The LEAD trial - the effectiveness of a decision aid on decision making among citizens with lower educational attainment who have not participated in FIT-based colorectal cancer screening in Denmark: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Background: Colorectal cancer screening participation is a preference-sensitive choice, in which trade-offs between benefits and harms must be made by individual citizens. Often the decision is made without any contact with healthcare professionals. Citizens with lower educational attainment tend to participate less in colorectal cancer screening than citizens with average educational attainment. Further, they tend to have lower levels of knowledge about colorectal cancer screening. Providing lower educational attainment citizens with a targeted decision aid embracing their diverse information needs might increase these citizens’ ability to make informed decisions. The aim of this trial is to test the effectiveness of such a newly developed self-administered decision aid. Methods: The LEAD (Lower Educational Attainment Decision aid) trial will be conducted as a two-arm randomized controlled trial among 10,000 50–74-year-old citizens, resident in the Central Denmark Region not yet invited to take up colorectal cancer screening. Citizens will receive a baseline questionnaire. Respondents will be allocated into the intervention or the control groups. Citizens in the intervention group will receive the decision aid whereas the control group will not. Those who return a stool sample within 45 days after receiving the screening invitation and those with medium or higher educational attainment are excluded. Both groups will receive a follow-up questionnaire 90 days after being invited to colorectal cancer screening. A historic cohort consisting of 5000 50–74-year-old citizens resident in the Central Denmark Region, having received their screening invitation in the beginning of 2017 will be included. This cohort will receive a follow-up questionnaire 6–9 months after they received the screening invitation. Informed choice will be evaluated by assessing levels of knowledge, attitudes, and screening uptake. Analyses will be conducted as intention-to-treat analyses. Additionally, differences between levels of worry and decisional conflict between groups will be assessed as secondary outcomes

The association between health literacy and colorectal cancer screening uptake in a publicly funded screening program in Denmark: cross-sectional study

There are multiple reasons for not participating in colorectal cancer screening, but the role of health literacy in screening uptake is not well understood. The aims of this study were to determine the association between health literacy and colorectal cancer screening uptake and to explore whether socioeconomic and -demographic characteristics and worry and attitude variables modify this association. In a cross-sectional study, 10,030 53–74-year-old randomly selected citizens resident in Central Denmark Region received a questionnaire assessing health literacy using the European Health Literacy Survey Short Scale 16-item. Data on colorectal cancer screening uptake were obtained from the Danish Colorectal Cancer Screening database, and socioeconomic and -demographic data were linked from Statistics Denmark. The response rate was 71% (n = 7142). Odds ratio (OR) for uptake was 1.06 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.96, 1.19) for problematic health literacy and 1.00 (95% CI: 0.87, 1.16) for inadequate health literacy, when using adequate health literacy as the reference value. The association was not modified by socioeconomic or -demographic characteristics, worry or attitude. No association was found between health literacy and colorectal cancer screening uptake. Future research needs to clarify which dimensions of health literacy may predict screening uptake and how it is best measured

Knowledge, attitudes, and worries among different health literacy groups before receiving first invitation to colorectal cancer screening: cross-sectional study

Background Colorectal cancer screening uptake is associated with knowledge, attitudes and worries about screening. People with higher levels of health literacy usually have higher screening-related knowledge, but its association with attitudes and worries is sparsely described. The aim of this study was to describe knowledge, attitudes, and worries about colorectal cancer screening among unscreened citizens, and to estimate the association between these and health literacy. Methods In a cross-sectional study 10,030 53–74 year-old Central Denmark Region citizens received a questionnaire assessing knowledge, attitudes, worry and health literacy. Socioeconomic and –demographic data were linked from Statistics Denmark after data collection. Results In total, 7142 (71.2%) questionnaires were completed. A good general level of knowledge was observed (4.91 and 5.13 out of 7 for men and women, respectively). Citizens tended to be positive towards screening (21.4 and 21.3 on a 4–28 range scale for men and women respectively), and showed low levels of worries (8.8 and 9.09 on a 3–15 range scale for men and women respectively). Knowledge decreased and worries increased with lower levels of health literacy. Further, attitudes tended to be more positive with higher levels of health literacy. Conclusions In general, citizens tend to have good knowledge, positive attitudes and few worries about colorectal cancer screening. People with lower health literacy could benefit from targeted interventions that address knowledge and worries about screening to support informed decision making

The LEAD trial. The effectiveness of a decision aid on decision making among citizens with lower educational attainment who have not participated in FIT-based colorectal cancer screening in Denmark: a randomised controlled trial

Objectives This trial tested the effectiveness of a self-administered web-based decision aid, targeted at citizens with lower educational attainment, on informed choice about colorectal cancer screening participation as assessed by group levels of knowledge, attitudes and uptake. Methods The randomised controlled trial was conducted among 2702 screening-naïve Danish citizens, 53–74 years old, with lower educational attainment. Baseline questionnaire respondents (62%) were allocated to intervention and control groups. Intervention group citizens received the decision aid. Outcomes were informed choice, worries and decisional conflict. Results Analyses were conducted among 339 eligible citizens. The mean difference in knowledge score change between intervention and control group was 0.00 (95% confidence interval (CI): -0.38;0.38). Trends towards more positive screening attitudes (mean difference in score change: 0.72, 95% CI: -0.38;1.81) and higher screening uptake (7.6%, 95% CI:−2.2;17.4%) were observed. Worries (−0.33, 95% CI: −0.97;0.32) and decisional conflict (mean difference: −3.5, 95%CI: −7.0;−0.1) were slightly reduced. Conclusions The decision aid did not affect informed choice or knowledge. However, there were trends towards increased screening uptake and more positive screening attitudes. Practice implications Being a simple intervention and easily administered, the decision aid could represent a cost-effective way of enhancing screening uptake, and some elements of informed decision-making

Developing a self-administered decision aid for fecal immunochemical test-based colorectal cancer screening tailored to citizens with lower educational attainment: qualitative study

Background: Citizens with lower educational attainments (EA) take up colorectal cancer screening to a lesser degree, and more seldom read and understand conventional screening information than citizens with average EAs. The information needs of citizens with lower EA are diverse, however, with preferences ranging from wanting clear recommendations to seeking detailed information about screening. Decision aids have been developed to support citizens with lower EA in making informed decisions about colorectal cancer screening participation, but none embrace diverse information needs. Objective: The aim of this study was to develop a self-administered decision aid for participation in fecal immunochemical test–based colorectal cancer screening. The decision aid should be tailored to citizens with lower EA and should embrace diverse information needs. Methods: The Web-based decision aid was developed according to an international development framework, with specific steps for designing, alpha testing, peer reviewing, and beta testing the decision aid. In the design phase, a prototype of the decision aid was developed based on previous studies about the information needs of lower EA citizens and the International Patient Decision Aid Standards guidelines. Alpha testing was conducted using focus group interviews and email correspondence. Peer review was conducted using email correspondence. Both tests included both lower EA citizens and health care professionals. The beta testing was conducted using telephone interviews with citizens with lower EA. Data were analyzed using thematic analysis. Results: The developed decision aid presented information in steps, allowing citizens to read as much or as little as wanted. Values clarification questions were included after each section of information, and answers were summarized in a “choice-indicator” on the last page, guiding the citizens toward a decision about screening participation. Statistics were presented in both natural frequencies, absolute risk formats and graphically. The citizens easily and intuitively navigated around the final version of the decision aid and stated that they felt encouraged to think about the benefits and harms of colorectal cancer screening without being overloaded with information. They found the decision aid easy to understand and the text of suitable length. The health care professionals agreed with the citizens on most parts; however, concerns were raised about the length and readability of the text. Conclusions: We have developed a self-administered decision aid presenting information in steps. We involved both citizens and health care professionals to target the decision aid for citizens with lower EA. This decision aid represents a new way of communicating detailed information and may be able to enhance informed choices about colorectal cancer screening participation among citizens with lower EA

Severe and ChRonic Atopic dermatitis Treatment CoHort (SCRATCH):A Danish Real-world Evidence Atopic Dermatitis Treatment Registry

Data from real-world use of new systemic treatments in atopic dermatitis (AD) is important for assessing safety and efficacy. The aim of this study is to describe the baseline characteristics of adult patients with moderate-to-severe AD enrolled in the Danish nationwide Severe and ChRonic Atopic dermatitis Treatment CoHort (SCRATCH) database, between October 2017 and August 2021. A total of 282 adult patients were included. Most (62%) were men, the median age at baseline was 43 years (interquartile range (IQR) 29–54 years), and median age at onset of AD was 1 year (IQR 0–6 years). The median Eczema Area and Severity Index at treatment initiation was 19.1 (IQR 11.9–25.7); median Patient Oriented Eczema Measure 21.0 (IQR 16.0–25.0); median Dermatology Life Quality Index 13.0 (IQR 7.0–19.0); and median itch and sleep numerical rating scale scores 8.0 (IQR 6.0–9.0) and 6.0 (IQR 4.0–8.0). Differences were found between the sexes. This registry will provide a source for future efficacy and safety studies

What can We Learn From High-Performing Screening Programs to Increase Bowel Cancer Screening Participation in Australia?

Funding Information: This work was supported by the University of Melbourne, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, Human Ethics Advisory Group. Project title: “Consultation to understand international differences in bowel cancer screening participation,” ID 2057312.1 Funding Information: The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by Engagement Research Funding from the Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia. Publisher Copyright: © The Author(s) 2022.Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most diagnosed cancer in men and women and second most common cause of cancer death in Australia; Australia’s CRC incidence and mortality are among the world’s highest. The Australian National Bowel Cancer Screening Program began in 2006; however, only 33% of those approached for the first time by the Program between 2018 and 2019 returned the kit. Of the 5.7 million kits sent during this period, only 44% were returned. Our aim was to identify practices and features of national bowel cancer screening programs in countries with similar programs but higher screening participation, to identify potential interventions for optimising Australian CRC screening participation. Methods: We searched published and grey literature for CRC screening programs reporting at least 50% screening participation using postal invitation and free return of iFOBT home kits. Interviews were conducted with cancer registry staff and academic researchers, focused on participant and practitioner engagement in screening. Results: National programs in Netherlands, Scotland, Denmark, and Finland reported over 50% screening participation rates for all invitation rounds. Shared characteristics include small populations within small geographic areas relative to Australia; relatively high literacy; a one-sample iFOBT kit; national registration systems for population cancer screening research; and screening program research including randomised trials of program features. Conclusions: Apart from the one-sample kit, we identified no single solution to persistent Australian low uptake of screening. Research including randomised trials within the program promises to increase participation. Impact: This screening program comparison suggests that within-program intervention trials will lead to increased Australian screening participation.Peer reviewe