Ethnic inequalities in older adults bowel cancer awareness: findings from a community survey conducted in an ethnically diverse region in England

BACKGROUND: To date, research exploring the public’s awareness of bowel cancer has taken place with predominantly white populations. To enhance our understanding of how bowel cancer awareness varies between ethnic groups, and inform the development of targeted interventions, we conducted a questionnaire study across three ethnically diverse regions in Greater London, England. METHODS: Data were collected using an adapted version of the bowel cancer awareness measure. Eligible adults were individuals, aged 60+ years, who were eligible for screening. Participants were recruited and surveyed, verbally, by staff working at 40 community pharmacies in Northwest London, the Harrow Somali association, and St. Mark’s Bowel Cancer Screening Centre. Associations between risk factor, symptom and screening awareness scores and ethnicity were assessed using multivariate regression. RESULTS: 1013 adults, aged 60+ years, completed the questionnaire; half were of a Black, Asian or Minority ethnic group background (n = 507; 50.0%). Participants recognised a mean average of 4.27 of 9 symptoms and 3.99 of 10 risk factors. Symptom awareness was significantly lower among all ethnic minority groups (all p’s < 0.05), while risk factor awareness was lower for Afro-Caribbean and Somali adults, specifically (both p’s < 0.05). One in three adults (n = 722; 29.7%) did not know there is a Bowel Cancer Screening Programme. Bowel screening awareness was particularly low among Afro-Caribbean and Somali adults (both p’s < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Awareness of bowel cancer symptoms, risk factors and screening varies by ethnicity. Interventions should be targeted towards specific groups for whom awareness of screening and risk factors is low

Comparing perceived clarity of information on overdiagnosis used for breast and prostate cancer screening in England: an experimental survey.

OBJECTIVES: 'Overdiagnosis', detection of disease that would never have caused symptoms or death, is a public health concern due to possible psychological and physical harm but little is known about how best to explain it. This study evaluated public perceptions of widely used information on the concept to identify scope for improving communication methods. DESIGN: Experimental survey carried out by a market research company via face-to-face computer-assisted interviews. SETTING: Interviews took place in participants' homes. PARTICIPANTS: 2111 members of the general public in England aged 18-70 years began the survey; 1616 were eligible for analysis. National representativeness was sought via demographic quota sampling. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were allocated at random to receive a brief description of overdiagnosis derived from written information used by either the NHS Breast Screening Programme or the prostate cancer screening equivalent. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was how clear the information was perceived to be (extremely/very clear vs less clear). Other measures included previous exposure to screening information, decision-making styles and demographic characteristics (eg, education). Binary logistic regression was used to assess predictors of perceived clarity. RESULTS: Overdiagnosis information from the BSP was more likely to be rated as more clear compared with the prostate screening equivalent (adjusted OR: 1.43, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.75; p=0.001). Participants were more likely to perceive the information as more clear if they had previously encountered similar information (OR: 1.77, 1.40 to 2.23; p<0.0005) or a screening leaflet (OR: 1.35, 1.04 to 1.74; p=0.024) or had a more 'rational' decision-making style (OR: 1.06, 1.02 to 1.11; p=0.009). CONCLUSIONS: Overdiagnosis information from breast screening may be a useful template for communicating the concept more generally (eg, via organised campaigns). However, this information may be less well-suited to individuals who are less inclined to consider risks and benefits during decision-making

Using a hypothetical scenario to assess public preferences for colorectal surveillance following screening-detected, intermediate-risk adenomas: annual home-based stool test vs. triennial colonoscopy

Background To assess public preferences for colorectal cancer (CRC) surveillance tests for intermediate-risk adenomas, using a hypothetical scenario. Methods Adults aged 45–54 years without CRC were identified from three General Practices in England (two in Cumbria, one in London). A postal survey was carried out during a separate study on preferences for different first-line CRC screening modalities (non- or full-laxative computed tomographic colonography, flexible sigmoidoscopy, or colonoscopy). Individuals were allocated at random to receive a pack containing information on one first-line test, and a paragraph describing CRC surveillance recommendations for people who are diagnosed with intermediate-risk adenomas during screening. All participants received a description of two surveillance options: annual single-sample, home-based stool testing (consistent with Faecal Immunochemical Tests; FIT) or triennial colonoscopy. Invitees were asked to imagine they had been diagnosed with intermediate-risk adenomas, and then complete a questionnaire on their surveillance preferences. Results 22.1 % (686/3,100) questionnaires were returned. 491 (15.8 %) were eligible for analysis. The majority of participants stated a surveillance preference for the stool test over colonoscopy (60.8 % vs 31.0 %; no preference: 8.1 %; no surveillance: 0.2 %). Women were more likely to prefer the stool test than men (66.7 % vs. 53.6 %; p = .011). The primary reason for preferring the stool test was that it would be done more frequently. The main reason to prefer colonoscopy was its superiority at finding polyps. Conclusions A majority of participants stated a preference for a surveillance test resembling FIT over colonoscopy. Future research should test whether this translates to greater adherence in a real surveillance setting

Behavioural Challenges Associated With Risk-Adapted Cancer Screening

Cancer screening programmes have a major role in reducing cancer incidence and mortality. Traditional internationally-adopted protocols have been to invite all 'eligible individuals' for the same test at the same frequency. However, as highlighted in Cancer Research UK's 2020 strategic vision, there are opportunities to increase effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, and reduce harms of screening programmes, by making recommendations on the basis of personalised estimates of risk. In some respects, this extends current approaches of providing more intensive levels of care outside screening programmes to individuals at very high risk due to their family history or underlying conditions. However, risk-adapted colorectal cancer screening raises a wide range of questions, not only about how best to change existing programmes but also about the psychological and behavioural effects that these changes might have. Previous studies in other settings provide some important information but remain to be tested and explored further in the context of colorectal screening. Conducting behavioural science research in parallel to clinical research will ensure that risk-adapted screening is understood and accepted by the population that it aims to serve

Improving communication about cancer screening: moving towards informed decision making

For decades, public communications about cancer screening have used persuasive techniques with the aim of maximising the number of people being screened. However, perspectives have changed more recently to acknowledge that screening can lead to harm as well as benefit, and that it is important for service users to consider both. For some types of cancer screening, there is professional contention about whether benefits clearly outweigh harms. In light of this, an emerging trend in cancer screening communication is to try to support informed decision making - that is, to help people understand both the advantages and disadvantages of screening, allowing them to make individual decisions about their screening participation that reflect their informed preferences. In this review, we provide an overview of key theoretical and practical aspects of improving communication and supporting informed decision making about cancer screening, highlight relevant research and discuss future implications

Testing whether barriers to a hypothetical screening test affect unrelated perceived benefits and vice versa: A randomised, experimental study

OBJECTIVE: Determine whether (fictitious) health screening test benefits affect perceptions of (unrelated) barriers, and barriers affect perceptions of benefits. METHODS: UK adults were recruited via an online survey panel and randomised to receive a vignette describing a hypothetical screening test with either high or low benefits (higher vs. lower mortality reduction) and high or low barriers (severe vs. mild side-effects; a 2×2 factorial design). ANOVAs compared mean perceived benefits and barriers scores. Screening 'intentions' were compared using Pearson's χ(2) test. RESULTS: Benefits were rated less favourably when barriers were high (mean: 27.4, standard deviation: 5.3) than when they were low (M: 28.5, SD: 4.8; p=0.010, partial η(2)=0.031). Barriers were rated more negatively when benefits were low (M: 17.1, SD: 7.6) than when they were high (M: 15.7, SD: 7.3; p=0.023, partial η(2)=0.024). Most intended to have the test in all conditions (73-81%); except for the low benefit-high barrier condition (37%; p<0.0005; N=218). CONCLUSIONS: Perceptions of test attributes may be influenced by unrelated characteristics. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Reducing screening test barriers alone may have suboptimal effects on perceptions of barriers if benefits remain low; increasing screening benefits may not improve perceptions of benefits if barriers remain high

Acceptability of risk-stratified breast screening: Effect of the order of presenting risk and benefit information

OBJECTIVE: To test whether reduced-frequency risk-stratified breast screening would be perceived more favourably by transposing the order of information on benefits and risks. METHODS: After reading vignettes describing non-stratified three-yearly screening and a risk-stratified alternative with five-yearly invitations for women at low risk, 698 women completed an online survey. Participants were allocated at random to information on screening benefits followed by risks, or vice versa, and asked to state preferences for either screening system. Participants also rated perceived magnitude of screening benefits and risks, and breast cancer susceptibility. RESULTS: Binomial logistic regression did not find order effects on preferences (p = 0.533) or perceived benefits of screening (p = 0.780). Perceived screening risks were greater when risks were presented first (p < 0.0005). Greater perceived susceptibility was associated with lower proportions preferring risk-stratified screening (15% vs. 39% in highest and lowest groups; p = 0.002), as were greater perceived screening benefits (e.g. 13% vs. 45% in highest and lowest groups; p < 0.0005). CONCLUSIONS: No information order effect on preferences was observed. Information order did affect screening risk perceptions. Efforts to improve perceptions may need to be more intensive than those tested. Women perceiving themselves as high risk or perceiving greater benefits of screening may be particularly averse to less frequent screening

Offering disinclined people the choice between different screening appointments: a randomised online survey

Objectives: An invitation to cancer screening with a single (fixed) appointment time has been shown to be a more effective way at increasing uptake compared with an invitation with an open (unscheduled) appointment. The present study tested whether offering more than one fixed appointment could further enhance this effect or be detrimental to people’s intention. / Design: Experimental online hypothetical vignette survey. / Methods: 1,908 respondents who stated that they did not intend to participate in Bowel Scope Screening (BSS) were offered either one, two, four or six hypothetical fixed BSS appointments (all of which covered the same time of day to control for individual preferences). / Results: Participants who were given more than one appointment to choose from were less likely to intend to book an appointment despite multiple appointments being perceived as more convenient. / Conclusions: These results suggest that when it comes to offering people appointments for cancer screening, less (choice) is more, at least if alternatives fail to serve an inherent preference

The impact of computed high b-value images on the diagnostic accuracy of DWI for prostate cancer: A receiver operating characteristics analysis.

To evaluate the performance of computed high b value diffusion-weighted images (DWI) in prostate cancer detection. 97 consecutive patients who had undergone multiparametric MRI of the prostate followed by biopsy were reviewed. Five radiologists independently scored 138 lesions on native high b-value images (b = 1200 s/mm2), apparent diffusion coefficient (ADC) maps, and computed high b-value images (contrast equivalent to b = 2000 s/mm2) to compare their diagnostic accuracy. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis and McNemar's test were performed to assess the relative performance of computed high b value DWI, native high b-value DWI and ADC maps. No significant difference existed in the area under the curve (AUC) for ROCs comparing B1200 (b = 1200 s/mm2) to computed B2000 (c-B2000) in 5 readers. In 4 of 5 readers c-B2000 had significantly increased sensitivity and/or decreased specificity compared to B1200 (McNemar's p &lt; 0.05), at selected thresholds of interpretation. ADC maps were less accurate than B1200 or c-B2000 for 2 of 5 readers (P &lt; 0.05). This study detected no consistent improvement in overall diagnostic accuracy using c-B2000, compared with B1200 images. Readers detected more cancer with c-B2000 images (increased sensitivity) but also more false positive findings (decreased specificity)

Improving public understanding of 'overdiagnosis' in England: a population survey assessing familiarity with possible terms for labelling the concept and perceptions of appropriate terminology

OBJECTIVES: Communicating the concept of 'overdiagnosis' to lay individuals is challenging, partly because the term itself is confusing. This study tested whether alternative descriptive labels may be more appropriate. DESIGN: Questionnaire preceded by a description of overdiagnosis. SETTING: Home-based, computer-assisted face-to-face survey. PARTICIPANTS: 2111 adults aged 18-70 years in England recruited using random location sampling by a survey company. Data from 1888 participants were analysed after exclusions due to missing data. INTERVENTIONS: Participants were given one of two pieces of text describing overdiagnosis, allocated at random, adapted from National Health Service breast and prostate cancer screening leaflets. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Main outcomes were which of several available terms (eg, 'overdetection') participants had previously encountered and which they endorsed as applicable labels for the concept described. Demographics and previous exposure to screening information were also measured. Main outcomes were summarised with descriptive statistics. Predictors of previously encountering at least one term, or endorsing at least one as making sense, were assessed using binary logistic regression. RESULTS: 58.0% of participants had not encountered any suggested term; 44.0% did not endorse any as applicable labels. No term was notably familiar; the proportion of participants who had previously encountered each term ranged from 15.9% to 28.3%. Each term was only endorsed as applicable by a minority (range: 27.6% to 40.4%). Notable predictors of familiarity included education, age and ethnicity; participants were less likely to have encountered terms if they were older, not white British or had less education. Findings were similar for both pieces of information. CONCLUSIONS: Familiarity with suggested terms for overdiagnosis and levels of endorsement were low, and no clear alternative labels for the concept were identified, suggesting that changing terminology alone would do little to improve understanding, particularly for some population groups. Explicit descriptions may be more effective