Search

Objective: This study aimed to quantify public acceptability and anticipated uptake with risk stratification incorporated at three points on the bowel cancer screening pathway, compared with current screening in England. Methods: We conducted an online population-based survey of 1,203 UK adults in 2024. The main outcome measures were overall acceptability of three strategies where risk stratification is introduced at 1) the point of eligibility, 2) the referral threshold and 3) the screening interval, compared with the current programme (screening as usual), and the acceptability of high- and low-risk screening practices at each point. Other outcomes included anticipated uptake of screening and the acceptability of data collection methods. Results: Acceptability of risk-stratified eligibility and referral thresholds was significantly greater than for screening as usual (p

Background: There is evidence that engaging in research is directly associated with better performance. If this relationship is to be strengthened, it is necessary to understand the mechanisms that might underlie that relationship. Aim: To explore the perspectives of staff and wider stakeholders about mechanisms by which research activity may impact on the performance of general practices. Design & setting: Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with general practice professionals and wider stakeholders in England. Method: Individual interviews with 41 purposively sampled staff in ‘research-ready’ or ‘research-active’ general practices, and 21 other stakeholders. Interviews were independently coded by three researchers using a framework approach. Results: Participants described potential ‘direct’ and ‘indirect’ impacts on their work. ‘Direct’ impacts included improved knowledge and skills that could change practice work (for example, additional records searches for particular conditions); bringing in additional resources (for example, access to investigations or staff); and improving relationships with patients. ‘Indirect’ impacts included job satisfaction (for example, perception of practice as a centre of excellence and innovation, and the variety afforded by research activity reducing burnout); and staff recruitment (increasing the attractiveness of the practice as a place to work). Responders identified few negative impacts. Conclusion: Staff and stakeholders identified a range of potential impacts of research activity on practice performance, with impacts on their working lives most salient. Negative impacts were not generally raised. Nevertheless, responders generally discussed potential impacts rather than providing specific examples of those impacts. This may reflect the type of research activity conducted in general practice, often led by external collaborators.

ABSTRACT Context Risk stratification has been suggested as a strategy for improving cancer screening. Any changes to existing programmes must be acceptable to the public. Objective This study aimed to explore the preferences and considerations of individuals relating to the introduction of different risk‐based strategies to determine eligibility for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Study Design Participants completed a discrete choice experiment (DCE) within online interviews. Nine conjoint‐analysis tasks were created, each with two potential CRC screening programmes. The attributes included personal risk of CRC, screening invitation strategy and impact. Participants chose between programmes while thinking aloud and sharing their thoughts. Transcripts were analysed using codebook thematic analysis. Participants Twenty participants based in England aged 40–79 years without previous cancer history or medical expertise. Results When choosing between programmes, participants first and primarily looked to prioritise saving lives. The harms associated with screening were viewed as a surprise but also felt by most to be inevitable; the benefits frequently outweighed, therefore, harms were considered less important. Risk stratification using individual characteristics was considered a nuanced approach to healthcare, which tended to be preferred over the age‐alone model. Detailed personal risk information could be taken more seriously than non‐personalised information to motivate behaviour change. Although it had minimal impact on decision‐making, not diverting resources for screening from elsewhere was valued. Individuals who chose not to provide health information were considered irresponsible, while it was important that those with no information to provide should not lose out. Conclusion Risk‐stratified CRC screening is generally aligned with public preferences, with decisions between possible stratification strategies dominated by saving lives. Even if attributes including risk factors, risk stratification strategy and risk communication contributed less to the overall decision to select certain programmes, some levels more clearly fulfilled public values; therefore, all these factors should be taken into consideration when redesigning and communicating CRC screening programmes. Patient or Public Contribution The primary data source for this study is interviews with 20 members of the public (current, past or future CRC screening invitees). Two public representatives contributed to planning this study, particularly the DCE.

Abstract Background Population-based cancer screening programmes are shifting away from age and/or sex-based screening criteria towards a risk-stratified approach. Any such changes must be acceptable to the public and communicated effectively. We aimed to explore the social and ethical considerations of implementing risk stratification at three different stages of the bowel cancer screening programme and to understand public requirements for communication. Methods We conducted two pairs of community juries, addressing risk stratification for screening eligibility or thresholds for referral to colonoscopy and screening interval. Using screening test results (where applicable), and lifestyle and genetic risk scores were suggested as potential stratification strategies. After being informed about the topic through a series of presentations and discussions including screening principles, ethical considerations and how risk stratification could be incorporated, participants deliberated over the research questions. They then reported their final verdicts on the acceptability of risk-stratified screening and what information should be shared about their preferred screening strategy. Transcripts were analysed using codebook thematic analysis. Results Risk stratification of bowel cancer screening was acceptable to the informed public. Using data within the current system (age, sex and screening results) was considered an obvious next step and collecting additional data for lifestyle and/or genetic risk assessment was also preferable to age-based screening. Participants acknowledged benefits to individuals and health services, as well as articulating concerns for people with low cancer risk, potential public misconceptions and additional complexity for the system. The need for clear and effective communication about changes to the screening programme and individual risk feedback was highlighted, including making a distinction between information that should be shared with everyone by default and additional details that are available elsewhere. Conclusions From the perspective of public acceptability, risk stratification using current data could be implemented immediately, ahead of more complex strategies. Collecting additional data for lifestyle and/or genetic risk assessment was also considered acceptable but the practicalities of collecting such data and how the programme would be communicated require careful consideration.

Abstract Introduction Risk‐stratified cancer screening has the potential to improve resource allocation and the balance of harms and benefits by targeting those most likely to benefit. Public acceptability has implications for engagement, uptake and the success of such a programme. Therefore, this review seeks to understand whether risk stratification of population‐based cancer screening programmes is acceptable to the general public and in what context. Methods Four electronic databases were searched from January 2010 to November 2021. Qualitative, quantitative and mixed‐methods papers were eligible for inclusion. The Joanna Briggs Institute convergent integrated approach was used to synthesize the findings and the quality of included literature was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. The Theoretical Framework of Acceptability was used as a coding frame for thematic analysis. PROSPERO record 2021 CRD42021286667. Results The search returned 12,039 citations, 22 of which were eligible for inclusion. The majority of studies related to breast cancer screening; other cancer types included ovarian, kidney, colorectal and prostate cancer. Risk stratification was generally acceptable to the public, who considered it to be logical and of wider benefit than existing screening practices. We identified 10 priorities for implementation across four key areas: addressing public information needs; understanding communication preferences for risk estimates; mitigating barriers to accessibility to avoid exacerbating inequalities; and the role of healthcare professionals in relation to supporting reduced screening for low‐risk individuals. Conclusion The public generally find risk stratification of population‐based cancer screening programmes to be acceptable; however, we have identified areas that would improve implementation and require further consideration. Patient or Public Contribution This paper is a systematic review and did not formally involve patients or the public; however, three patient and public involvement members were consulted on the topic and scope before the review commenced.

Introduction Breast cancer incidence starts to increase exponentially when women reach 30–39 years, hence before they are eligible for breast cancer screening. The introduction of breast cancer risk assessment for this age group could lead to those at higher risk receiving benefits of earlier screening and preventive strategies. Currently, risk assessment is limited to women with a family history of breast cancer only. The Breast CANcer Risk Assessment in Younger women (BCAN-RAY) study is evaluating a comprehensive breast cancer risk assessment strategy for women aged 30–39 years incorporating a questionnaire of breast cancer risk factors, low-dose mammography to assess breast density and polygenic risk. This study will assess the feasibility and acceptability of the BCAN-RAY risk assessment strategy.Methods and analysis This study involves women undergoing risk assessment as part of the BCAN-RAY case-control study (n=750). They will be aged 30–39 years without a strong family history of breast cancer and invited to participate via general practice. A comparison of uptake rates by socioeconomic status and ethnicity between women who participated in the BCAN-RAY study and women who declined participation will be conducted. All participants will be asked to complete self-report questionnaires to assess key potential harms including increased state anxiety (State Trait Anxiety Inventory), cancer worry (Lerman Cancer Worry Scale) and satisfaction with the decision to participate (Decision Regret Scale), alongside potential benefits such as feeling more informed about breast cancer risk. A subsample of approximately 24 women (12 at average risk and 12 at increased risk) will additionally participate in semistructured interviews to understand the acceptability of the risk assessment strategy and identify any changes needed to it to increase uptake.Ethics and dissemination Ethical approval was granted by North West—Greater Manchester West Research Ethics Committee (reference: 22/NW/0268). Study results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, conference presentations and charitable organisations.Trial registration number NCT05305963.

Prior faecal Hemoglobin (f-Hb) concentrations of a negative fecal immunochemical test (FIT) can be used for risk stratification in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. Individuals with higher f-Hb concentrations may benefit from a shorter screening interval (1 year), whereas individuals with undetectable f-Hb concentrations could benefit from a longer screening interval (3 year). Individuals’ views on personalised CRC screening and information needed to make a well-informed decision is unknown. We conducted three semi-structured focus groups among individuals eligible for CRC screening (i.e. men and women aged 55 to 75) in the Netherlands. Thematic analysis was used to analyse participants’ information need on personalised CRC screening strategies. Fourteen individuals took part. The majority were positive about CRC screening and indicated that they would participate in personalised CRC screening. The rationale for a longer interval among those at lowest risk was, however, unclear for many. The preferred information on individual risk was variable: ranging from full information to only information on the personalised strategy without mentioning the risk. It was not possible to address everyone’s need with a single approach. Additional communications, e.g. public media campaigns, billboards, videos on social media, were also suggested as necessary. This study showed that preferences on receiving information on individual CRC risk varied substantially and no consensus was reached. Introducing a personalised screening programme will require careful communication, particularly around the rationale for the strategy, and a layered approach to deliver information.

The incidence of renal cell carcinoma (RCC) has risen worldwide over the past few decades, and this has been associated with a stage shift. Survival outcomes of RCC depend largely on the stage at diagnosis. Although overall mortality has stabilized or declined in most countries, survival remains poor in late-stage disease, suggesting early detection may improve overall survival outcomes. A number of potential candidate screening tools have been considered (including urinary dipstick, blood- and urine-based biomarkers, ultrasound, and computed tomography [CT]), though it may be that a combination of these approaches may be optimal. Ultimately, the sensitivity and specificity of the chosen screening tool will determine the rate of false positives and false negatives, which must be minimized. One of the key challenges is the relatively low prevalence of the disease, which might be overcome by performing risk-stratified screening or screening for more than one condition (such as combined lung and kidney cancer screening). Both approaches have been shown to be acceptable to the general public, and they may maximize the efficiency of screening while reducing harms. Indeed, quantifying benefits and harms of screening is key (including the impact on overdiagnosis and quality of life). Whether screening for RCC will lead to a stage shift and the impact on survival are the decisive missing pieces of information that will determine whether the screening program might be adopted into clinical practice (along with feasibility, acceptability, and cost-effectiveness).

Background The aim of this study was to provide quantitative evidence of the use of polygenic risk scores for systematically identifying individuals for invitation for full formal cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk assessment. Methods and Results A total of 108 685 participants aged 40 to 69 years, with measured biomarkers, linked primary care records, and genetic data in UK Biobank were used for model derivation and population health modeling. Prioritization tools using age, polygenic risk scores for coronary artery disease and stroke, and conventional risk factors for CVD available within longitudinal primary care records were derived using sex‐specific Cox models. We modeled the implications of initiating guideline‐recommended statin therapy after prioritizing individuals for invitation to a formal CVD risk assessment. If primary care records were used to prioritize individuals for formal risk assessment using age‐ and sex‐specific thresholds corresponding to 5% false‐negative rates, then the numbers of men and women needed to be screened to prevent 1 CVD event are 149 and 280, respectively. In contrast, adding polygenic risk scores to both prioritization and formal assessments, and selecting thresholds to capture the same number of events, resulted in a number needed to screen of 116 for men and 180 for women. Conclusions Using both polygenic risk scores and primary care records to prioritize individuals at highest risk of a CVD event for a formal CVD risk assessment can efficiently prioritize those who need interventions the most than using primary care records alone. This could lead to better allocation of resources by reducing the number of risk assessments in primary care while still preventing the same number of CVD events.

Abstract Introduction Using risk stratification to determine eligibility for cancer screening is likely to improve the efficiency of screening programmes by targeting resources towards those most likely to benefit. We aimed to explore the implications of this approach from a societal perspective by understanding public views on the most acceptable stratification strategies. Methods We conducted three online community juries with 9 or 10 participants in each. Participants were purposefully sampled by age (40–79 years), sex, ethnicity, social grade and English region. On the first day, participants were informed of the potential benefits and harms of cancer screening and the implications of different ways of introducing stratification using scenarios based on phenotypic and genetic risk scores. On the second day, participants deliberated to reach a verdict on the research question, ‘Which approach(es) to inviting people to screening are acceptable, and under what circumstances?’ Deliberations and feedback were recorded and analysed using thematic analysis. Results Across the juries, the principle of risk stratification was generally considered to be an acceptable approach for determining eligibility for screening. Disregarding increasing capacity, the participants considered it to enable efficient resource allocation to high‐risk individuals and could see how it might help to save lives. However, there were concerns regarding fair implementation, particularly how the risk assessment would be performed at scale and how people at low risk would be managed. Some favoured using the most accurate risk prediction model whereas others thought that certain risk factors should be prioritized (particularly factors considered as non‐modifiable and relatively stable, such as genetics and family history). Transparently justifying the programme and public education about cancer risk emerged as important contributors to acceptability. Conclusion Using risk stratification to determine eligibility for cancer screening was acceptable to informed members of the public, particularly if it included risk factors they considered fair and when communicated transparently. Patient or Public Contribution Two patient and public involvement representatives were involved throughout this study. They were not involved in synthesizing the results but contributed to producing study materials, co‐facilitated the community juries and commented on the interpretation of the findings and final report.

BackgroundAntihypertensives are effective at reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease, but limited data exist quantifying their association with serious adverse events, particularly in older people with frailty. This study aimed to examine this association using nationally representative electronic health record data.Methods and findingsThis was a retrospective cohort study utilising linked data from 1,256 general practices across England held within the Clinical Practice Research Datalink between 1998 and 2018. Included patients were aged 40+ years, with a systolic blood pressure reading between 130 and 179 mm Hg, and not previously prescribed antihypertensive treatment. The main exposure was defined as a first prescription of antihypertensive treatment. The primary outcome was hospitalisation or death within 10 years from falls. Secondary outcomes were hypotension, syncope, fractures, acute kidney injury, electrolyte abnormalities, and primary care attendance with gout. The association between treatment and these serious adverse events was examined by Cox regression adjusted for propensity score. This propensity score was generated from a multivariable logistic regression model with patient characteristics, medical history and medication prescriptions as covariates, and new antihypertensive treatment as the outcome. Subgroup analyses were undertaken by age and frailty. Of 3,834,056 patients followed for a median of 7.1 years, 484,187 (12.6%) were prescribed new antihypertensive treatment in the 12 months before the index date (baseline). Antihypertensives were associated with an increased risk of hospitalisation or death from falls (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR] 1.23, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.21 to 1.26), hypotension (aHR 1.32, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.35), syncope (aHR 1.20, 95% CI 1.17 to 1.22), acute kidney injury (aHR 1.44, 95% CI 1.41 to 1.47), electrolyte abnormalities (aHR 1.45, 95% CI 1.43 to 1.48), and primary care attendance with gout (aHR 1.35, 95% CI 1.32 to 1.37). The absolute risk of serious adverse events with treatment was very low, with 6 fall events per 10,000 patients treated per year. In older patients (80 to 89 years) and those with severe frailty, this absolute risk was increased, with 61 and 84 fall events per 10,000 patients treated per year (respectively). Findings were consistent in sensitivity analyses using different approaches to address confounding and taking into account the competing risk of death. A strength of this analysis is that it provides evidence regarding the association between antihypertensive treatment and serious adverse events, in a population of patients more representative than those enrolled in previous randomised controlled trials. Although treatment effect estimates fell within the 95% CIs of those from such trials, these analyses were observational in nature and so bias from unmeasured confounding cannot be ruled out.ConclusionsAntihypertensive treatment was associated with serious adverse events. Overall, the absolute risk of this harm was low, with the exception of older patients and those with moderate to severe frailty, where the risks were similar to the likelihood of benefit from treatment. In these populations, physicians may want to consider alternative approaches to management of blood pressure and refrain from prescribing new treatment.

BackgroundIntroduction of risk stratification within population-based cancer screening programmes has the potential to optimise resource allocation by targeting screening towards members of the population who will benefit from it most. Endorsement from healthcare professionals is necessary to facilitate successful development and implementation of risk-stratified interventions. Therefore, this review aims to explore whether using risk stratification within population-based cancer screening programmes is acceptable to healthcare professionals and to identify any requirements for successful implementation.MethodsWe searched four electronic databases from January 2010 to October 2021 for quantitative, qualitative, or primary mixed methods studies reporting healthcare professional and/or other stakeholder opinions on acceptability of risk-stratified population-based cancer screening. Quality of the included studies was assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Data were analysed using the Joanna Briggs Institute convergent integrated approach to mixed methods analysis and mapped onto the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research using a 'best fit' approach. PROSPERO record CRD42021286667.ResultsA total of 12,039 papers were identified through the literature search and seven papers were included in the review, six in the context of breast cancer screening and one considering screening for ovarian cancer. Risk stratification was broadly considered acceptable, with the findings covering all five domains of the framework: intervention characteristics, outer setting, inner setting, characteristics of individuals, and process. Across these five domains, key areas that were identified as needing further consideration to support implementation were: a need for greater evidence, particularly for de-intensifying screening; resource limitations; need for staff training and clear communication; and the importance of public involvement.ConclusionsRisk stratification of population-based cancer screening programmes is largely acceptable to healthcare professionals, but support and training will be required to successfully facilitate implementation. Future research should focus on strengthening the evidence base for risk stratification, particularly in relation to reducing screening frequency among low-risk cohorts and the acceptability of this approach across different cancer types.

Introduction Kidney cancer (renal cell cancer (RCC)) is the seventh most common cancer in the UK. As RCC is largely curable if detected at an early stage and most patients have no symptoms, there is international interest in evaluating a screening programme for RCC. The Yorkshire Kidney Screening Trial (YKST) will assess the feasibility of adding non-contrast abdominal CT scanning to screen for RCC and other abdominal pathology within the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial (YLST), a randomised trial of community-based CT screening for lung cancer.Methods and analysis In YLST, ever-smokers aged 55–80 years registered with a general practice in Leeds have been randomised to a Lung Health Check assessment, including a thoracic low-dose CT (LDCT) for those at high risk of lung cancer, or routine care. YLST participants randomised to the Lung Health Check arm who attend for the second round of screening at 2 years without a history of RCC or abdominal CT scan within the previous 6 months will be invited to take part in YKST. We anticipate inviting 4700 participants. Those who consent will have an abdominal CT immediately following their YLST thoracic LDCT. A subset of participants and the healthcare workers involved will be invited to take part in a qualitative interview. Primary objectives are to quantify the uptake of the abdominal CT, assess the acceptability of the combined screening approach and pilot the majority of procedures for a subsequent randomised controlled trial of RCC screening within lung cancer screening.Ethics and dissemination YKST was approved by the North West-Preston Research Ethics Committee (21/NW/0021), and the Health Research Authority on 3 February 2021. Trial results will be disseminated at clinical meetings, in peer-reviewed journals and to policy-makers. Findings will be made available to participants via the study website (www.YKST.org).Trial registration numbers NCT05005195 and ISRCTN18055040.

Abstract Background Using risk stratification approaches to determine eligibility has the potential to improve efficiency of screening. Objectives To compare the public acceptability and potential impact on uptake of using different approaches to determine eligibility for screening. Design An online population‐based survey of 668 adults in the UK aged 45‐79 including a series of scenarios in the context of a potential kidney cancer screening programme in which eligibility was determined by age, sex, age and sex combined, a simple risk score (age, sex, body mass index, smoking status), a complex risk score additionally incorporating family history and lifestyle, or a genetic risk score. Outcome measures We used multi‐level ordinal logistic regression to compare acceptability and potential uptake within individuals and multivariable ordinal logistic regression differences between individuals. Results Using sex, age and sex, or the simple risk score were less acceptable than age (P

Abstract Background Approximately 40% of cancers could be prevented if people lived healthier lifestyles. We have developed a theory-based brief intervention to share personalised cancer risk information and promote behaviour change within primary care. This study aimed to assess the feasibility and acceptability of incorporating this intervention into primary care consultations. Method Patients eligible for an NHS Health Check or annual chronic disease review at five general practices were invited to participate in a non-randomised pilot study. In addition to the NHS Health Check or chronic disease review, those receiving the intervention were provided with their estimated risk of developing the most common preventable cancers alongside tailored behaviour change advice. Patients completed online questionnaires at baseline, immediately post-consultation and at 3-month follow-up. Consultations were audio/video recorded. Patients (n = 12) and healthcare professionals (HCPs) (n = 7) participated in post-intervention qualitative interviews that were analysed using thematic analysis. Results 62 patients took part. Thirty-four attended for an NHS Health Check plus the intervention; 7 for a standard NHS Health Check; 16 for a chronic disease review plus the intervention; and 5 for a standard chronic disease review. The mean time for delivery of the intervention was 9.6 min (SD 3) within NHS Health Checks and 9 min (SD 4) within chronic disease reviews. Fidelity of delivery of the intervention was high. Data from the questionnaires demonstrates potential improvements in health-related behaviours following the intervention. Patients receiving the intervention found the cancer risk information and lifestyle advice understandable, useful and motivating. HCPs felt that the intervention fitted well within NHS Health Checks and facilitated conversations around behaviour change. Integrating the intervention within chronic disease reviews was more challenging. Conclusions Incorporating a risk-based intervention to promote behaviour change for cancer prevention into primary care consultations is feasible and acceptable to both patients and HCPs. A randomised trial is now needed to assess the effect on health behaviours. When designing that trial, and other prevention activities within primary care, it is necessary to consider challenges around patient recruitment, the HCP contact time needed for delivery of interventions, and how best to integrate discussions about disease risk within routine care.

Abstract Background Kidney cancer is often asymptomatic, leading to proposals for a screening programme. The views of the public towards introducing a new screening programme for kidney cancer are unknown. The aim of this study was to explore attitudes towards kidney cancer screening and factors influencing intention to attend a future screening programme. Methods We conducted an online population-based survey of 1021 adults aged 45–77 years. The main outcome measure was intention to attend four possible screening tests (urine, blood, ultrasound scan, low-dose CT) as well as extended low-dose CT scans within lung cancer screening programmes. We used multivariable regression to examine the association between intention and each screening test. Results Most participants stated that they would be ‘very likely’ or ‘likely’ to undergo each of the screening tests [urine test: n = 961 (94.1%); blood test: n = 922 (90.3%); ultrasound: n = 914 (89.5%); low-dose CT: n = 804 (78.8%); lung CT: n = 962 (95.2%)]. Greater intention to attend was associated with higher general cancer worry and less perceived burden/inconvenience about the screening tests. Less worry about the screening test was also associated with higher intention to attend, but only in those with low general cancer worry (cancer worry scale ≤ 5). Compared with intention to take up screening with a urine test, participants were half as likely to report that they intended to undergo blood [OR 0.56 (0.43–0.73)] or ultrasound [OR 0.50 (0.38–0.67)] testing, and half as likely again to report that they intended to take part in a screening programme featuring a low dose CT scan for kidney cancer screening alone [OR 0.19 (0.14–0.27)]. Conclusion Participants in this study expressed high levels of intention to accept an invitation to screening for kidney cancer, both within a kidney cancer specific screening programme and in conjunction with lung cancer screening. The choice of screening test is likely to influence uptake. Together these findings support on-going research into kidney cancer screening tests and the potential for combining kidney cancer screening with existing or new screening programmes.

Background There is ongoing clinical and research interest in determining whether providing personalised risk information could motivate risk-reducing health behaviours. We aimed to assess the impact on behaviours and risk factors of feeding back to individuals’ images of their bodies generated via medical imaging technologies in assessing their current disease status or risk. Methods and findings A systematic review with meta-analysis was conducted using Cochrane methods. MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) were searched up to July 28, 2021, with backward and forward citation searches up to July 29, 2021. Eligible studies were randomised controlled trials including adults who underwent medical imaging procedures assessing current health status or risk of disease, for which personal risk may be reduced by modifying behaviour. Trials included an intervention group that received the imaging procedure plus feedback of visualised results and assessed subsequent risk-reducing health behaviour. We examined 12,620 abstracts and included 21 studies, involving 9,248 randomised participants. Studies reported on 10 risk-reducing behaviours, with most data for smoking (8 studies; n = 4,308), medication use (6 studies; n = 4,539), and physical activity (4 studies; n = 1,877). Meta-analysis revealed beneficial effects of feedback of visualised medical imaging results on reduced smoking (risk ratio 1.11, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.01 to 1.23, p = 0.04), healthier diet (standardised mean difference [SMD] 0.30, 95% CI 0.11 to 0.50, p = 0.003), increased physical activity (SMD 0.11, 95% CI 0.003 to 0.21, p = 0.04), and increased oral hygiene behaviours (SMD 0.35, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.57, p = 0.002). In addition, single studies reported increased skin self-examination and increased foot care. For other behavioural outcomes (medication use, sun protection, tanning booth use, and blood glucose testing) estimates favoured the intervention but were not statistically significant. Regarding secondary risk factor outcomes, there was clear evidence for reduced systolic blood pressure, waist circumference, and improved oral health, and some indication of reduced Framingham risk score. There was no evidence of any adverse effects, including anxiety, depression, or stress, although these were rarely assessed. A key limitation is that there were some concerns about risk of bias for all studies, with evidence for most outcomes being of low certainty. In particular, valid and precise measures of behaviour were rarely used, and there were few instances of preregistered protocols and analysis plans, increasing the likelihood of selective outcome reporting. Conclusions In this study, we observed that feedback of medical images to individuals has the potential to motivate risk-reducing behaviours and reduce risk factors. Should this promise be corroborated through further adequately powered trials that better mitigate against risk of bias, such interventions could usefully capitalise upon the widespread and growing use of medical imaging technologies in healthcare. In a systematic review and meta-analysis, Gareth Hollands and colleagues study the relationship between receipt of visual feedback of results following medical imaging procedures and risk-reducing health-related behaviors. Author summary Why was this study done? There is ongoing clinical and research interest in determining whether providing personalised risk information could motivate risk-reducing health behaviours in recipients. One such intervention involves feeding back images generated via medical imaging technologies that assess an individual’s current disease status or risk. A Cochrane review published in 2010 was unable to meaningfully reduce uncertainty concerning the intervention’s effects due to the limited evidence available at that time. What did the researchers do and find? An updated systematic review with meta-analysis was conducted using Cochrane methods. Randomised controlled trials were identified that included an intervention group that received imaging plus feedback of visualised results and assessed subsequent behaviour. A total of 21 studies (involving >9,000 randomised participants) that reported on 10 risk-reducing behaviours were included. The primary outcome analysis revealed beneficial intervention effects on 6 behaviours including smoking, diet, and physical activity. There were concerns about risk of bias for all studies, and evidence for most outcomes was of low certainty. What do these findings mean? Capitalising upon widespread and growing use of medical imaging technologies through feeding back medical images shows potential for motivating risk-reducing behaviours and reducing risk factors. More adequately powered trials that better mitigate against risk of bias would further reduce uncertainty around these effects.

BackgroundWomen with a history of gestational diabetes mellitus (GDM) are at high risk of developing type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). They are therefore recommended to follow a healthy diet and be physically active in order to reduce that risk. However, achieving and maintaining these behaviours in the postpartum period is challenging. This study sought to explore women's views on suggested practical approaches to achieve and maintain a healthy diet and physical activity to reduce T2DM risk.MethodsSemi-structured interviews with 20 participants in Cambridgeshire, UK were conducted at three to 48 months after GDM. The participants' current diet and physical activity, intentions for any changes, and views on potential interventions to help manage T2DM risk through these behaviours were discussed. Framework analysis was used to analyse the transcripts. The interview schedule, suggested interventions, and thematic framework were based on a recent systematic review.ResultsMost of the participants wanted to eat more healthily and be more active. A third of the participants considered that postpartum support for these behaviours would be transformative, a third thought it would be beneficial, and a third did not want additional support. The majority agreed that more information about the impact of diet and physical activity on diabetes risk, support to exercise with others, and advice about eating healthily, exercising with a busy schedule, monitoring progress and sustaining changes would facilitate a healthy diet and physical activity. Four other suggested interventions received mixed responses. It would be acceptable for this support to be delivered throughout pregnancy and postpartum through a range of formats. Clinicians were seen to have important roles in giving or signposting to support.ConclusionsMany women would appreciate more support to reduce their T2DM risk after GDM and believe that a variety of interventions to integrate changes into their daily lives would help them to sustain healthier lifestyles.

Risk perception refers to how individuals interpret their susceptibility to threats, and has been hypothesised as an important predictor of intentions and behaviour in many theories of health behaviour change. However, its components, optimal measurement, and effects are not yet fully understood. The TRIRISK model, developed in the US, conceptualises risk perception as deliberative, affective and experiential components. In this study, we aimed to assess the replicability of the TRIRISK model in a UK sample by confirmatory factor analysis (CFA), explore the inherent factor structure of risk perception in the UK sample by exploratory factor analysis (EFA), and assess the associations of EFA-based factors with intentions to change behaviour and subsequent behaviour change. Data were derived from an online randomised controlled trial assessing cancer risk perception using the TRIRISK instrument and intention and lifestyle measures before and after communication of cancer risk. In the CFA analysis, the TRIRISK model of risk perception did not provide a good fit for the UK data. A revised model developed using EFA consisted of two separate "numerical" and "self-reflective" factors of deliberative risk perception, and a third factor combining affective with a subset of experiential items. This model provided a better fit to the data when cross-validated. Using multivariable regression analysis, we found that the self-reflective and affective-experiential factors of the model identified in this study were reliable predictors of intentions to prevent cancer. There were no associations of any of the risk perception factors with behaviour change. This study confirms that risk perception is clearly a multidimensional construct, having identified self-reflective risk perception as a new distinct component with predictive validity for intention. Furthermore, we highlight the practical implications of our findings for the design of interventions incorporating risk perception aimed at behaviour change in the context of cancer prevention.

Abstract Background Systematic reviews are vital to the pursuit of evidence-based medicine within healthcare. Screening titles and abstracts (T&Ab) for inclusion in a systematic review is an intensive, and often collaborative, step. The use of appropriate tools is therefore important. In this study, we identified and evaluated the usability of software tools that support T&Ab screening for systematic reviews within healthcare research. Methods We identified software tools using three search methods: a web-based search; a search of the online “systematic review toolbox”; and screening of references in existing literature. We included tools that were accessible and available for testing at the time of the study (December 2018), do not require specific computing infrastructure and provide basic screening functionality for systematic reviews. Key properties of each software tool were identified using a feature analysis adapted for this purpose. This analysis included a weighting developed by a group of medical researchers, therefore prioritising the most relevant features. The highest scoring tools from the feature analysis were then included in a user survey, in which we further investigated the suitability of the tools for supporting T&Ab screening amongst systematic reviewers working in medical research. Results Fifteen tools met our inclusion criteria. They vary significantly in relation to cost, scope and intended user community. Six of the identified tools (Abstrackr, Colandr, Covidence, DRAGON, EPPI-Reviewer and Rayyan) scored higher than 75% in the feature analysis and were included in the user survey. Of these, Covidence and Rayyan were the most popular with the survey respondents. Their usability scored highly across a range of metrics, with all surveyed researchers (n = 6) stating that they would be likely (or very likely) to use these tools in the future. Conclusions Based on this study, we would recommend Covidence and Rayyan to systematic reviewers looking for suitable and easy to use tools to support T&Ab screening within healthcare research. These two tools consistently demonstrated good alignment with user requirements. We acknowledge, however, the role of some of the other tools we considered in providing more specialist features that may be of great importance to many researchers.

Abstract Background Men have a greater risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) than women, but population screening currently starts at the same age for both sexes. Aim This analysis investigates whether, in a resource‐constrained setting, it would be more effective and cost‐effective for men and women to start screening for CRC at different ages. Methods and results An economic modeling analysis was carried out using the Microsimulation Model in Cancer of the Bowel to compare sex‐stratification against screening everyone from the same age, taking an English National Health Service perspective. Screening men from age 56 and women from age 60, rather than screening everyone from age 58 using a Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) threshold of 120 μg/g is expected to produce an additional 0.0004 QALYs for a cost of £0.55 per person at model start (Incremental Cost‐effectiveness Ratio = £1392), and to reduce CRC cases and mortality by 25 and 19 per 100 000 people respectively, while using a similar amount of screening resources. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis indicates a 61% probability that sex‐stratification is more cost‐effective than screening everyone at age 58. Similar benefits of sex‐stratification are found at other FIT thresholds, but become negligible if mean screening start age is reduced to 50. Conclusion Where resources are constrained and it is not feasible to screen everyone from the age of 50, starting screening earlier in men than women is likely to be more cost‐effective and gain more health benefits overall than strategies where men and women start screening at the same age.

Objectives Kidney cancer has been identified as a disease for which screening might provide significant benefit for patients. The aim of this study was to understand in detail the facilitators and barriers towards uptake of a future kidney cancer screening programme, and to compare these across four proposed screening modalities.Design An online survey including free-text responses.Setting UKParticipants 668 adultsPrimary and secondary outcome measures The survey assessed participants’ self-reported intention to take-up kidney cancer screening with four different test methods (urine test, blood test, ultrasound scan and low-dose CT). We conducted thematic analysis of 2559 free-text comments made within the survey using an inductive approach.Results We identified five overarching themes that influenced screening intention: ‘personal health beliefs’, ‘practicalities’, ‘opinions of the test’, ‘attitudes towards screening’ and ‘cancer apprehension’. Overall, participants considered the tests presented as simple to complete and the benefits of early detection to outweigh any drawbacks to screening. Dominant facilitators and barriers varied with patterns of intention to take up screening across the four tests. Most intended to take up screening by all four tests, and for these participants, screening was seen as a positive health behaviour. A significant minority were driven by practicalities and the risks of the tests offered. A smaller proportion intended to reject all forms of screening offered, often due to fear or worry about results and unnecessary medical intervention or a general negative view of screening.Conclusions Most individuals would accept kidney cancer screening by any of the four test options presented because of strong positive attitudes towards screening in general and the perceived simplicity of the tests. Providing information about the rationale for screening in general and the potential benefits of early detection will be important to optimise uptake among uncertain individuals.

Objective To determine the feasibility of a definitive trial in primary care of electronic clinical decision support (eCDS) for possible oesophago-gastric (O-G) cancer.Design and setting Feasibility study in 42 general practices in two regions of England, cluster randomised controlled trial design without blinding, nested qualitative and health economic evaluation.Participants Patients aged 55 years or older, presenting to their general practitioner (GP) with symptoms associated with O-G cancer. 530 patients (mean age 68 years, 58% female) participated.Intervention Practices randomised 1:1 to usual care (control) or to receive a previously piloted eCDS tool for suspected cancer (intervention), for use at the discretion of the GPs, supported by a theory-based implementation package and ongoing support. We conducted semistructured interviews with GPs in intervention practices. Recruitment lasted 22 months.Outcomes Patient participation rate, use of eCDS, referrals and route to diagnosis, O-G cancer diagnoses; acceptability to GPs; cost-effectiveness. Participants followed up 6 months after index encounter.Results From control and intervention practices, we screened 3841 and 1303 patients, respectively; 1189 and 434 were eligible, 392 and 138 consented to participate. Ten patients (1.9%) had O-G cancer. eCDS was used eight times in total by five unique users. GPs experienced interoperability problems between the eCDS tool and their clinical system and also found it did not fit with their workflow. Unexpected restrictions on software installation caused major problems with implementation.Conclusions The conduct of this study was hampered by technical limitations not evident during an earlier pilot of the eCDS tool, and by regulatory controls on software installation introduced by primary care trusts early in the study. This eCDS tool needed to integrate better with clinical workflow; even then, its use for suspected cancer may be infrequent. Any definitive trial of eCDS for cancer diagnosis should only proceed after addressing these constraints.Trial registration number ISRCTN125595588.

BackgroundA significant proportion of the worldwide population is at risk of social isolation and loneliness as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to identify effective interventions to reduce social isolation and loneliness that are compatible with COVID-19 shielding and social distancing measures.Methods and findingsIn this rapid systematic review, we searched six electronic databases (Medline, Embase, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and SCOPUS) from inception to April 2020 for systematic reviews appraising interventions for loneliness and/or social isolation. Primary studies from those reviews were eligible if they included: 1) participants in a non-hospital setting; 2) interventions to reduce social isolation and/or loneliness that would be feasible during COVID-19 shielding measures; 3) a relevant control group; and 4) quantitative measures of social isolation, social support or loneliness. At least two authors independently screened studies, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias using the Downs and Black checklist. Study registration: PROSPERO CRD42020178654. We identified 45 RCTs and 13 non-randomised controlled trials; none were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. The nature, type, and potential effectiveness of interventions varied greatly. Effective interventions for loneliness include psychological therapies such as mindfulness, lessons on friendship, robotic pets, and social facilitation software. Few interventions improved social isolation. Overall, 37 of 58 studies were of "Fair" quality, as measured by the Downs & Black checklist. The main study limitations identified were the inclusion of studies of variable quality; the applicability of our findings to the entire population; and the current poor understanding of the types of loneliness and isolation experienced by different groups affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.ConclusionsMany effective interventions involved cognitive or educational components, or facilitated communication between peers. These interventions may require minor modifications to align with COVID-19 shielding/social distancing measures. Future high-quality randomised controlled trials conducted under shielding/social distancing constraints are urgently needed.

BackgroundThere is considerable heterogeneity in individuals' risk of disease and thus the absolute benefits and harms of population-wide screening programmes. Using colorectal cancer (CRC) screening as an exemplar, we explored how people make decisions about screening when presented with information about absolute benefits and harms, and how those preferences vary with baseline risk, between screening tests and between individuals.MethodWe conducted two linked studies with members of the public: a think-aloud study exploring decision making in-depth and an online randomised experiment quantifying preferences. In both, participants completed a web-based survey including information about three screening tests (colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, and faecal immunochemical testing) and then up to nine scenarios comparing screening to no screening for three levels of baseline risk (1%, 3% and 5% over 15 years) and the three screening tests. Participants reported, after each scenario, whether they would opt for screening (yes/no).ResultsOf the 20 participants in the think-aloud study 13 did not consider absolute benefits or harms when making decisions concerning CRC screening. In the online experiment (n = 978), 60% expressed intention to attend at 1% risk of CRC, 70% at 3% and 77% at 5%, with no differences between screening tests. At an individual level, 535 (54.7%) would attend at all three risk levels and 178 (18.2%) at none. The 27% whose intention varied by baseline risk were more likely to be younger, without a family history of CRC, and without a prior history of screening.ConclusionsMost people in our population were not influenced by the range of absolute benefits and harms associated with CRC screening presented. For an appreciable minority, however, magnitude of benefit was important.

Background: The NHS Health Check programme aims to reduce the risk of common preventable diseases by providing risk information and behaviour change advice. Failure to deliver the consultation appropriately could undermine its efficacy. To date, to the authors’ knowledge, there are no published data on the fidelity of delivery of NHS Health Checks. Aim: To assess the fidelity of delivery of NHS Health Checks in general practice. Design & setting: Fidelity assessment of video and audio recordings of NHS Health Check consultations conducted in four GP practices across the East of England. Method: A secondary analysis of 38 NHS Health Check consultations, which were video or audio recorded as part of a pilot study of introducing discussions of cancer risk into NHS Health Checks. Using a checklist based on the NHS Health Check Best Practice Guidance, fidelity of delivery was assessed as the proportion of key elements completed during the consultations. Results: The mean number of elements of the NHS Health Check completed across all consultations was 14.5/18 (80.6%), with a range of 10 to 17 (55.6% to 94.4%). The mean fidelity for risk assessment, risk communication, and risk management sections was 8.7/10 (87.0%), 4.1/5 (82.0%), and 1.7/3 (56.7%), respectively. Clinically appropriate lifestyle advice was given in 34/38 consultations. Elements with the lowest fidelity were ethnicity assessment (n = 12/38; 31.6%), family history of cardiovascular disease (CVD) assessment (n = 25/38; 65.8%), AUDIT-C communication (n = 13/38; 34.2%), and dementia risk management (n = 6/38; 15.8%). Conclusion: Although fidelity of delivery was high overall, important elements of the NHS Health Check were being regularly omitted. Opportunities for behaviour change, particularly relating to alcohol consumption and dementia risk management, may be being missed.

Abstract Background Cancer is a leading cause of mortality and morbidity worldwide. Prevention is recognised by many, including the World Health Organization, to offer the most cost-effective long-term strategy for the control of cancer. One approach that focuses on individuals is the provision of personalised risk information. However, whether such information motivates behaviour change and whether the effect is different with varying formats of risk presentation is unclear. We aim to assess the short-term effect of providing information about personalised risk of cancer in three different formats alongside lifestyle advice on health-related behaviours, risk perception and risk conviction. Methods In a parallel group, randomised controlled trial 1000 participants will be recruited through the online platform Prolific. Participants will be allocated to either a control group receiving cancer-specific lifestyle advice alone or one of three intervention groups receiving the same lifestyle advice alongside their estimated 10-year risk of developing one of the five most common preventable cancers, calculated from self-reported modifiable behavioural risk factors, in one of three different formats (bar chart, pictograph or qualitative scale). The primary outcome is change from baseline in computed risk relative to an individual with a recommended lifestyle at three months. Secondary outcomes include: perceived risk of cancer; anxiety; cancer-related worry; intention to change behaviour; and awareness of cancer risk factors. Discussion This study will provide evidence on the short-term effect of providing online information about personalised risk of cancer alongside lifestyle advice on risk perception and health-related behaviours and inform the development of interventions. Trial registration ISRCTN17450583. Registered 30 January 2018.

Abstract Background Physical activity (PA) and fruit and vegetable intake (FVI) are two key modifiable risk factors for cardiovascular disease (CVD). Achieving change in these behaviours is challenging and affected by many variables including psychosocial factors. We aimed to investigate the association between social support, stress and mood, and change in PA and FVI following provision of CVD risk information and web-based lifestyle advice. Methods Seven hundred sixteen blood donors (56% male; mean age 57 years) from the intervention arms of the Information and Risk Modification (INFORM) trial, a randomised controlled trial to assess the impact of providing CVD risk and web-based lifestyle information, were analysed as a prospective cohort. We used linear and logistic regression analyses to quantify the association between social support, stress and mood at baseline and behaviour change following the intervention. We modelled objective (average acceleration measured by Axivity AX3 wrist-worn accelerometers and plasma carotenoid levels) and subjective (self-reported recreational PA and FVI) outcomes as change between baseline and 12 weeks follow-up. Results There was no clear association between social support and change in objective or subjective PA. Higher levels of stress and, to a lesser extent, depression symptoms were associated with smaller improvement in self-reported PA (β -1.53 h/week vigorous PA, 95% confidence interval (CI) -2.30 to -0.75, p

Abstract Background It is estimated that nearly 600,000 cancer cases in the UK could have been avoided in the past five years if people had healthier lifestyles. A number of theories of behaviour change suggest that before people will change health behaviours, they must accept that a risk applies to them. This study aimed to explore the views of the public on receiving personalised cancer risk information and the potential for that information to motivate behaviour change. Methods We conducted 27 interviews with members of the public (mean age 49 ± 23 years). Each participant completed a questionnaire to allow calculation of their risk of developing the most common cancers (10 for women, 8 for men). During the interviews we presented their risk using a web-based tool developed for the study and discussions covered their views on receiving that information. Each interview was audio-recorded and then analysed using thematic analysis. Results Participants generally viewed the concept of personalised cancer risk positively. The first reaction of almost all when presented with their 10-year risk of an individual cancer without any further context was that it was low and not concerning. Views on what constituted a high risk ranged widely, from 0.5 to 60%. All felt seeing the impact of changes in lifestyle was helpful. For some this led to intentions to change behaviour, but reductions in risk were not always motivating as the risks were considered low and differences small. Conclusions Provision of personalised cancer risk was well received and may be a useful addition to other cancer prevention initiatives. Further work is needed in particular to develop ways to present cancer risk that reflect the general perception of what constitutes a risk high enough to motivate behaviour change and help patients contextualise a less well known health risk by providing a frame of reference.