Search

Background: Several epidemiological and cohort studies suggest that regular low-dose aspirin use independently reduces the long-term incidence and risk of colorectal cancer deaths by approximately 20%. However, there are also risks to aspirin use, mainly gastrointestinal bleeding and haemorrhagic stroke. Making informed decisions depends on the ability to understand and weigh up benefits and risks of available options. A decision aid to support people to consider aspirin therapy alongside participation in the NHS bowel cancer screening programme may have an additional impact on colorectal cancer prevention. This study aims to develop and user-test a brief decision aid about aspirin to enable informed decision-making for colorectal screening-eligible members of the public., Methods: We undertook a qualitative study to develop an aspirin decision aid leaflet to support bowel screening responders in deciding whether to take aspirin to reduce their risk of colorectal cancer. The iterative development process involved two focus groups with public members aged 60-74 years (n = 14) and interviews with clinicians (n = 10). Interviews (n = 11) were used to evaluate its utility for decision-making. Analysis was conducted using a framework approach., Results: Overall, participants found the decision aid acceptable and useful to facilitate decision-making. They expressed a need for individualised risk information, more detail about the potential risks of aspirin, and preferred risk information presented in pictograms when offered different options. Implementation pathways were discussed, including the possibility of involving different clinicians in the process such as GPs and/or community pharmacists. A range of potentially effective timepoints for sending out the decision aid were identified., Conclusion: An acceptable and usable decision aid was developed to support decisions about aspirin use to prevent colorectal cancer.

Background: Many patients with cancer have unmet information needs during the course of the illness. Smart devices, such as smartphones and tablet computers, provide an opportunity to deliver information to patients remotely. We aim to develop an app intervention to help patients with cancer meet their illness-related information needs in noninpatient settings. In addition to the in-depth exploration of the issues faced by the target users of a potential intervention, it is important to gain an understanding of the context in which the intervention will be used and the potential influences on its adoption. As such, understanding the views of clinicians is key to the successful implementation of this type of app in practice. Additionally, clinicians have an awareness of their patients' needs and can provide further insight into the type of app and features that might be most beneficial., Objective: This study aims to explore cancer clinicians' views on this type of intervention and whether they would support the use of an app in cancer care. Specifically, the perceived acceptability of an app used in consultations, useful app features, the potential benefits and disadvantages of an app, and barriers to app use were explored., Methods: A total of 20 qualitative, semistructured interviews were conducted with 22 clinicians from urological, colorectal, breast, or gynecological cancer clinics across 2 hospitals in South Wales. The interviews were audio recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using thematic analysis., Results: Clinicians felt that it would be acceptable for patients to use such an app in noninpatient settings, including during consultations. The benefits of this type of app were anticipated to be a more informed patient, an increased sense of control for patients, better doctor-patient communication, and a more efficient and effective consultation. In contrast, an increase in clinicians' workload and poorer communication in consultations, which depended on the included app features, were identified as potential disadvantages. The anticipated barriers to app use included patients' age and prior experience with smart technology, their access to smart devices, the confidentiality of information, and an avoidant coping approach to their condition., Conclusions: This study suggests that clinicians should support their patients in using an app to help them meet their information needs both at home and during consultations. This study highlights some of the potential barriers for this type of intervention in practice, which could be minimized during the intervention design process., (©Rebecca Richards, Paul Kinnersley, Kate Brain, Fiona Wood. Originally published in JMIR Cancer (https://cancer.jmir.org), 06.05.2021.)

Background: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer mortality in Wales. We conducted a before- and after- study to evaluate the impact of a four-week mass-media campaign on awareness, presentation behaviour and lung cancer outcomes., Methods: Population-representative samples were surveyed for cough symptom recall/recognition and worry about wasting doctors' time pre-campaign (June 2016; n = 1001) and post-campaign (September 2016; n = 1013). GP cough symptom visits, urgent suspected cancer (USC) referrals, GP-ordered radiology, new lung cancer diagnoses and stage at diagnosis were compared using routine data during the campaign (July-August 2016) and corresponding control (July-August 2015) periods., Results: Increased cough symptom recall (p < 0.001), recognition (p < 0.001) and decreased worry (p < 0.001) were observed. GP visits for cough increased by 29% in the target 50+ age-group during the campaign (p < 0.001) and GP-ordered chest X-rays increased by 23% (p < 0.001). There was no statistically significant change in USC referrals (p = 0.82), new (p = 0.70) or early stage (p = 0.27) diagnoses, or in routes to diagnosis., Conclusions: Symptom awareness, presentation and GP-ordered chest X-rays increased during the campaign but did not translate into increased USC referrals or clinical outcomes changes. Short campaign duration and follow-up, and the small number of new lung cancer cases observed may have hampered detection effects.

Background: The shift from inpatient to outpatient and community cancer care means that more patients with cancer need to manage their condition at home, without the direct supervision of their clinician. Subsequently, research has reported that many patients with cancer have unmet information needs during their illness. Mobile devices, such as mobile phones and tablet computers, provide an opportunity to deliver information to patients remotely. Before designing an app intervention to help patients with cancer to meet their information needs, in-depth qualitative research is required to gain an understanding of the views of the target users., Objective: We aimed to develop an app intervention to help patients meet their illness-related information needs in noninpatient settings. This study explored the information needs of patients with cancer and their preferences for an app and desired app features. Specifically, the perceived acceptability of an app, desired app features, and the potential benefits and disadvantages of, and barriers to, an app were explored., Methods: Qualitative, one-on-one semistructured interviews were conducted with patients with urological, colorectal, breast, or gynecological cancers (N=23) across two hospitals in South Wales. Interviews were audio-taped, transcribed, and analyzed using a thematic analysis., Results: Findings indicated that barriers to information exchange and understanding in consultations, and identification of reliable information sources between consultations, appeared to contribute to patients' unmet information needs. Consequently, app feature suggestions included a question prompt list, a glossary of cancer terms, a resources feature, and a contacts feature. Anticipated benefits of this type of app included a more informed patient, improved quality of life, decreased anxiety, and increased confidence to participate in their care. The anticipated barriers to app use are likely to be temporary or can be minimized with regard to these findings during app development and implementation., Conclusions: This study highlights the desire of patients with cancer for an app intervention to help them meet their information needs during and between consultations with their clinicians. This study also highlights the anticipated acceptability and benefits of this type of intervention; however, further research is warranted., (©Rebecca Richards, Paul Kinnersley, Kate Brain, John Staffurth, Fiona Wood. Originally published in JMIR Mhealth and Uhealth (http://mhealth.jmir.org), 31.07.2019.)

Background: The shift from inpatient to outpatient cancer care means that patients are now required to manage their condition at home, away from regular supervision by clinicians. Subsequently, research has consistently reported that many patients with cancer have unmet information needs during their illness. Mobile devices, such as mobile phones and tablet computers, provide an opportunity to deliver information to patients remotely. To date, no systematic reviews have evaluated how mobile devices have been used specifically to help patients meet to their information needs., Objective: A systematic review was conducted to identify studies that describe the use of mobile interventions to enable patients with cancer meet their cancer-related information needs in non-inpatient settings, and to describe the effects and feasibility of these interventions., Methods: MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycINFO databases were searched up until January 2017. Search terms related to "mobile devices," "information needs," and "cancer" were used. There were no restrictions on study type in order to be as inclusive as possible. Study participants were patients with cancer undergoing treatment. Interventions had to be delivered by a mobile or handheld device, attempt to meet patients' cancer-related information needs, and be for use in non-inpatient settings. Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklists were used to assess the methodological quality of included studies. A narrative synthesis was performed and findings were organized by common themes found across studies., Results: The initial search yielded 1020 results. We included 23 articles describing 20 studies. Interventions aimed to improve the monitoring and management of treatment-related symptoms (17/20, 85%), directly increase patients' knowledge related to their condition (2/20, 10%), and improve communication of symptoms to clinicians in consultations (1/20, 5%). Studies focused on adult (17/20; age range 24-87 years) and adolescent (3/20; age range 8-18 years) patients. Sample sizes ranged from 4-125, with 13 studies having 25 participants or fewer. Most studies were conducted in the United Kingdom (12/20, 52%) or United States (7/20, 30%). Of the 23 articles included, 12 were of medium quality, 9 of poor quality, and 2 of good quality. Overall, interventions were reported to be acceptable and perceived as useful and easy to use. Few technical problems were encountered. Adherence was generally consistent and high (periods ranged from 5 days to 6 months). However, there was considerable variation in use of intervention components within and between studies. Reported benefits of the interventions included improved symptom management, patient empowerment, and improved clinician-patient communication, although mixed findings were reported for patients' health-related quality of life and anxiety., Conclusions: The current review highlighted that mobile interventions for patients with cancer are only meeting treatment or symptom-related information needs. There were no interventions designed to meet patients' full range of cancer-related information needs, from information on psychological support to how to manage finances during cancer, and the long-term effects of treatment. More comprehensive interventions are required for patients to meet their information needs when managing their condition in non-inpatient settings. Controlled evaluations are needed to further determine the effectiveness of these types of intervention., (©Rebecca Richards, Paul Kinnersley, Kate Brain, Grace McCutchan, John Staffurth, Fiona Wood. Originally published in JMIR Mhealth and Uhealth (http://mhealth.jmir.org), 14.12.2018.)

Background: Understanding what influences people to seek help can inform interventions to promote earlier diagnosis of cancer, and ultimately better cancer survival. We aimed to examine relationships between negative cancer beliefs, recognition of cancer symptoms and how long people think they would take to go to the doctor with possible cancer symptoms (anticipated patient intervals)., Methods: Telephone interviews of 20,814 individuals (50+) in the United Kingdom, Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway and Sweden were carried out using the Awareness and Beliefs about Cancer Measure (ABC). ABC included items on cancer beliefs, recognition of cancer symptoms and anticipated time to help-seeking for cough and rectal bleeding. The anticipated time to help-seeking was dichotomised as over one month for persistent cough and over one week for rectal bleeding., Results: Not recognising persistent cough/hoarseness and unexplained bleeding as cancer symptoms increased the likelihood of a longer anticipated patient interval for persistent cough (OR = 1.66; 95%CI = 1.47-1.87) and rectal bleeding (OR = 1.90; 95%CI = 1.58-2.30), respectively. Endorsing four or more out of six negative beliefs about cancer increased the likelihood of longer anticipated patient intervals for persistent cough and rectal bleeding (OR = 2.18; 95%CI = 1.71-2.78 and OR = 1.97; 95%CI = 1.51-2.57). Many negative beliefs about cancer moderated the relationship between not recognising unexplained bleeding as a cancer symptom and longer anticipated patient interval for rectal bleeding (p = 0.005)., Conclusions: Intervention studies should address both negative beliefs about cancer and knowledge of symptoms to optimise the effect.

Socioeconomic status (SES) differences in attitudes towards cancer have been implicated in the differential screening uptake and the timeliness of symptomatic presentation. However, the predominant emphasis of this work has been on cancer fatalism, and many studies focus on specific community subgroups. This study aimed to assess SES differences in positive and negative attitudes towards cancer in UK adults. A population-based sample of UK adults (n=6965, age≥50 years) completed the Awareness and Beliefs about Cancer scale, including six belief items: three positively framed (e.g. 'Cancer can often be cured') and three negatively framed (e.g. 'A cancer diagnosis is a death sentence'). SES was indexed by education. Analyses controlled for sex, ethnicity, marital status, age, self-rated health, and cancer experience. There were few education-level differences for the positive statements, and overall agreement was high (all>90%). In contrast, there were strong differences for negative statements (all Ps<0.001). Among respondents with lower education levels, 57% agreed that 'treatment is worse than cancer', 27% that cancer is 'a death sentence' and 16% 'would not want to know if I have cancer'. Among those with university education, the respective proportions were 34, 17 and 6%. Differences were not explained by cancer experience or health status. In conclusion, positive statements about cancer outcomes attract near-universal agreement. However, this optimistic perspective coexists alongside widespread fears about survival and treatment, especially among less-educated groups. Health education campaigns targeting socioeconomically disadvantaged groups might benefit from a focus on reducing negative attitudes, which is not necessarily achieved by promoting positive attitudes.

Women at high risk of familial ovarian cancer face a potentially difficult risk management choice between unproven ovarian cancer screening (OCS) and bilateral salpingo-oophorectomy (BSO). It is not fully understood why women who initially opt for OCS may later undergo BSO, nor what the impact of this may be. This study explored the catalysts for surgery and reactions to discontinuing OCS. Semi-structured interviews were completed with 21 women who had undergone surgery having initially chosen OCS to explore their screening experiences, reasons for and feelings about surgery, and reactions to discontinuing OCS. The invasive nature and frequency of OCS were not by themselves a catalyst for surgery. A number of catalysts, including abnormal OCS test results, and secondary considerations, such as age-related factors, were found to prompt surgery. The emotional impact of discontinuing OCS following BSO varied between relief, acceptance, and loss of reassurance. OCS appears to be an acceptable risk management strategy under certain circumstances, but varying factors can prompt the decision to opt instead for BSO. The complexity of this management change decision should not be underestimated and needs to be taken into account by clinicians assisting women making choices. These findings highlight the importance of the timing of decision-making about BSO and that risk management options need routine reconsideration, through clinical discussions, information and support.

Objectives: Ovarian cancer screening for women at increased genetic risk in the UK involves 4-monthly CA125 tests and annual ultrasound, with further tests prompted by an abnormal result. The study evaluated the longer-term psychological and behavioural effects of frequent ovarian screening., Methods: Women completed T1 questionnaires before their first routine 4-monthly CA125 test, and T2 follow-up questionnaires one week after their result. Women with abnormal results completed a further questionnaire one week after return to routine screening (T3 primary end-point). T4 questionnaires were sent at nine months. Measures included cancer distress, general anxiety/depression, reassurance, and withdrawal from screening., Results: A total 1999 (62%) of 3224 women completed T1 questionnaires. T2 questionnaires were completed by 1384/1609 participants (86%): 1217 (89%) with normal results and 167/242 (69%) with abnormal results. T3 questionnaires were completed by 141/163 (87%) women, with 912/1173 (78%) completing T4 questionnaires. Analysis of covariance indicated that, compared to women with normal results, women with abnormal results reported moderate cancer distress (F = 27.47, p ≤ .001, η(2) = 0.02) one week after their abnormal result and were significantly more likely to withdraw from screening (OR = 4.38, p ≤ .001). These effects were not apparent at T3 or T4. The effect of screening result on general anxiety/depression or overall reassurance was not significant., Conclusions: Women participating in frequent ovarian screening who are recalled for an abnormal result may experience transient cancer-specific distress, which may prompt reconsideration of risk management options. Health professionals and policy makers may be reassured that frequent familial ovarian screening does not cause sustained psychological harm., (Copyright © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)