Limited health literacy is a barrier to colorectal cancer screening in England: Evidence from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing.

To determine the association between health literacy and participation in publicly available colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in England using data from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA)

Perceived life expectancy and colorectal cancer screening intentions and behaviour: A population-based UK study

The relationships between perceived life expectancy (PLE), cancer screening intentions and behaviour are not well understood, despite the importance of remaining life expectancy for the early diagnosis benefits of screening. This study investigates the relationships between PLE and each of: the intention to complete faecal occult blood test (FOBt) screening, 'ever' uptake of FOBt screening, and repeat uptake of FOBt screening for colorectal cancer. Data were from the population-representative Attitudes, Behaviour and Cancer UK Survey II (ABACUS II) in England in 2015. Eligible respondents for the present analysis were aged 60-70 years (FOBt eligible age range), who completed the survey question on perceived life expectancy (N = 824). We used logistic regression models to estimate the associations between PLE and the intention to complete screening, 'ever' uptake of screening, and repeat uptake of screening, with adjustment for age, gender, occupation-based social grade, marital status, ethnicity, and smoking status. PLE was positively associated with repeated uptake of FOBt (adjusted OR = 2.55; 95% CI: 1.04-6.30 for expecting to live to ≥90 years versus <80 years). Older adults may base decisions to continually participate in cancer screening on their expectations of remaining life expectancy. Future research should investigate the feasibility and acceptability of individualised cancer screening recommendations that take life expectancy into account

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

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

Temporal Oscillation of Conductances in Quantum Hall Effect of Bloch Electrons

We study a nonadiabatic effect on the conductances in the quantum Hall effect of two-dimensional electrons with a periodic potential. We found that the Hall and longitudinal conductances oscillate in time with a very large frequencies due to quantum fluctuation.Comment: 8 pages, 4 figure

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

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

Gender differences in self-reported family history of cancer A review and secondary data analysis in Cancer Medicine has the following publication status: Published as Early View

Background: Assessment of family history of cancer (FHC) mostly relies on self‐report. Our goal was to find out whether there is a systematic gender difference in self‐reported FHC. Methods: We identified nine population‐based studies which provided statistics of FHC in men and women (N1 = 404 541). Furthermore, we analyzed data (N2 = 167 154) from several iterations of the US‐based Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS) and the National Health Interview Survey (NHIS). We calculated the proportion of positive FHC, odds ratios (OR M/F), 95% confidence intervals, and aggregated statistics. We additionally analyzed in‐depth questions about FHC from HINTS 5 Cycle 2. Results: In the reviewed studies the odds of men reporting a FHC were lower compared with the odds of women with an average OR of 0.84 [0.71; 1.00] across all studies and an OR of 0.75 [0.70; 0.80] for the six studies from the US and Europe. The gender gap was replicated in our own analyses of HINTS and NHIS with an average OR of 0.75 [0.71; 0.79]. In HINTS 5 Cycle 2 men described themselves as less familiar with their FHC and less confident answering questions regarding FHC. They were also less likely to discuss FHC with family members. Conclusions: Men— at least in the US and Europe—were consistently less likely to report FHC compared with women. Future research should investigate how the assessment of FHC can be improved to reduce these differences. Health care professionals should also consider the potential for biased reporting by gender when assessing FHC