Search

An invitation to cancer screening with a single (fixed) appointment time has been shown to be a more effective way at increasing uptake compared with an invitation with an open (unscheduled) appointment. The present study tested whether offering more than one fixed appointment could further enhance this effect or be detrimental to people's intention. Experimental online hypothetical vignette survey. 1,908 respondents who stated that they did not intend to participate in Bowel Scope Screening (BSS) were offered either one, two, four or six hypothetical fixed BSS appointments (all of which covered the same time of day to control for individual preferences). Participants who were given more than one appointment to choose from were less likely to intend to book an appointment despite multiple appointments being perceived as more convenient. These results suggest that when it comes to offering people appointments for cancer screening, less (choice) is more, at least if alternatives fail to serve an inherent preference. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: A large proportion of women have a preference for a same-gender endoscopy practitioner. We tested how information about practitioner gender affected intention to have bowel scope screening in a sample of women disinclined to have the test. Methods: In an online experimental survey, women aged 35–54 living in England who did not intend to participate in bowel scope screening (N = 1060) were randomised to one of four experimental conditions: (1) control (practitioner's gender is unknown), (2) opposite-gender (male practitioner by default), (3) same gender (female practitioner by default), and (4) active choice (the patient could choose the gender of the practitioner). Intention was measured following the interventions. Results: Of 1010 (95.3%) women who completed the survey, most were White-British (83.6%), and working (63.3%). Compared with control, both active choice and same-gender conditions increased intention among disinclined women (9.3% vs. 16.0% and 17.9%; OR: 1.85; 95% CI: 1.07–3.20 and OR: 2.07; 95% CI: 1.23–3.50). There were no differences in intention between the opposite-gender and control conditions (9.8% vs. 9.3%; OR: 1.06; 95% CI: 0.60–1.90) or the active choice and same-gender conditions (16.0% vs. 17.9%: OR: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.55–1.46, using same gender as baseline). Conclusions: Offering disinclined women a same-gender practitioner, either by choice or default, increased subsequent intention, while an opposite gender default did not negatively affect intention. Reducing uncertainty about gender of practitioner could positively affect uptake in women, and should be tested in a randomised controlled trial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To evaluate the 'Call for a Kit' health promotion intervention that was initiated in Lancashire, England to improve bowel cancer screening uptake. Methods: Within the intervention, screening non-responders are called and invited to attend a consultation with a health promotion team member at their primary care practice. In this audit, we analysed the proportion of those contacted who attended the in-person clinic versus those who received a phone consultation, the number returning a test kit from in-person versus phone consultations, and the extent to which test kit return was moderated by sociodemographic characteristics. Results: In 2019, 68 practices participated in the intervention which led to 10,772 individuals being contacted; 2464 accepted the invitation to an in-person consultation, of whom 1943 attended. A further 1065 agreed to and attended a consultation over the phone. The 3008 consultations resulted in 2890 test kits being ordered, of which 1608 (55.6%) were returned. The intervention therefore yielded a 14.9% response rate in the total cohort; 71.5% of test kits came from individuals attending the in-person consultation. Women and those registered with a practice in socioeconomically deprived areas were less likely to return the test kit. Individuals with a black, mixed or a non-Indian/Pakistani Asian ethnic background were significantly more likely to accept the offer of an in-person consultation and return the test kit. Conclusion: Our analysis demonstrated the strong likelihood of people returning a test kit after an in-person appointment but also the usefulness of using phone consultations as a safety net for people unable or unwilling to attend in-person clinics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background. Cancer diagnosis is a complex and multifaceted process that can be stressful and anxiety-provoking for patients. Evidence-based tools and information aids that can be used for guiding and supporting patients during cancer investigations and after diagnosis are limited. This paper presents a user-centred codesign project that aims to develop a cancer pathway support tool for patients, carers, and healthcare professionals. Method. A mixed-method codesign approach was used including prototype development (January–March 2022), three online codesign workshops (April–June 2022), one-to-one feedback, and beta testing informed by the standardised Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA) questionnaire (July–October 2022). Nine individuals with lived experience of cancer contributed to the project and are referred to as codesigners. Results. The codesigners valued the potential importance of a tool that can be used by the patients and carers if they want specific information about cancer investigations, diagnosis, and treatment. The ability to select what they need as opposed to long leaflets and generating their own questions for the healthcare providers were highlighted as important aspects of improving patient care. The tool was collectively designed to provide clear definitions of the cancer care pathway and easily accessible links from trusted resources and includes practical information to minimise the burden that can be experienced from preparation for appointments and tests. Beta testing results with a small sample of potential users including patients, carers, and healthcare providers (n = 23) showed high acceptability of the guide (range = 7–35, mean = 28.52, and standard deviation = 3.88) based on the TFA questionnaire. Conclusion. A cancer pathway support tool called "Your Cancer Pathway Support Guide (YCPSG)" was developed as a result of an iterative codesign process aiming to improve patient experience and outcomes for people referred on a suspected cancer pathway or who have been diagnosed with cancer. The tool provides information and support in both digital and PDF formats. Further studies are needed to evaluate the potential impact of "Your Cancer Pathway Support Guide" on patient outcomes and experience and the wider system. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]