Should a colon cancer screening decision aid include the option of no testing? A comparative trial of two decision aids

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>An important question in the development of decision aids about colon cancer (CRC) screening is whether to include an explicit discussion of the option of not being screened. We examined the effect of including or not including an explicit discussion of the option of deciding not to be screened in a CRC screening decision aid on subjective measures of decision aid content; interest in screening; and knowledge.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Adults ages 50–85 were assigned to view one of two versions of the decision aid. The two versions differed only in the inclusion of video segments of two men, one of whom decided against being screened. Participants completed questionnaires before and after viewing the decision aid to compare subjective measures of content, screening interest and intent, and knowledge between groups. Likert response categories (5-point) were used for subjective measures of content (eg. clarity, balance in favor/against screening, and overall rating), and screening interest. Knowledge was measured with a three item index and individual questions. Higher scores indicated favorable responses for subjective measures, greater interest, and better knowledge. For the subjective balance, lower numbers were associated with the impression of the decision aid favoring CRC screening.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>57 viewed the "with" version which included the two segments and 49 viewed the "without" version. After viewing, participants found the "without" version to have better subjective clarity about benefits of screening ("with" 3.4, "without" 4.1, <it>p </it>< 0.01), and to have greater clarity about downsides of screening ("with" 3.2, "without" 3.6, <it>p </it>= 0.03). The "with" version was considered to be less strongly balanced in favor of screening. ("with" 1.8, "without" 1.6, <it>p </it>= 0.05); but the "without" version received a better overall rating ("with" 3.5, "without" 3.8, <it>p </it>= 0.03). Groups did not differ in screening interest after viewing a decision aid or knowledge.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>A decision aid with the explicit discussion of the option of deciding not to be screened appears to increase the impression that the program was not as strongly in favor of screening, but decreases the impression of clarity and resulted in a lower overall rating. We did not observe clinically important or statistically significant differences in interest in screening or knowledge.</p

Low risk of cervical cancer during a long period after negative screening in the Netherlands

A condition for effective cervical cancer screening is a low incidence of cervical cancer after negative screening compared to that in the absence of screening. This relative risk was studied for the period 1994-1997 in the Netherlands and compared with previous studies. All cases of invasive cervical cancer diagnosed from 1994 to 1997 in the Netherlands were related to woman-years at risk, stratified by age, number of preceding negative screenings and time since the preceding negative screening. These incidence rates were compared with that before screening started in the Netherlands. The relative risk increases from 0.13 in the first year after screening to 0.24 after more than 6 years after screening for women with one previous negative screening. These figures reduce to 0.06 and 0.18, respectively, for women with two or more previous screenings. However, these estimates are less favourable when account is taken of the likely decrease in risk for cervical cancer in the period studied. Our data show a low relative risk of cervical cancer for several years following the last negative Pap smear. However, the denominator of the relative risk, that is, the incidence without screening, may have been overestimated. This applies also to the IARC multicountry study, and may have caused too optimistic expectations about the effectiveness of cervical cancer screening

Communication about colorectal cancer screening in Britain:public preferences for an expert recommendation

BACKGROUND: Informed decision-making approaches to cancer screening emphasise the importance of decisions being determined by individuals' own values and preferences. However, advice from a trusted source may also contribute to autonomous decision-making. This study examined preferences regarding a recommendation from the NHS and information provision in the context of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. METHODS: In face-to-face interviews, a population-based sample of adults across Britain (n=1964; age 50–80 years) indicated their preference between: (1) a strong recommendation to participate in CRC screening, (2) a recommendation alongside advice to make an individual decision, and (3) no recommendation but advice to make an individual decision. Other measures included trust in the NHS and preferences for information on benefits and risks. RESULTS: Most respondents (84%) preferred a recommendation (47% strong recommendation, 37% recommendation plus individual decision-making advice), but the majority also wanted full information on risks (77%) and benefits (78%). Men were more in favour of a recommendation than women (86% vs 81%). Trust in the NHS was high overall, but the minority who expressed low trust were less likely to want a recommendation. CONCLUSION: Most British adults want full information on risks and benefits of screening but they also want a recommendation from an authoritative source. An ‘expert' view may be an important part of autonomous health decision-making

Uptake in cancer screening programmes:a priority in cancer control

Achieving adequate levels of uptake in cancer screening requires a variety of approaches that need to be shaped by the characteristics of both the screening programme and the target population. Strategies to improve uptake typically produce only incremental increases. Accordingly, approaches that combine behavioural, organisational and other strategies are most likely to succeed. In conjunction with a focus on uptake, providers of screening services need to promote informed decision making among invitees. Addressing inequalities in uptake must remain a priority for screening programmes. Evidence informing strategies targeting low-uptake groups is scarce, and more research is needed in this area. Cancer screening has the potential to make a major contribution to early diagnosis initiatives in the United Kingdom, and will best be achieved through uptake strategies that emphasise wide coverage, informed choice and equitable distribution of cancer screening services

Telomerase activity as an adjunct to high-risk human papillomavirus types 16 and 18 and cytology screening in cervical cancer

Telomerase is a ribonucleoprotein comprising an RNA template, the telomerase-associated protein and its catalytic subunit, human telomerase reverse transcriptase (hTERT). Telomerase activation is a critical step in cellular immortalisation and development of cancer. Enhanced telomerase activity has been demonstrated in cervical cancer. In the present study telomerase activity and hTERT mRNA expression were evaluated and correlated with the presence of human papillomavirus (HPV) infection and cytological changes in the cervical lesions. Telomerase activity was assayed by telomeric repeat amplification protocol, hTERT mRNA expression by reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction and presence of high risk HPV (HR-HPV) infection by polymerase chain reaction. Out of 154 cervical samples of different cytology, 90 (58.44%) were positive for HR-HPV types 16/18, while among 55 normal cervical scrapes, 10 (18.18%) were HPV DNA positive. All 59 invasive cancer samples showed a very high telomerase activity. Among dysplasia, seven (63.6%) mild dysplasia, 18 (100%) of moderate, 20 (100%) of severe dysplasia and 6 (100%) carcinoma in situ (CIS) samples were positive with mild to moderate to high to very high telomerase activity respectively. Seven (12.7%) samples of apparently normal cervical scrapes were weakly positive for telomerase activity. We observed a good correlation (P<0.001) between telomerase activity and HR-HPV 16/18 positivity with a sensitivity of 88.1% for HPV and 100% for telomerase activity. It is suggested that telomerase activity may be used as an adjunct to cytology and HPV DNA testing in triaging women with cervical lesions