FIT in two-step colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs are at high risk for colorectal cancer and advanced adenomas. Non-adherence after an unfavourable screening result happens in all CRC programs worldwide with the consequence that many of the participants do not undergo colonoscopy for the definitive assessment of the presence of colorectal cancer. Little qualitative research has been done to study the reasons why individuals participate in the first step of the screening but not in the second step. We found a preference for more personalised care, which was not reported in previous literature on this subject. Furthermore, intrinsic factors, such as a low risk perception and distrust, and extrinsic factors, such as the presence of other health issues and GP advice, may also play a role in non-adherence. A person-centred approach in the form of a screening counselling session may be beneficial for this group of CRC screening participants.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lucinda Bertels
- Department of General Practice, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Department of Socio-Medical Sciences, Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Rotterdam, The Netherlands
- CONTACT Lucinda Bertels , .Department of General Practice, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Meibergdreef 9, 1105 AZ Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Erasmus School of Health Policy & Management, Rotterdam
| | - Peter Lucassen
- Department of Primary and Community Care, Radboud University Medical Centre, Radboud Institute for Health Sciences, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Kristel van Asselt
- Department of General Practice, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Evelien Dekker
- Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Henk van Weert
- Department of General Practice, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Bart Knottnerus
- Department of General Practice, Cancer Center Amsterdam, Amsterdam Public Health Research Institute, Amsterdam UMC, University of Amsterdam, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
- Netherlands Institute for Health Services Research (Nivel), Utrecht, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|