Search

Objective Population-based risk assessment, using genetic testing and the provision of appropriate risk management, could lead to prevention, early detection and improved clinical management of ovarian cancer (OC). Previous research with mostly white British participants found positive attitudes towards such a programme. The current study aimed to explore the attitudes of South Asian (SA) women and men in the UK with the aim of identifying how best to implement such a programme to minimise distress and maximise uptake. Design Semistructured qualitative focus group discussions. Setting Community centres across North London and Luton. Participants 49 women and 13 men who identified as SA (Indian, Pakistani or Bangladeshi), which constitutes the largest non-European ethnic minority group in the UK. Methods Seven community-based focus groups were held. Group discussions were transcribed verbatim, coded and analysed thematically. Results Awareness and knowledge of OC symptoms and specific risk factors was low. The programme was acceptable to most participants and attitudes to it were generally positive. Participants’ main concerns related to receiving a high-risk result following the genetic test. Younger women may be more cautious of genetic testing, screening or risk-reducing surgery due to the importance of marriage and childbearing in their SA cultures. Conclusions A crucial first step to enable implementation of population-based genetic risk assessment and management in OC is to raise awareness of OC within SA communities. It will be important to engage with the SA community early on in programme implementation to address their specific concerns and to ensure culturally tailored decision support.

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.

Objectives Research suggests that girls from ethnic minority groups are less likely to receive the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccination than white British girls; however, the specific ethnic minority groups that have lower uptake have not been identified. This study aimed to examine the relationship between school-level uptake and ethnicity as well as uptake and other ethnicity-related factors, to understand which specific groups are less likely to receive the vaccination. Methods Aggregated uptake rates from 195 schools were obtained for each of the three recommended vaccine doses from 2008 to 2010. Census data at the lower super output area (LSOA) level for the postcode of each school were also obtained, describing the ethnic breakdown of the resident population (ethnicity, language spoken, religion, proficiency in English and duration of residency in the UK). These were used as proxy measures of the ethnic make-up of the schools. The most prevalent non-majority group for each ethnicity and ethnicity-related factor was assigned to each school. Analyses explored differences in uptake by ethnicity and ethnicity-related factors. Results No significant differences in vaccination uptake were found by ethnicity or ethnicity-related factors, although descriptive differences were apparent. Schools in areas where black ethnicities were the most prevalent non-white British ethnicities had consistently low rates of uptake for all doses. Schools in areas where some Asian ethnicities were the most prevalent non-white British ethnicities had consistently high rates of uptake for all doses. There was evidence of variability in mean uptake rates for ethnicities within ‘black’ and ‘Asian’ ethnic groups. Conclusions Future research would benefit from focusing on specific ethnicities rather than broad ethnic categories. Replication of this study with a larger sample and using complete individual-level data, collected on a national level, would provide a clearer indication of where ethnic differences in HPV vaccination uptake exist.

Introduction: The NHS Cervical Screening Programme is now using human papillomavirus (HPV) testing as the primary test in six sentinel sites in England, with the intention of rolling this out across the whole of England. Previous research evaluating HPV testing in the cervical screening context suggests that an HPV-positive result may increase anxiety beyond that associated with abnormal cytology, but this has not been explored in the context of primary HPV testing. The main aim of this study is to explore the impact of the HPV primary screening programme on anxiety and distress. Methods and analysis: A cross-sectional betweengroups design (total N - 673) will be employed to assess the psychological impact of different HPV and cytology results at three time points: shortly after receiving the results, and 6 and 12 months later. Women will fall into one of six groups based on their screening results. The primary outcomes will be anxiety and general distress. Secondary outcomes will include understanding of screening results, perceived risk of cervical cancer, psychosexual functioning, intention to attend future screening and knowledge of HPV. General linear modelling will be used to test for differences between groups and changes over the three time points. Ethics and dissemination: Health Research Authority approval was received on 26 September 2016. Ethical approval was received from London-Surrey Borders NHS Research Ethics Committee on 30 August 2016. Section 251 approval was received from the Confidentiality Advisory Group on 24 August 2016. Results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed publication and presentation at national and international conferences.

Objectives The role of human papillomavirus (HPV) in some oral cancers has been reported in the news press, though little is known about the content of these articles. This study aimed to examine how frequently the link between HPV and oral cancer has been reported in the news press and to examine the content of these articles. Design UK media articles were searched for articles relating to oral cancer and HPV in the database NexisUK. Of 854 articles identified by the initial search, 112 were eligible for inclusion (2002–2014) and content analysis was used to determine the main themes discussed. Results Themes included actor Michael Douglas’ claim that his throat cancer was caused by HPV, the riskiness of oral sex, health information (including HPV as a cause of oral cancer) and the need to vaccinate boys against HPV. Many articles also referred to the link between HPV and cervical cancer and the increasing incidence of HPV-related oral cancer. The largest peak in articles occurred when Michael Douglas discussed his cancer (June 2013). Facts about HPV and references to research were provided in some articles. Conclusions The link between HPV and oral cancer and the transmission of HPV via oral sex was regularly discussed, yet coverage often lacked detailed health information. This could increase awareness of the link between oral sex and HPV risk, but may also lead to public concern about oral sex as a sexual behaviour.