Search

Background: We assessed experiences of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaginal self‐sampling and future screening preferences in an ethnically and socio‐economically diverse group of women overdue for cervical screening. Setting and Participants: A postal questionnaire was embedded in the YouScreen self‐sampling trial in England: 32.5% (2712/8338) of kit completers returned the survey. Kit non‐completers were encouraged to return a questionnaire, but no responses were received. Participants were ethnically diverse (40.3% came from ethnic minority backgrounds), and 59.1% came from the two most deprived quintiles. Differences in confidence in kit completion, trust in the test results and intention to attend a follow‐up test if HPV‐positive were evaluated using Pearson's χ2 analyses. Binary logistic regression models explored predictors of a future screening choice and preferences for urine versus vaginal self‐sampling. Results: Most kit‐completers reported high confidence in self‐sampling (82.6%) and high trust in the results (79.9%), but experiences varied by ethnicity and screening status. Most free‐text comments were positive but some reported difficulties using the device, pain or discomfort. Most women would opt for self‐sampling in the future (71.3% vs. 10.4% for a clinician‐taken test) and it was more often preferred by ethnic minority groups, overdue screeners and never attenders. Urine self‐tests were preferred to vaginal tests (41.9% vs. 15.4%), especially among women from Asian, Black or Other Ethnic backgrounds. Conclusions: Kit‐completers were confident, found the test easy to complete, and trusted the self‐sample results. However, experiences varied by ethnic group and some women highlighted difficulties with the kit. Most women would prefer self‐sampling in the future, but it was not a universal preference, so offering a choice will be important. Patient or Public Contribution: We did not have direct patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in the questionnaire design. However, patients and public representatives did input into the design of the YouScreen trial and reviewed the wider study materials (e.g. participant information sheet). Trial Registration: This questionnaire study was embedded in the YouScreen trial. The protocol for the YouScreen trial is available at https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN12759467. The National Institute for Health Research 43 Clinical Research Network (NIHR CRN) Central Portfolio Management System (CPMS) ID is 4441934. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Human papillomavirus (HPV) primary testing for cervical screening is being implemented around the world. We explored HPV awareness, and knowledge about primary screening in Great Britain (England, Scotland and Wales), where it has been in place for several years, ahead of extended screening intervals being implemented in England. Setting/Methods: Women aged 18–70 (n = 1995) were recruited by YouGov from their online panel in August 2022. The weighted sample (n = 1930) was population-representative by age, region, education and social grade. We measured HPV awareness, knowledge (excluding those unaware of HPV) using eight true/false items, and understanding of the role of HPV testing in cervical screening. Results: Overall, 77.6% (1499/1930) of women were aware of HPV. When asked to identify the statement describing how cervical screening works, only 12.2% (236/1930) correctly selected the statement reflecting HPV primary screening (13.5% (194/1436) in screening-eligible women). Excluding those unaware of HPV, most participants had heard about the virus in the context of cervical screening (981/1596; 61.5%) or HPV vaccination (1079/1596; 67.6%). Mean knowledge score was 3.7 out of 8 (SD = 2.2) in this group. Most knew that an HPV-positive result does not mean a woman will definitely develop cervical cancer (1091/1499; 72.8%) but far fewer were aware of the long timeline for HPV to develop into cervical cancer (280/1499; 18.7%). Conclusions: Only three-quarters of women in Britain are aware of HPV, and knowledge of primary screening is very low, even among screening-age women. This points to continued need for awareness-raising campaigns to ensure informed choice about screening and mitigate public concern when screening intervals are extended. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and aims: Optimising smoking cessation (SC) referral strategies within lung cancer screening (LCS) could significantly reduce lung cancer mortality. This study aimed to measure acceptance of referral to SC support by either practitioner‐referral or self‐referral among participants attending a hospital‐based lung health check appointment for LCS as part of the Lung Screen Uptake Trial. Design: Single‐blinded two‐arm randomised controlled trial. Setting: England. Participants: Six hundred forty‐two individuals ages 60 to 75 years, who self‐reported currently smoking or had a carbon monoxide reading over 10 ppm during the lung health check appointment. Intervention and comparator: Participants were randomised (1:1) to receive either a contact information card for self‐referral to a local stop smoking service (SSS) (self‐referral, n = 360) or a SSS referral made on their behalf by the nurse or trial practitioner (practitioner‐referral, n = 329). Measurements The primary outcome was acceptance of the practitioner‐referral (defined as participants giving permission for their details to be shared with the local SSS) compared with acceptance of the self‐referral (defined as participants taking the physical SSS contact information card to refer themselves to the local SSS). Findings Half (49.8%) accepted the practitioner‐made referral to a local SSS, whereas most (88.5%) accepted the self‐referral. The odds of accepting the practitioner‐referral were statistically significantly lower (adjusted odds ratio = 0.10; 95% confidence interval = 0.06–0.17) than the self‐ referral. In analyses stratified by group, greater quit confidence, quit attempts and Black ethnicity were associated with increased acceptance within the practitioner‐referral group. There were no statistically significant interactions between acceptance by referral group and any of the participants' demographic or smoking characteristics. Conclusions: Among participants in hospital‐based lung cancer screening in England who self‐reported smoking or met a carbon monoxide cut‐off, both practitioner‐referral and self‐referral smoking cessation strategies were highly accepted. Although self‐referral was more frequently accepted, prior evidence suggests practitioner‐referrals increase quit attempts, suggesting practitioner‐referrals should be the first‐line strategy within lung cancer screening, with self‐referral offered as an alternative. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Nonattendance for cervical cancer screening is often understood in terms of a lack of 'appropriate' or 'correct' knowledge about the risks and prevention of the disease. Few studies have explored how lay persons—the users themselves—interpret and contextualise scientific knowledge about cervical cancer. In this study, we address the following research question: How is the epidemiology of cervical cancer and its prevention discussed among women who are late for cervical cancer screening in Norway? We completed nine focus group interviews (FGIs) with 41 women who had postponed cervical screening. The analyses were both inductive and explorative, aiming to unpack the complexity of lay understandings of cervical cancer. Interactive associations expressed in the FGIs reflected multiple understandings of aetiology and risk factors, screening, and interpretations of responsibility for acquiring cervical cancer. The term 'candidacy' was employed to provide an enhanced understanding of lay reasoning about the explanations and predictions of cervical cancer, as reflected in the FGIs. Both interpretations of biomedical concepts and cultural values were used to negotiate acceptable and nuanced interpretations of candidacy for cervical cancer. Uncertainties about risk factors for acquiring cervical cancer was an important aspect of such negotiations. The study's findings provide an in-depth understanding of the contexts in which screening may be rendered less relevant or significant for maintaining health. Lay epidemiology should not be considered inappropriate knowledge but rather as a productive component when understanding health behaviours, such as screening attendance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Many countries are now using primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing for cervical screening, testing for high-risk HPV and using cytology as triage. An HPV-positive result can have an adverse psychological impact, at least in the short term. In this paper, we explore the psychological impact of primary HPV screening over 12 months.Methods: Women were surveyed soon after receiving their results (n=1133) and 6 (n=762) and 12 months (n=537) later. Primary outcomes were anxiety (Short-Form State Anxiety Inventory-6) and distress (General Health Questionnaire-12). Secondary outcomes included concern, worry about cervical cancer and reassurance. Mixed-effects regression models were used to explore differences at each time point and change over time across four groups according to their baseline result: control (HPV negative/HPV cleared/normal cytology and not tested for HPV); HPV positive with normal cytology; HPV positive with abnormal cytology; and HPV persistent (ie, second consecutive HPV-positive result).Results: Women who were HPV positive with abnormal cytology had the highest anxiety scores at baseline (mean=42.2, SD: 15.0), but this had declined by 12 months (mean=37.0, SD: 11.7) and was closer to being within the 'normal' range (scores between 34 and 36 are considered 'normal'). This group also had the highest distress at baseline (mean=3.3, SD: 3.8, scores of 3+ indicate case-level distress), but the lowest distress at 12 months (mean=1.9, SD: 3.1). At 6 and 12 months, there were no between-group differences in anxiety or distress for any HPV-positive result group when compared with the control group. The control group were less concerned and more reassured about their result at 6 and 12 months than the HPV-positive with normal cytology group.Conclusions: Our findings suggest the initial adverse impact of an HPV-positive screening result on anxiety and distress diminishes over time. Specific concerns about the result may be longer lasting and efforts should be made to address them. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Testing positive for human papillomavirus (HPV) at cervical cancer screening has been associated with heightened anxiety. To date, the cognitive determinants of heightened anxiety remain unclear, making it difficult to design effective interventions.Purpose: This study investigated latent illness representation profiles in women testing positive for HPV with no abnormal cells (normal cytology) and explored associations between these profiles and anxiety.Methods: Women aged 24-66 (n = 646) who had tested HPV-positive with normal cytology at routine HPV primary screening in England completed a cross-sectional survey shortly after receiving their result.Results: Latent profile analysis identified three distinct profiles of illness representations (termed "adaptive," "negative," and "negative somatic"), which differed significantly in their patterns of illness perceptions. Hierarchal linear regression revealed that these latent illness representation profiles accounted for 21.8% of the variance in anxiety, after adjusting for demographic and clinical characteristics. When compared with adaptive representations (Profile 1), women with negative representations (Profile 2) and negative somatic representations (Profile 3) had significantly higher anxiety, with clinically meaningful between-group differences (mean difference [MD] = 17.26, confidence interval [CI]: 14.29-20.22 and MD = 13.20, CI: 9.45-16.96 on the S-STAI-6, respectively).Conclusion: The latent illness representation profiles identified in this study provide support for the role of negative beliefs contributing to anxiety in women testing HPV-positive with normal cytology. Characteristics specific to subgroups of highly anxious women (Profiles 2 and 3) could be used by policymakers to target information in routine patient communications (e.g., test result letters) to reduce unnecessary burden. Future research should adopt longitudinal designs to understand the trajectory of illness representations from HPV diagnosis through to clearance versus persistence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Systematic reviews have identified effective strategies for increasing postal response rates to questionnaires; however, most studies have isolated single techniques, testing the effect of each one individually. Despite providing insight into explanatory mechanisms, this approach lacks ecological validity, given that multiple techniques are often combined in routine practice.Methods: We used a two-armed parallel randomised controlled trial (n = 2702), nested within a cross-sectional health survey study, to evaluate whether using a pragmatic combination of behavioural science and evidenced-based techniques (e.g., personalisation, social norms messaging) in a study invitation letter increased response to the survey, when compared with a standard invitation letter. Participants and outcome assessors were blinded to group assignment. We tested this in a sample of women testing positive for human papillomavirus (HPV) at cervical cancer screening in England.Results: Overall, 646 participants responded to the survey (response rate [RR] = 23.9%). Logistic regression revealed higher odds of response in the intervention arm (n = 357/1353, RR = 26.4%) compared with the control arm (n = 289/1349, RR = 21.4%), while adjusting for age, deprivation, clinical site, and clinical test result (aOR = 1.30, 95% CI: 1.09-1.55).Conclusion: Applying easy-to-implement behavioural science and evidence-based methods to routine invitation letters improved postal response to a health-related survey, whilst adjusting for demographic characteristics. Our findings provide support for the pragmatic adoption of combined techniques in routine research to increase response to postal surveys.Trial Registration: ISRCTN, ISRCTN15113095 . Registered 7 May 2019 - retrospectively registered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Previous studies of psychological burden in low-dose CT (LDCT) lung cancer screening trials may lack generalisability due to participation bias and control arms having elevated distress.Methods: Current and former smokers (n=787, aged 60-75) within a real-world screening demonstration pilot completed measures of lung cancer worry at three time points (T0: appointment, T1: next day, T2: 3 months) and anxiety and depression at two time points (T0 and T2). A 'screening unaware' community sample (n=383) with the same age and smoking characteristics completed these measures once (T0). Mean scores were compared by sample type and LDCT result.Results: Compared with the community sample (T0), mean scores were higher in the screening sample, and statistically significantly increased in adjusted analyses, for lung cancer worry at T0 and T2 (mean (M): 9.32; 95% CI 8.96 to 9.69 vs M: 11.34; 11.09 to 11.59 and M: 11.88; 11.49 to 12.27), for anxiety at T0 and T2 (M: 3.32; 2.94 to 3.70 vs M: 4.73; 4.42 to 5.04 and M: 5.78; 5.33 to 6.23) and depression at T2 (M: 3.85; 3.44 to 4.27 vs M: 4.15; 3.76 to 4.55). Scores were highest for those with indeterminate (eg, T2 anxiety M: 6.93; 5.65 to 8.21) and incidental findings (primary care follow-up M: 5.34; 4.67 to 6.02) and those ineligible for screening (M: 6.51; 5.25 to 7.77). Being female, younger, not in paid employment, not married/cohabiting with a partner and lower education predicted poorer psychological outcomes at T0, but not T2 after adjusting for baseline scores. Mean scores remained within 'normal' clinical ranges.Conclusion: Psychological distress was raised among high-risk individuals undergoing LDCT screening in a real-world setting, but overall differences were unlikely to be clinically meaningful. It will be critical to monitor the psychological impact of services longitudinally across diverse settings, including subgroups vulnerable to clinically elevated distress.Trial Registration: The Lung Screen Uptake Trial was registered prospectively with the International Standard Registered Clinical/soCial sTudy (ISRCTN) (Number: ISRCTN21774741) on 23 September 2015 and the National Institutes of Health ClinicalTrials.gov database (NCT02558101) on 22 September 2015. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale: Low uptake of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening, particularly by current smokers of a low socioeconomic position, compromises effectiveness and equity.Objectives: To compare the effect of a targeted, low-burden, and stepped invitation strategy versus control on uptake of hospital-based Lung Health Check appointments offering LDCT screening.Methods: In a two-arm, blinded, between-subjects, randomized controlled trial, 2,012 participants were selected from 16 primary care practices using these criteria: 1) aged 60 to 75 years, 2) recorded as a current smoker within the last 7 years, and 3) no prespecified exclusion criteria contraindicating LDCT screening. Both groups received a stepped sequence of preinvitation, invitation, and reminder letters from their primary care practitioner offering prescheduled appointments. The key manipulation was the accompanying leaflet. The intervention group's leaflet targeted psychological barriers and provided low-burden information, mimicking the concept of the U.K. Ministry of Transport's annual vehicle test ("M.O.T. For Your Lungs").Measurements and Main Results: Uptake was 52.6%, with no difference between intervention (52.3%) and control (52.9%) groups in unadjusted (odds ratio [OR], 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82-1.16) or adjusted (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.82-1.17) analyses. Current smokers were less likely to attend (adjusted OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.56-0.86) than former smokers. Socioeconomic deprivation was significantly associated with lower uptake for the control group only (P < 0.01).Conclusions: The intervention did not improve uptake. Regardless of trial arm, uptake was considerably higher than previous clinical and real-world studies, particularly given that the samples were predominantly lower socioeconomic position smokers. Strategies common to both groups, including a Lung Health Check approach, could represent a minimum standard.Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02558101) and registered prospectively with the International Standard Registered Clinical/Social Study (N21774741). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Research on the psychological impact of low‐dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening has typically been narrow in scope and restricted to the trial setting. Objective: To explore the range of psychological and behavioural responses to LDCT screening offered as part of a Lung Heath Check (LHC), including lung cancer risk assessment, spirometry testing, a carbon monoxide reading and smoking cessation advice. Methods: Semi‐structured interviews were carried out with 28 current and former smokers (aged 60‐75), who had undergone LDCT screening as part of a LHC appointment and mostly received an incidental or indeterminate result (n = 23). Framework analysis was used to map the spectrum of responses participants had across the LHC appointment and screening pathway, to their LDCT results and to surveillance. Results: Interviewees reported a diverse range of both positive and negative psychological responses, beginning at invitation and spanning the entire LHC appointment (including spirometry) and LDCT screening pathway. Similarly, positive behavioural responses extended beyond smoking cessation to include anticipated implications for other cancer prevention and early detection behaviours, such as symptom presentation. Individual differences in responses appeared to be influenced by smoking status and LDCT result, as well as modifiable factors including perceived risk and health status, social support, competing priorities, fatalism and perceived stigma. Conclusions: The diverse ways in which participants responded to screening, both psychologically and behaviourally, should direct a broader research agenda to ensure all stages of screening delivery and communication are designed to promote well‐being, motivate positive behaviour change and maximize patient benefit. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Rationale: Lung cancer screening has the potential to save lives, but it also carries a risk of potential harms. Explaining the benefits and harms of screening in a way that is balanced and comprehensible to individuals with various levels of education is essential. Although a shared decision-making approach is mandated by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, there have been no randomized studies to evaluate the impact of different forms of lung screening information. Objectives: To evaluate the impact of a novel information film on informed decision-making in individuals considering participating in lung cancer screening. Methods: A subset of participants from LSUT (Lung Screen Uptake Trial) were randomly allocated either to view the information film and receive a written information booklet or to receive the booklet alone. The primary outcome was the objective knowledge score after intervention. Secondary outcomes included subjective knowledge, decisional conflict, final screening participation, and acceptability of the materials. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to determine differences in pre- and postintervention knowledge scores in both groups and between groups for the primary and secondary outcomes. Results: In the final analysis of 229 participants, both groups showed significantly improved subjective and objective knowledge scores after intervention. This improvement was greatest in the film + booklet group, where mean objective knowledge improved by 2.16 points (standard deviation [SD] 1.8) compared with 1.84 points (SD 1.9) in the booklet-alone group (β coefficient 0.62; confidence interval, 0.17-1.08; P = 0.007 in the multivariable analysis). Mean subjective knowledge increased by 0.92 points (SD 1.0) in the film + booklet group and 0.55 points (SD 1.1) in the booklet-alone group (β coefficient 0.32; CI, 0.05-0.58; P = 0.02 in the multivariable analysis). Decisional certainty was higher in the film + booklet (mean 8.5/9 points [SD 1.3], group than in the booklet-alone group (mean 8.2/9 points [SD 1.5]). Both information materials were well accepted, and there were no differences in final screening participation rates between groups. Conclusions: The information film improved knowledge and reduced decisional conflict without affecting lung-screening uptake. Clinical trial registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02558101). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Following the recommendation of lung cancer screening in the US, screening committees in several European countries are reviewing the evidence for implementing national programmes. However, inadequate participation from high-risk groups poses a potential barrier to its effectiveness. The present study examined interest in a national lung cancer screening programme and modifiable attitudinal factors that may affect participation by smokers.Methods: A population-based survey of English adults (n = 1464; aged 50-70 years) investigated screening intentions in different invitation scenarios, beliefs about lung cancer, early detection and treatment, worry about lung cancer risk, and stigma. Data on smoking status and perceived chances of quitting were also collected, but eligibility for lung screening in the event of a national programme was unknown.Results: Intentions to be screened were high in all three invitation scenarios for both current (≥ 89%) and former (≥ 94%) smokers. However, smokers were less likely to agree that early-stage survival is good (43% vs. 53%; OR: 0.64, 0.46-0.88) or be willing to have surgery for an early stage, screen-detected cancer (84% vs. 94%; OR: 0.38, 0.21-0.68), compared with former smokers. Willingness to have surgery was positively associated with screening intentions; with absolute differences of 25% and 29%. Worry about lung cancer risk was also most common among smokers (48%), and one fifth of respondents thought screening smokers was a waste of NHS money.Conclusions: A national lung cancer screening programme would be well-received in principle. To improve smokers' participation, care should be taken to communicate the survival benefits of early-stage diagnosis, address concerns about surgery, and minimise anxiety and stigma related to lung cancer risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Risk stratification using genetic and other types of personal information could improve current best available approaches to ovarian cancer risk reduction, improving identification of women at increased risk of ovarian cancer and reducing unnecessary interventions for women at lower risk. Amounts of information given to women may influence key informed decision-related outcomes, e.g. knowledge. The primary aim of this study was to compare informed decision-related outcomes between women given one of two versions (gist vs. extended) of a decision aid about stratified ovarian cancer risk-management.Methods: This was an experimental survey study comparing the effects of brief (gist) information with lengthier, more detailed (extended) information on cognitions relevant to informed decision-making about participating in risk-stratified ovarian cancer screening. Women with no personal history of ovarian cancer were recruited through an online survey company and randomised to view the gist (n = 512) or extended (n = 519) version of a website-based decision aid and completed an online survey. Primary outcomes were knowledge and intentions. Secondary outcomes included attitudes (values) and decisional conflict.Results: There were no significant differences between the gist and extended conditions in knowledge about ovarian cancer (time*group interaction: F = 0.20, p = 0.66) or intention to participate in ovarian cancer screening based on genetic risk assessment (t(1029) = 0.43, p = 0.67). There were also no between-groups differences in secondary outcomes. In the sample overall (n = 1031), knowledge about ovarian cancer increased from before to after exposure to the decision aid (from 5.71 to 6.77 out of a possible 10: t = 19.04, p < 0.001), and 74% of participants said that they would participate in ovarian cancer screening based on genetic risk assessment.Conclusions: No differences in knowledge or intentions were found between women who viewed the gist version and women who viewed the extended version of a decision aid about risk-stratified ovarian cancer screening. Knowledge increased for women in both decision aid groups. Further research is needed to determine the ideal volume and type of content for decision aids about stratified ovarian cancer risk-management.Trial Registrations: This study was registered with the ISRCTN registry; registration number: ISRCTN48627877 . [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Cancer has long inspired fear, but the effect of fear is not well understood; it seems both to facilitate and to deter early diagnosis behaviours. To elucidate fear's behavioural effects, we systematically reviewed and synthesised qualitative literature to explore what people fear about cancer.Methods: We searched Medline, Embase, PsycInfo, Web of Science, AnthroSource, and Anthrobase for studies on cancer fear in breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening and analysed 102 studies from 26 countries using thematic synthesis.Results: Fears of cancer emanated from a core view of cancer as a vicious, unpredictable, and indestructible enemy, evoking fears about its proximity, the (lack of) strategies to keep it at bay, the personal and social implications of succumbing, and fear of dying from cancer.Conclusions: This view of cancer as 'an enemy' reprises the media's 'war on cancer' theme and may affect the acceptance of cancer early detection and prevention messages, since cancer's characteristics influenced whether 'fight' or 'flight' was considered appropriate. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Genetic testing for risk of hereditary cancer can help patients to make important decisions about prevention or early detection. US and UK studies show that people from ethnic minority groups are less likely to receive genetic testing. It is important to understand various groups' awareness of genetic testing and its acceptability to avoid further disparities in health care. This review aims to identify and detail awareness, knowledge, perceptions, and attitudes towards genetic counselling/testing for cancer risk prediction in ethnic minority groups.Methods: A search was carried out in PsycInfo, CINAHL, Embase and MEDLINE. Search terms referred to ethnicity, genetic testing/counselling, cancer, awareness, knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions. Quantitative and qualitative studies, written in English, and published between 2000 and 2015, were included.Results: Forty-one studies were selected for review: 39 from the US, and two from Australia. Results revealed low awareness and knowledge of genetic counselling/testing for cancer susceptibility amongst ethnic minority groups including African Americans, Asian Americans, and Hispanics. Attitudes towards genetic testing were generally positive; perceived benefits included positive implications for personal health and being able to inform family. However, negative attitudes were also evident, particularly the anticipated emotional impact of test results, and concerns about confidentiality, stigma, and discrimination. Chinese Australian groups were less studied, but of interest was a finding from qualitative research indicating that different views of who close family members are could impact on reported family history of cancer, which could in turn impact a risk assessment.Conclusion: Interventions are needed to increase awareness and knowledge of genetic testing for cancer risk and to reduce the perceived stigma and taboo surrounding the topic of cancer in ethnic minority groups. More detailed research is needed in countries other than the US and across a broader spectrum of ethnic minority groups to develop effective culturally sensitive approaches for cancer prevention. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is broad agreement that cancer screening invitees should know the risks and benefits of testing before deciding whether to participate. In organised screening programmes, a primary method of relaying this information is via leaflets provided at the time of invitation. Little is known about why individuals do not engage with this information. This study assessed factors associated with reading information leaflets provided by the three cancer screening programmes in England.Methods: A cross-sectional survey asked screening-eligible members of the general population in England about the following predictor variables: uptake of previous screening invitations, demographic characteristics, and 'decision-making styles' (i.e. the extent to which participants tended to make decisions in a way that was avoidant, rational, intuitive, spontaneous, or dependent). The primary outcome measures were the amount of the leaflet that participants reported having read at their most recent invitation, for any of the three programmes for which they were eligible. Associations between these outcomes and predictor variables were assessed using binary or ordinal logistic regression.Results: After exclusions, data from 275, 309, and 556 participants were analysed in relation to the breast, cervical, and bowel screening programmes, respectively. Notable relationships included associations between regularity of screening uptake and reading (more of) the information leaflets for all programmes (e.g. odds ratio: 0.16 for participants who never/very rarely attended breast screening vs. those who always attended previously; p = .009). Higher rational decision-making scores were associated with reading more of the cervical and bowel screening leaflets (OR: 1.13, p < .0005 and OR: 1.11, p = .045, respectively). Information engagement was also higher for White British participants compared with other ethnic groups for breast (OR: 3.28, p = .008) and bowel (OR: 2.58, p = .015) information; an opposite relationship was observed for older participants (OR: 0.96, p = .048; OR: 0.92, p = .029).Conclusions: Interventions that increase screening uptake may also increase subsequent engagement with information. Future research could investigate how to improve engagement at initial invitations. There may also be scope to reduce barriers to accessing non-English information and alternative communication strategies may benefit participants who are less inclined to weigh up advantages and disadvantages as part of their decision-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: As uptake of cervical screening continues to decline, this systematic review synthesises the qualitative literature on women's perceptions and experiences of cervical screening in the context of an organised call-recall programme, in order to understand the barriers to informed uptake.Methods: We searched nine databases for English language peer-reviewed publications reporting on qualitative data from screening-eligible women, exploring barriers to cervical screening in countries that offer a nationally organised call-recall programme. Evidence was integrated using thematic synthesis.Results: Thirty-nine papers from the UK, Australia, Sweden and Korea were included. The majority of participants had attended screening at least once. Two broad themes were identified: (a) should I go for screening? and (b) screening is a big deal. In considering whether to attend, women discussed the personal relevance and value of screening. Women who had previously attended described how it was a big deal, physically and emotionally, and the varied threats that screening presents. Practical barriers affected whether women translated screening intentions into action.Conclusions: The variation in women's understanding and perceptions of cervical screening suggests that interventions tailored to decisional stage may be of value in increasing engagement with the invitation and uptake of screening in those who wish to take part. There is also a need for further research with women who have never attended screening, especially those who remain unaware or unengaged, as their perspectives are lacking in the existing literature. © 2016 The Authors. Psycho-Oncology Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The NHS Cancer Screening Programmes in England now operate a policy of 'informed choice' about participation in cancer screening. Engagement with written information about screening is important to facilitate informed choice, although the degree to which the screening-eligible public engages with the available information is unknown. We examined the association between reading of the standard informational booklet ('Bowel Cancer Screening: The Facts') and participation in the nationally organised NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme in England.Methods: Face-to-face interviews were conducted with 1307 adults who were age-eligible for nationally organised colorectal cancer (CRC; also called bowel cancer) in a population-based survey in England in 2014. Respondents were shown an image of 'The Facts' booklet and were asked how much of it they had read when they received their screening invitation ('none', 'a little', 'some', 'most', 'almost all', or 'all'). Logistic regression was used to estimate the associations between screening uptake status ('never' vs. 'ever') and self-reported reading of 'The Facts' booklet (dichotomised to 'none vs. 'any'), adjusting for age, sex, ethnicity, educational attainment, and occupation-based social grade.Results: Overall, 69 % of the sample (908/1307) had participated in CRC screening at least once ('ever' screeners). One-fifth of the sample reported that they had read 'none' of 'The Facts' booklet (22 %; 287/1307), while half reported having read 'all' of it (52 %; 680/1307). Reading of the booklet was strongly differential according to screening uptake status: nearly two-thirds of 'never' screeners had read none of 'The Facts' booklet (63 %; 251/399), compared to less than one in twenty 'ever' screeners (4 %; 36/908); adjusted OR = 39.0; 95 % CI: 26.2-58.1 for reading 'none' in 'never' vs. 'ever' screeners.Conclusions: Although 'The Facts' booklet is intended to support informed choices about CRC screening, the majority of unscreened individuals report that they have read none of it. The degree to which public engagement with the decision-making process about cancer screening is socially unequal must be better understood so that comprehensive and equitable public communication strategies can be developed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In England HPV vaccination is offered to all girls age 12-13 years, free-at-the-point-of-receipt, mostly in schools. Coverage is good, but around 20% of girls remain unvaccinated. This research sought to explore reasons for being un-/under vaccinated.Methods: An ethnically diverse sample of girls aged 15-16 years attending one of twelve London schools completed a survey three years after being offered HPV vaccination. Girls reported their HPV vaccine status and those who were unvaccinated (had not received any doses of the vaccine) or under vaccinated (had not completed the recommended 3-dose course) recorded reasons for their un-/under vaccinated status. Reasons were reported using free-text and content analysis was used to analyse responses.Results: Around 74% of un-/under vaccinated girls provided a reason for their vaccination status (n = 259). Among unvaccinated girls, the most common reasons related to lack of perceived need for vaccination, concerns about safety and lack of parental consent. Girls who were under vaccinated gave practical reasons, including the need for more information (e.g. not knowing that multiple doses were needed), administrative issues (e.g. school absence), health and procedural concerns (e.g. fear of needles). Descriptively, there were few differences in the reasons given between girls from different ethnic backgrounds. Girls from Black and Asian backgrounds more commonly thought that the vaccine was not needed. Lack of parental consent without providing further explanation was most often cited by girls from Black backgrounds.Conclusions: Safety concerns and lack of perceived need should be addressed to encourage informed uptake of HPV vaccination. Immunisation programme coordinators may be able to increase series completion by tackling practical problems facing under vaccinated girls. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Ethnic minority women are less likely to attend cervical screening.Aim: To explore self-perceived barriers to cervical screening attendance among ethnic minority women compared to white British women.Design: Qualitative interview study.Setting: Community groups in ethnically diverse London boroughs.Methods: Interviews were carried out with 43 women from a range of ethnic minority backgrounds (Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Caribbean, African, Black British, Black other, White other) and 11 White British women. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using Framework analysis.Results: Fifteen women had delayed screening/had never been screened. Ethnic minority women felt that there was a lack of awareness about cervical cancer in their community, and several did not recognise the terms 'cervical screening' or 'smear test'. Barriers to cervical screening raised by all women were emotional (fear, embarrassment, shame), practical (lack of time) and cognitive (low perceived risk, absence of symptoms). Emotional barriers seemed to be more prominent among Asian women. Low perceived risk of cervical cancer was influenced by beliefs about having sex outside of marriage and some women felt a diagnosis of cervical cancer might be considered shameful. Negative experiences were well remembered by all women and could be a barrier to repeat attendance.Conclusions: Emotional barriers (fear, embarrassment and anticipated shame) and low perceived risk might contribute to explaining lower cervical screening coverage for some ethnic groups. Interventions to improve knowledge and understanding of cervical cancer are needed in ethnic minority communities, and investment in training for health professionals may improve experiences and encourage repeat attendance for all women. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: the rise in life expectancy, together with age-related increase in the incidence of most cancers, has led to mounting interest in cancer screening in older people. In England, routine invitations stop and an ‘opt-in’ (individual request) process is available from ages 71 to 76 years for breast and colorectal screening respectively. Little is known about public attitudes towards age-stoppage policy.Objective: this study examined public attitudes to current stoppage policy, information preferences and intentions to request screening beyond the age of routine invitations.Sample: participants (n = 927; age 60–74 years) were recruited as part of a TNS Research International survey and took part in home-based, computer-assisted interviews.Methods: measures included: (i) attitudes towards current stoppage policy, (ii) preference for communications about screening after the end of the routine invitation period and (iii) intention to opt-in.Results: the majority of respondents (78%) did not agree with age-based stoppage policies. Most (83%) wanted a strong recommendation to opt-in after this age, although the number who thought they would follow such a recommendation was much lower (27%). A majority of participants (54%) thought information on screening at older ages should come from their general practitioner (GP).Conclusion: this survey indicates that older people in England wish to continue to be actively invited for cancer screening, although only a minority think that they would ultimately take up the offer. Primary care may play a role in negotiating a shared decision that is based on individual circumstances. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article presents a study that compared the barriers to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening with the barriers to breast and cervical cancer screening in Great Britain. The researchers surveyed the middle-aged women on the factors and barriers of cancer screening tests. The study indicated many shared barriers in cancer screening tests but suggested to improve CRC screening by addressing the unpleasantness of stool sampling.

Objectives: To examine the relationship between cervical screening uptake and political engagement, and to test whether political engagement and voting behaviour mediate the association between age and cervical screening uptake. Setting: A population-based survey of women in England in 2010. Methods: Women aged 26-64 took part in home-based computer-assisted interviews (n = 890). Women were classified as 'up to date' or 'overdue/never been screened' for cervical screening. Results: Most women (81%) were up-to-date with screening; 19% were overdue. Age and marital status were associated with screening status. Women who were not registered to vote, had not voted in previous general elections, and those who showed less interest in elections and lower intention to engage in political activities were more likely to be overdue for screening. In multivariate analyses (adjusting for all significant measures) 'being on the electoral register' was the only significant independent predictor of screening status. 'Being on the electoral register' was also the only measure of voting behaviour that mediated the association between age and screening status. Conclusion: We found limited evidence for the hypothesis that falling attendance for cervical screening could be associated with a broader phenomenon of disillusionment as indexed by reported voting behaviour and other measures of political engagement. Alternative explanations should be considered in order to better understand falling cervical screening uptake, particularly among younger women. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: In 2009 more women attended cervical screening in England and Wales than in the previous year. Described as the 'Jade Goody Effect' this was attributed to the death from cervical cancer of a UK celebrity. The present study aimed to establish which sociodemographic characteristics were associated with being influenced by Jade Goody's story. Methods: Data were collected as part of a Taylor Nelson Sofres (TNS) omnibus survey using random location sampling.Women in England aged 26-64 years were asked to report whether they felt Jade Goody's story had influenced their decisions about cervical screening over the 18 months between her death and the time of the survey. Results: Data from 890 participants was included in analysis. Over a third of women felt Goody's story had influenced their decisions about cervical screening (40%). Younger women (aged 26-35 years) were more likely to have been influenced by Goody's story than older women (56-64 year olds). There was also evidence of socioeconomic variation with women from lower socioeconomic class groups and those with fewer educational qualifications more likely to say they had been influenced by Goody's story. Conclusions: The 'Jade Goody Effect', as acknowledged by women themselves, was more pronounced among young women and influenced screening decisions more markedly among those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. Narrative communication may be an effective way to encourage attendance at cervical cancer screening and reach groups of the population that are difficult to reach using traditional intervention methods. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Increasing numbers of patients face the psychosocial challenge of a diagnosis of oropharyngeal squamous cell carcinoma (OSCC) caused by human papillomavirus (HPV). We explored the psychosocial impact of an HPV‐OSCC diagnosis for patients and their partners. Methods: In‐depth interviews were conducted with patients (n = 20) and a subset of their partners (n = 12), identified through medical records at two UK hospitals. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic Framework Analysis. Results: Only 12/20 patients interviewed (and five partners) were aware of their HPV status and the main analysis focused on this sub‐sample. In discussing the cause of their cancer, patients and their partners talked about not wanting to know; whether they disclosed the cause of their cancer to others; their reactions to being diagnosed with HPV; the prognosis information they were given and the questions they had about HPV. Most concerns were cancer‐related rather than HPV‐related, but some patients (n = 3) described feelings of embarrassment and perceived stigma about HPV. Conclusion: Some patients and partners who are told HPV is the cause of their OSCC have questions about HPV and seek further information. Concerns and uncertainties about the sexually transmitted nature of HPV need to be addressed by health professionals. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The current study tested in two online experiments whether manipulating normative beliefs about cancer screening uptake increases intention to attend colorectal screening among previously disinclined individuals.Methods: 2461 men and women from an Internet panel (Experiment 1 N = 1032; Experiment 2, N = 1423) who initially stated that they did not intend to take up screening were asked to guess how many men and women they believe to get screened for colorectal cancer. Across participants, we varied the presence/absence of feedback on the participant's estimate, as well as the stated proportion of men and women doing the screening test.Results: Across the two experiments, we found that receiving one of the experimental messages stating that uptake is higher than estimated significantly increased the proportion of disinclined men and women becoming intenders. While, we found a positive relationship between the communicated uptake and screening intentions, we did not find evidence that providing feedback on the estimate has an added benefit.Conclusion: Screening intention can be effectively manipulated through a high uptake message.Practice Implications: Communication of high screening uptake is an easy and effective way to motivate disinclined individuals to engage in colorectal cancer screening. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: We tested the impact of different messages about the rationale for extended cervical screening intervals on acceptability of an extension.Methods: Women in England aged 25-49 years (n = 2931) were randomised to a control group or one of 5 groups given different messages about extending cervical screening intervals from 3 to 5 years. Outcome measures were general acceptability and six components from the Theoretical Framework of Acceptability (TFA).Results: The groups who saw additional messages (47-63%) were more likely to find the change acceptable than controls (43%). Messages about interval safety, test accuracy and speed of cell changes resulted in more positive affective-attitudes, higher ethicality beliefs, a better understanding of the reasons for extended intervals and greater belief in the safety of 5-year intervals. Being up-to-date with screening and previous abnormal results were associated with finding 5-yearly screening unacceptable.Conclusions: Emphasising the slow development of cell changes following an HPV negative result and the safety of longer intervals, alongside the accuracy of HPV primary screening is important.Practical Implications: Campaigns explaining the rationale for extended cervical screening intervals are likely to improve acceptability. Though women who feel at increased risk, may remain worried even when the rationale is explained. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

As the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine is now recommended for males, a reliable, comprehensive HPV knowledge measurement tool which addresses issues relevant to males is needed. We aimed to replicate, validate and test the comprehensiveness of an existing general HPV and an HPV vaccination knowledge scale in English and French. We also measured parental HPV knowledge and changes over time. An online questionnaire was administered in February (Time 1; T1) and November 2014 (Time 2; T2) to a nationally representative sample of Canadian parents of boys. Dimensionality, internal consistency and model fit were evaluated at both time points and separately in English and French sub-samples. Differences in knowledge scores were measured. Analyses were performed on 3117 participants at T1 and 1427 at T2. The 25-item HPV general knowledge and an 11-item HPV vaccination scale were unidimensional, showed high internal consistency (α>0.87, α>0.73) and had good model fit. Both general HPV and vaccine-specific knowledge significantly increased over time in both languages, but remained low at T2, with only about half of the items being answered correctly. Correct responses at T2 are best explained by correct responses at T1, with some small changes from 'Don't know' at T1 to correct at T2. The extended general and vaccine-specific knowledge scales are valid, reliable and comprehensive, and could be used among parents of boys, in both English and French. Educational interventions could target specific knowledge gaps and focus on providing information rather than correcting misconceptions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]