Impact of general practice endorsement on the social gradient in uptake in bowel cancer screening

Colorectal cancer screening barriers and facilitators among Jordanians: A cross-sectional study

The factors affecting the adherence of Jordanians to colorectal cancer (CRC) screening remain underexplored. We examined the inhibitory and facilitating factors that influence the uptake of CRC screening among Jordanians. We conducted questionnaire interviews between April 2020 and June 2021 with 861 Jordanians aged 50-75. We analyzed the differences between proportions using the chi-square test. Binary logistic regression was conducted to determine factors associated with awareness of CRC and its screening. Of all participants, 41.7 % were aware of the necessity of screening for CRC, and 27.2 % were aware of at least one of the tests for CRC screening. However, only 17.2 % of participants underwent screening. In the multivariate analysis, participants with higher income (p-value < 0.001, odds ratio[OR] = 1.9, 95 % confidence interval [CI]: 1.4-2.7), higher level of education (p-value < 0.001, OR = 2.6, 95 % CI: 1.8-3.7), family history of colon cancer (p-value < 0.001, OR = 2.8, 95 % CI = 1.7-4.5), and those who had been screened for other cancers (p-value = 0.003, OR = 1.7, 95 % CI: 1.2-2.5) were more aware of the necessity of screening. Concerning barriers to screening, 'feeling well,' lack of physician endorsement, and difficult access to health care were the most commonly reported inhibitory factors (53.9 %, 52.3 %, and 31.9 %, respectively). The most commonly stated incentivizing factor was physician endorsement (82.3 %). Screening rates for CRC in eligible Jordanians remain low, albeit more than one-third of participants are aware of the necessity of screening. Enhanced awareness of barriers and incentivizing factors should help to prioritize national strategies to improve screening rates.

Improving colorectal cancer screening - consumer-centred technological interventions to enhance engagement and participation amongst diverse cohorts

The current "Gold Standard" colorectal cancer (CRC) screening approach of faecal occult blood test (FOBT) with follow-up colonoscopy has been shown to significantly improve morbidity and mortality, by enabling the early detection of disease. However, its efficacy is predicated on high levels of population participation in screening. Several international studies have shown continued low rates of screening participation, especially amongst highly vulnerable lower socio-economic cohorts, with minimal improvement using current recruitment strategies. Research suggests that a complex of dynamic factors (patient, clinician, and the broader health system) contribute to low citizen engagement. This paper argues that the challenges of screening participation can be better addressed by (1) developing dynamic multifaceted technological interventions collaboratively across stakeholders using human-centered design; (2) integrating consumer-centred artificial intelligence (AI) technologies to maximise ease of use for CRC screening; and (3) tailored strategies that maximise population screening engagement, especially amongst the most vulnerable.

Optimizing the implementation of lung cancer screening in Scotland: Focus group participant perspectives in the LUNGSCOT study

INTRODUCTION

Targeted lung cancer screening is effective in reducing lung cancer and all-cause mortality according to major trials in the United Kingdom and Europe. However, the best ways of implementing screening in local communities requires an understanding of the population the programme will serve. We undertook a study to explore the views of those potentially eligible for, and to identify potential barriers and facilitators to taking part in, lung screening, to inform the development of a feasibility study.

METHODS

Men and women aged 45-70, living in urban and rural Scotland, and either self-reported people who smoke or who recently quit, were invited to take part in the study via research agency Taylor McKenzie. Eleven men and 14 women took part in three virtual focus groups exploring their views on lung screening. Focus group transcripts were transcribed and analysed using thematic analysis, assisted by QSR NVivo.

FINDINGS

Three overarching themes were identified: (1) Knowledge, awareness and acceptability of lung screening, (2) Barriers and facilitators to screening and (3) Promoting screening and implementation ideas. Participants were largely supportive of lung screening in principle and described the importance of the early detection of cancer. Emotional and psychological concerns as well as system-level and practical issues were discussed as posing barriers and facilitators to lung screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Understanding the views of people potentially eligible for a lung health check can usefully inform the development of a further study to test the feasibility and acceptability of lung screening in Scotland.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

The LUNGSCOT study has convened a patient advisory group to advise on all aspects of study development and implementation. Patient representatives commented on the focus group study design, study materials and ethics application, and two representatives read the focus group transcripts.

Modelling cost-effective strategies for minimising socioeconomic inequalities in colorectal cancer screening outcomes in England

Colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality is higher in socioeconomically deprived groups for a variety of reasons, but is exacerbated by poorer screening uptake. However, many strategies for improving screening participation exist. This analysis aimed to model the impact of screening on CRC inequalities in England and then compare different strategies for increasing participation, to determine the most cost-effective methods for reducing screening-induced inequalities. An existing health economic model, Microsimulation Model in Cancer of the Bowel was adapted. Screening-eligible individuals were simulated to investigate the impact of screening on CRC inequalities. Following this, four strategies for promoting screening participation were compared: 1) annual re-invitation of screening non-participants; 2) a national media advertising campaign; 3) text message reminders for non-participants; 4) health promotion in deprived populations. Cost-effectiveness, CRC outcomes, resource impacts and effects on CRC inequalities were assessed. Inequalities analysis was based on age-standardised CRC mortality by socioeconomic group. Screening was found to be highly cost-effective but CRC inequalities increased as screening effectiveness improved. Annual re-invitation of non-participants was most cost-effective for promoting particiption (incremental cost-effectiveness ratio = £4404 per quality-adjusted life-year), reducing CRC mortality (11,129 deaths averted), and reducing screening-induced inequality (slope of inequalities reduced from 20.80 to 19.38), although it required 42% more screening kits to be sent out. Other strategies were cost-effective compared with screening alone, and improved CRC outcomes, but had varying impacts on inequalities. Whilst bowel cancer screening increases socioeconomic inequalities in CRC mortality, effective and cost-effective strategies are available for mitigating screening-induced inequalities.

Effectiveness of behavioural economics-based interventions to improve colorectal cancer screening participation: A rapid systematic review of randomised controlled trials

•

We searched PubMed, PsycInfo and EconLit for RCTs that evaluated BE interventions in CRC screening.

•

We identified 1027 papers for title and abstract review. 30 studies were eligible for the review.

•

The most frequently tested BE intervention was incentives, followed by default principle and salience.

•

Default-based interventions were most likely to be effective. Incentives had mixed evidence.

•

BE remains a promising field of interest in relation to influencing CRC screening behaviours.

Including a general practice endorsement letter with the testing kit in the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme: Results of a cluster randomised trial

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the effect of general practitioner endorsement accompanying the screening kit rather than with the invitation letter on participation in the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme and on the socioeconomic gradient in participation in the Programme.

METHODS

The NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme in England is delivered via five regional hubs. In early 2016, we carried out a cluster-randomised trial, with hub-day of invitation as the randomisation unit. We randomised 150 hub-days of invitation to the intervention group, GP endorsement on the letter accompanying the guaiac faecal occult blood testing kit (75 hub-days, 197,366 individuals) or control, usual letter (75 hub-days, 197,476 individuals). The endpoint was participation, defined as return of a valid kit within 18 weeks of initial invitation. Because of the cluster randomisation, data were analysed by a hierarchical logistic regression, allowing a random effect for date of invitation. Socioeconomic status was represented by the index of multiple deprivation.

RESULTS

Participation was 59.4% in the intervention group and 58.7% in the control group, a significant difference (p = 0.04). There was no heterogeneity of the effect of intervention by index of multiple deprivation. We found that there was some confounding between date and screening episode order (first or subsequent screen). This in turn may have induced confounding with age and slightly diluted the result.

CONCLUSIONS

General practitioner endorsement induces a modest increase in participation in bowel cancer screening, but does not affect the socioeconomic gradient. When considering cluster randomisation as a research method, careful scrutiny of potential confounding is indicated in advance if possible and in analysis otherwise.

Understanding patient factors to increase uptake of cancer screening: a review

Early detection of cancer through organized screening is a central component of population-level strategies to reduce cancer mortality. For screening programs to be effective, it is important that those invited to screening participate. However, uptake rates are suboptimal in many populations and vary between screening programs, indicating a complex combination of patient factors that require elucidation to develop evidence-based strategies to increase participation. In this review, the authors summarize individual-level (sociodemographic and psychosocial) factors associated with cancer screening uptake and evidence for the effectiveness of behavioral interventions to increase uptake. The authors reflect on current trends and future directions for behavioral cancer screening research to overcome challenges and address unmet needs in reducing cancer mortality.

Ethnic disparities in the uptake of colorectal cancer screening: An analysis of the West London population

AIM

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening reduces mortality but variation exists in uptake, with poorer uptake in ethnic minority groups. The aim of this work was to evaluate the relationship between ethnicity and uptake of CRC screening in West London.

METHOD

Results of CRC screening from the Central London, West London, Hammersmith and Fulham, Hounslow and Ealing Clinical commissioning group collaborative between 2012 and 2017 were retrospectively analysed. These five clinical commissioning groups (CCGs) are located in West London. Compliance with screening according to ethnic group was evaluated compared with White British as the control.

RESULTS

A total of 155 038 individuals were screened. White British individuals had the highest compliance (52.6%). A maximum difference in compliance of 8.2% was seen between CCGs. The odds of being less likely to participate were significant (p < 0.05) in all ethnic minorities except for Asian Chinese on univariate and multivariate analysis (adjusted OR 1.091, p = 0.88).

CONCLUSION

This is the largest retrospective study focusing on the role of ethnicity in the uptake of CRC screening in England. Poor uptake of screening in all ethnic minorities in West London, with the exception of Asian Chinese individuals in particular, is a novel finding. A mandate to routinely collect ethnicity data, the use of a single more diverse census and further intervention are needed to understand this disparity and reduce health inequity.

Aspects of colorectal cancer screening, methods, age and gender

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is, besides breast, prostate, lung and skin cancers, the most common cancer worldwide and is suitable for screening. The incidence of CRC varies considerably in different parts of the world: in well-developed countries, the incidence is between 30 and 70 per 100 000 inhabitants, whereas in less-developed countries such as sub-Saharan Africa, it is 10-20/100 000 inhabitants. Women have a lower incidence of CRC, which is usually one-third of total incidence. Several studies have shown that it is possible to decrease mortality from CRC with about 20%, which is evidenced through the data from countries with screening programmes. Though the method of choice to identify blood samples in faecal matter is under debate, the most feasible way is to perform colonoscopy. Other methods include more advanced faecal analyses, testing for mutations from CRC, sigmoidoscopy, CT colonoscopy or optical colonoscopy. Colonoscopy is in most countries not available in sufficient amount and has to be carried out with great accuracy; otherwise, lesions will be missed to identify, thus leading to complications. Gender is an issue in CRC screening, as women have about 20% fewer colorectal adenomas and CRCs, but they also have more right-sided lesions, which are more difficult to detect with tests for faecal blood since they create less blood in faeces. Thus, other strategies may have to be developed for women in order for screening to have the same effect. It is essential to introduce colorectal cancer screening in all countries together with other clinical pieces of advice such as information on smoking, obesity and exercise in order to reduce one of the most dangerous cancers.

Implementation of long-term non-participant reminders for flexible sigmoidoscopy screening

•

Long-term self-referral reminders increased uptake by 4.1%.

•

13% of those who self-referred had pre-cancerous lesions detected.

•

The biggest effects were seen in the most deprived areas.

The clinical effectiveness of screening is highly dependent on uptake. Previous randomised controlled trials suggest that non-participant reminders, which highlight the opportunity to re-book an appointment, can improve participation. The present analysis examines the impact of implementing these reminders within the English Flexible Sigmoidoscopy (FS) Screening Programme, which offers once-only FS screening to adults aged 55–59 years.

We assessed the screening status of 26,339 individuals invited for once-only FS screening in England. A total of 10,952 (41.6%) had attended screening, and were subsequently ineligible. The remaining 15,387 had not attended screening, and were selected to receive a reminder, 1–2 years after their invitation. Descriptive statistics were used to assess the increase in uptake and the adenoma detection rate (ADR) of those who self-referred, six months after the delivery of the final reminder. Pearson’s Chi-Square was used to compare the ADR between those who attended when invited and those who self-referred.

Of the 15,387 adults eligible to receive a reminder, 13,626 (88.6%) were sent a reminder as intended (1,761 were not sent a reminder, due to endoscopy capacity). Of these, 8.0% (n = 1,086) booked and attended an appointment, which equated to a 4.1% increase in uptake from 41.6% at baseline, to 45.7% at follow-up. The ADR was significantly higher for those who self-referred, compared with those who attended when invited (13.3% and 9.5%, respectively; X² = 16.138, p = 0.000059).

The implementation of non-participant reminders led to a moderate increase in uptake. Implementing non-participant reminders could help mitigate the negative effects of COVID-19 on uptake.

Use of a GP-endorsed non-participant reminder letter to promote uptake of bowel scope screening: A randomised controlled trial in a hard-to-reach population

Previous research suggests that sending non-participants a reminder letter, 1 year after their initial invitation, can improve coverage for bowel scope screening (BSS), also known as flexible sigmoidoscopy screening. We hypothesised that adding a general practitioner's (GPs) endorsement to the reminder letter could improve coverage even further. We conducted a randomised controlled trial in North West London, UK. Participants were screening-eligible men and women who had not responded to their initial BSS invitation at least 12 months prior to the trial period. Eligible adults were randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive either a GP-endorsed reminder letter, or a standard reminder letter from June to August 2019. Logistic regression models were used to test the effect of the GP endorsement on attendance at BSS, adjusting for sex, clinical commissioning group, and local area socioeconomic deprivation. In total, 1200 participants were enrolled into the study and randomised to either the control (n = 600) or the intervention (n = 600) group. Those who received the GP-endorsed reminder letter were only slightly more likely to attend BSS than those who received the standard reminder letter (4% vs. 3%); this difference was not statistically significant (Adjusted OR = 1.30; 95% CI: 0.69, 2.43). Adding a GP-endorsement to the annual reminder letter did not have an effect on attendance at BSS. One possible explanation for this is that the endorsement used was not personalised enough. Future research should examine stronger GP-endorsements or other methods to promote uptake.

Assessing the implementation of interventions addressing socioeconomic inequalities in cancer screening in high-income countries

Background: The context of an intervention may influence its effectiveness and success in meeting the needs of the targeted population. Implementation science frameworks have been developed, but previous literature in this field has been mixed. This paper aimed to assess the implementation success of interventions, identified from a systematic review, that reduced inequalities in cancer screening between people in low and high socioeconomic groups.

Design and Methods: The implementation framework by Proctor et al. was utilised to assess the potential success of 6 studies reporting on 7 interventions in the “real-world” environment. A standardised rating system to identify the overall implementation success of each intervention was established.

Results: Four interventions (57%) demonstrated high potential to be implemented successfully. Interventions included enhanced reminder letters and GP-endorsed screening invitations, containing evidence on the acceptability, from participants and stakeholders, appropriateness and direct cost of the intervention.

Conclusion: While some interventions reduced socioeconomic inequalities in cancer screening participation, there have been missed opportunities to integrate the experiences of the targeted population into design and evaluation components. This has limited the potential for transferability of outcomes to other settings.

The Impact of a Comprehensive Risk Prediction Model for Colorectal Cancer on a Population Screening Program

BACKGROUND

In many countries, population colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is based on age and family history, though more precise risk prediction could better target screening. We examined the impact of a CRC risk prediction model (incorporating age, sex, lifestyle, genomic, and family history factors) to target screening under several feasible screening scenarios.

METHODS

We estimated the model's predicted CRC risk distribution in the Australian population. Predicted CRC risks were categorized into screening recommendations under 3 proposed scenarios to compare with current recommendations: 1) highly tailored, 2) 3 risk categories, and 3) 4 sex-specific risk categories. Under each scenario, for 35- to 74-year-olds, we calculated the number of CRC screens by immunochemical fecal occult blood testing (iFOBT) and colonoscopy and the proportion of predicted CRCs over 10 years in each screening group.

RESULTS

Currently, 1.1% of 35- to 74-year-olds are recommended screening colonoscopy and 56.2% iFOBT, and 5.7% and 83.2% of CRCs over 10 years were predicted to occur in these groups, respectively. For the scenarios, 1) colonoscopy was recommended to 8.1% and iFOBT to 37.5%, with 36.1% and 50.1% of CRCs in each group; 2) colonoscopy was recommended to 2.4% and iFOBT to 56.0%, with 13.2% and 76.9% of cancers in each group; and 3) colonoscopy was recommended to 5.0% and iFOBT to 54.2%, with 24.5% and 66.5% of cancers in each group.

CONCLUSIONS

A highly tailored CRC screening scenario results in many fewer screens but more cancers in those unscreened. Category-based scenarios may provide a good balance between number of screens and cancers detected and are simpler to implement.

The impact of interventions addressing socioeconomic inequalities in cancer-related outcomes in high-income countries: A systematic review

Background: High cancer mortality is a major source of burden. Population-wide programs have been developed to improve cancer outcomes, and although effective in improving outcomes overall, the socioeconomically disadvantaged population have disproportionately benefited. This systematic review evaluated interventions aimed at addressing inequalities in cancer-related outcomes between low and high socioeconomic groups within high-income countries. Materials and Methods: The Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, and PubMed searches were completed in October 2018. Data extraction and quality appraisal were guided by established mechanisms. Impact of interventions, using odds ratios, with respective 95% confidence intervals were presented, where available. Results: Sixteen studies reporting on 19 interventions were included. Seven interventions (37%) reduced socioeconomic inequalities in cancer-related outcomes, focusing on participation in cancer screening. Interventions included pre-formulated implementation intentions; GP-endorsed screening invitations; enhanced reminder letters; text message reminders; and implementation of an organised screening program. Conclusions: This systematic review found limited evidence on the efficacy of existing interventions that aimed to reduce inequalities in cancer-related outcomes between people living in low and high socioeconomic areas among high-income countries. Future interventions should consider the specific needs of people living in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas to improve the efficacy of an intervention.

Optimizing the Quality of Colorectal Cancer Screening Worldwide

Screening, followed by colonoscopic polypectomy (or surgery for malignant lesions), prevents incident colorectal cancer and mortality. However, there are variations in effective application of nearly every aspect of the screening process. Screening is a multistep process, and failure in any single step could result in unnecessary morbidity and mortality. Awareness of variations in operator- and system-dependent performance has led to detailed, comprehensive recommendations in the United States and Europe on how colonoscopy screening should be performed and measured. Likewise, guidance has been provided on quality assurance for nonprimary colonoscopy-based screening programs, including strategies to maximize adherence. Quality improvement is now a validated science, and there is clear evidence that higher quality prevents incident cancer and cancer death. Quality must be addressed at the levels of the system, provider, and individuals, to maximize the benefits of screening for any population. We review the important aspects of measuring and improving the quality of colorectal cancer screening.

Do socioeconomic factors play a role in nonadherence to follow-up colonoscopy after a positive faecal immunochemical test in the Flemish colorectal cancer screening programme?

OBJECTIVE

In Flanders (Belgium), a population-based colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programme was started in 2013, coordinated by the Centre for Cancer Detection (CCD) in cooperation with the Belgian Cancer Registry (BCR). The CCD offers a biennial faecal immunochemical test (FIT) to Flemish citizens aged 56-74 years and recommends a colonoscopy when screened positive by FIT. The study objective is to investigate sociodemographic differences in follow-up colonoscopy adherence after a positive FIT.

METHODS

Characteristics of the study population were derived by linkage of data from the CCD and BCR, linked with data of the Intermutualistic Agency and the Crossroads Bank for Social Security, resulting in aggregated tables to ensure anonymity. A total of 37 834 men and women aged 56-74 years with a positive FIT in 2013-2014 were included. Adherence to follow-up colonoscopy was calculated for age, sex, work intensity at household level, preferential reimbursement status, and first and current nationality. Descriptive analyses and logistic regressions were performed.

RESULTS

Nonadherence to follow-up colonoscopy was associated with increasing age, and was significantly higher in men [odds ratio (OR), 1.08], participants with a preferential reimbursement status (OR, 1.34), very low work intensity (OR, 1.41), no payed work (OR, 1.38) and other than Belgian nationality by birth (OR, 1.6-4.66).

CONCLUSION

Adherence to follow-up colonoscopy after a positive FIT differs according to sociodemographic variables. Additional research is needed to explore reasons for nonadherence to colonoscopy and tackle barriers by exploring interventions to increase colonoscopy follow-up adherence after a positive FIT in the Flemish colorectal cancer screening programme.

Geospatial analysis of the influence of family doctor on colorectal cancer screening adherence

BACKGROUND

Despite the well-recognised relevance of screening in colorectal cancer (CRC) control, adherence to screening is often suboptimal. Improving adherence represents an important public health strategy. We investigated the influence of family doctors (FDs) as determinant of CRC screening adherence by comparing each FDs practice participation probability to that of the residents in the same geographic areas using the whole population geocoded.

METHODS

We used multilevel logistic regression model to investigate factors associated with CRC screening adherence, among 333,843 people at their first screening invitation. Standardized Adherence Rates (SAR) by age, gender, and socioeconomic status were calculated comparing FDs practices to the residents in the same geographic areas using geocoded target population.

RESULTS

Screening adherence increased from 41.0% (95% CI, 40.8-41.2) in 2006-2008 to 44.7% (95% CI, 44.5-44.9) in 2011-2012. Males, the most deprived and foreign-born people showed low adherence. FD practices and the percentage of foreign-born people in a practice were significant clustering factors. SAR for 145 (21.4%) FDs practices differed significantly from people living in the same areas. Predicted probabilities of adherence were 31.7% and 49.0% for FDs with low and high adherence, respectively.

DISCUSSION

FDs showed a direct and independent effect to the CRC screening adherence of the people living in their practice. FDs with significantly high adherence level could be the key to adherence improvement.

IMPACT

Most deprived individuals and foreigners represent relevant targets for interventions in public health aimed to improve CRC screening adherence.

Access to health care for older people with intellectual disability: a modelling study to explore the cost-effectiveness of health checks

Background

Whilst people with intellectual disability grow older, evidence has emerged internationally about the largely unmet health needs of this specific ageing population. Health checks have been implemented in some countries to address those health inequalities. Evaluations have focused on measuring process outcomes due to challenges measuring quality of life outcomes. In addition, the cost-effectiveness is currently unknown. As part of a national guideline for this population we sought to explore the likely cost-effectiveness of annual health checks in England.

Methods

Decision-analytical Markov modelling was used to estimate the cost-effectiveness of a strategy, in which health checks were provided for older people with intellectual disability, when compared with standard care. The approach we took was explorative. Individual models were developed for a selected range of health conditions, which had an expected high economic impact and for which sufficient evidence was available for the modelling. In each of the models, hypothetical cohorts were followed from 40 yrs. of age until death. The outcome measure was cost per quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) gained. Incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER) were calculated. Costs were assessed from a health provider perspective and expressed in 2016 GBP. Costs and QALYs were discounted at 3.5%. We carried out probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Data from published studies as well as expert opinion informed parameters.

Results

Health checks led to a mean QALY gain of 0.074 (95% CI 0.072 to 0.119); and mean incremental costs of £4787 (CI 95% 4773 to 5017). For a threshold of £30,000 per QALY, health checks were not cost-effective (mean ICER £85,632; 95% CI 82,762 to 131,944). Costs of intervention needed to reduce from £258 to under £100 per year in order for health checks to be cost-effective.

Conclusion

Whilst findings need to be considered with caution as the model was exploratory in that it was based on assumptions to overcome evidence gaps, they suggest that the way health systems deliver care for vulnerable populations might need to be re-examined. The work was carried out as part of a national guideline and informed recommendations about system changes to achieve more equal health care provisions.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12889-019-6912-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

A review of sex-related differences in colorectal cancer incidence, screening uptake, routes to diagnosis, cancer stage and survival in the UK

Background

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is an illness strongly influenced by sex and gender, with mortality rates in males significantly higher than females. There is still a dearth of understanding on where sex differences exist along the pathway from presentation to survival. The aim of this review is to identify where actions are needed to improve outcomes for both sexes, and to narrow the gap for CRC.

Methods

A cross-sectional review of national data was undertaken to identify sex differences in incidence, screening uptake, route to diagnosis, cancer stage at diagnosis and survival, and their influence in the sex differences in mortality.

Results

Overall incidence is higher in men, with an earlier age distribution, however, important sex differences exist in anatomical site. There were relatively small differences in screening uptake, route to diagnosis, cancer staging at diagnosis and survival. Screening uptake is higher in women under 69 years. Women are more likely to present as emergency cases, with more men diagnosed through screening and two-week-wait. No sex differences are seen in diagnosis for more advanced disease. Overall, age-standardised 5-year survival is similar between the sexes.

Conclusions

As there are minimal sex differences in the data from routes to diagnosis to survival, the higher mortality of colorectal cancer in men appears to be a result of exogenous and/or endogenous factors pre-diagnosis that lead to higher incidence rates. There are however, sex and gender differences that suggest more targeted interventions may facilitate prevention and earlier diagnosis in both men and women.

Development of an evidence-based brief 'talking' intervention for non-responders to bowel screening for use in primary care: stakeholder interviews

BACKGROUND

Bowel cancer is the third most common cause of cancer death worldwide. Bowel screening has been shown to reduce mortality and primary care interventions have been successful in increasing uptake of screening. Using evidence-based theory to inform the development of such interventions has been shown to increase their effectiveness. This study aimed to develop and refine a brief evidence-based intervention for eligible individuals whom have not responded to their last bowel screening invitation (non-responders), for opportunistic use by primary care providers during routine consultations.

METHODS

The development of a brief intervention involving a conversation between primary care providers and non-responders was informed by a multi-faceted model comprising: research team workshop and meetings to draw on expertise; evidence from the literature regarding barriers to bowel screening and effective strategies to promote informed participation; relevant psychological theory, and intervention development and behaviour change guidance. Qualitative telephone interviews with 1) bowel screening stakeholders and 2) patient non-responders explored views regarding the acceptability of the intervention to help refine its content and process.

RESULTS

The intervention provides a theory and evidence-based tool designed to be incorporated within current primary care practice. Bowel screening stakeholders were supportive of the intervention and recognised the importance of the role of primary care. Interviews highlighted the importance of brevity and simplicity to incorporate the intervention into routine clinical care. Non-responders similarly found the intervention acceptable, valuing a holistic approach to their care. Moreover, they expected their primary care provider to encourage participation.

CONCLUSIONS

A theory-based brief conversation for use in a primary care consultation was acceptable to bowel screening stakeholders and potential recipients, reflecting a health promoting primary care ethos. Findings indicate that it is appropriate to test the intervention in primary care in a feasibility study.

Use of a GP-endorsed 12 months' reminder letter to promote uptake of bowel scope screening: protocol for a randomised controlled trial in a hard-to-reach population

INTRODUCTION

Flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) screening is associated with reduced colorectal cancer incidence and mortality when offered as a one-off test to men and women aged 55-64. The test, also referred to as the 'bowel scope screening' (BSS) test, was added to England's national Bowel Cancer Screening Programme in March 2013, where it is offered to men and women aged 55. Since its implementation, uptake of the BSS test has been low, with only 43% of the eligible population attending an appointment. Sending non-participants a reminder at age 56 has been shown to improve uptake by up to nine percentage points at a single centre in London; we hypothesise that adding a general practitioners (GPs) endorsement to the reminder could improve uptake even further.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This paper describes the protocol for a randomised controlled trial which will examine the effectiveness of adding a GPs endorsement to a reminder for BSS non-participants aged 56. All screening-eligible adults who have not responded to a BSS appointment at London North West Healthcare NHS Trust within 12 months of their initial invitation will be randomised to receive either a GP-endorsed reminder letter or reminder letter without GP endorsement. The primary outcome will be the proportion of individuals screened within each group 8 weeks after the reminder. Statistical comparisons will be made using univariate and multivariate logistic regression, with 'uptake' as the outcome variable, GP reminder group as the exposure and sociodemographic variables as covariates.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study was approved by the Yorkshire & Humber-Bradford Leeds Research Ethics Committee (16/YH/0298) and the Confidentiality Advisory Group (17/CAG/0162). The results will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal in accordance with the Consort statement and will be made available to the public.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN82867861.

Colorectal Cancer Screening: The Role of Psychological, Social and Background Factors in Decision-making Process

Since ColoRectal Cancer (CRC) remains the third cause of cancer death in the world, a better understanding of the reasons underlying poor adherence to and delay in undergoing CRC screening programs is important. CRC screening decision-making process can be conceptualized as the relationship between intention and behavior and needs to be investigated including the impact on patients' decision of a broad range of psychological factors and personal predisposition as fear of a positive screening test, poor understanding of the procedure, psychological distress, anxiety, anticipation of pain, feelings of embarrassment and vulnerability. Also socioeconomic, ethnic and sociological influences, and organizational barriers have been identified as factors influencing CRC screening adherence. Decision-making process can finally be influenced by the healthcare background in which the intervention is promoted and screening programs are carried out. However, there is still a gap on the scientific knowledge about the influences of diverse elements on screening adherence and this deserves further investigations in order to carry out more focused and effective prevention programs.

Is an opportunistic primary care-based intervention for non-responders to bowel screening feasible and acceptable? A mixed-methods feasibility study in Scotland

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to test whether a brief, opportunistic intervention in general practice was a feasible and acceptable way to engage with bowel screening non-responders.

DESIGN

This was a feasibility study testing an intervention which comprised a brief conversation during routine consultation, provision of a patient leaflet and instructions to request a replacement faecal occult blood test kit. A mixed-methods approach to evaluation was adopted. Data were collected from proformas completed after each intervention, from the Bowel Screening Centre database and from questionnaires. Semi-structured interviews were carried out. We used descriptive statistics, content and framework analysis to determine intervention feasibility and acceptability.

PARTICIPANTS

Bowel screening non-responders (as defined by the Scottish Bowel Screening Centre) and primary care professionals working in five general practices in Lothian, Scotland.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

Several predefined feasibility parameters were assessed, including numbers of patients engaging in conversation, requesting a replacement kit and returning it, and willingness of primary care professionals to deliver the intervention.

RESULTS

The intervention was offered to 258 patients in five general practices: 220 (87.0%) engaged with the intervention, 60 (23.3%) requested a new kit, 22 (8.5%) kits were completed and returned. Interviews and questionnaires suggest that the intervention was feasible, acceptable and consistent with an existing health prevention agenda. Reported challenges referred to work-related pressures, time constraints and practice priorities.

CONCLUSIONS

This intervention was acceptable and resulted in a modest increase in non-responders participating in bowel screening, although outlined challenges may affect sustained implementation. The strategy is also aligned with the increasing role of primary care in promoting bowel screening.

Reducing the socioeconomic gradient in uptake of the NHS bowel cancer screening Programme using a simplified supplementary information leaflet: a cluster-randomised trial

BACKGROUND

Uptake of colorectal cancer screening is low in the English NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP). Participation in screening is strongly associated with socioeconomic status. The aim of this study was to determine whether a supplementary leaflet providing the 'gist' of guaiac-based Faecal Occult Blood test (gFOBt) screening for colorectal cancer could reduce the socioeconomic status (SES) gradient in uptake in the English NHS BCSP.

METHODS

The trial was integrated within routine BCSP operations in November 2012. Using a cluster randomised controlled design all adults aged 59-74 years who were being routinely invited to complete the gFOBt were randomised based on day of invitation. The Index of Multiple Deprivation was used to create SES quintiles. The control group received the standard information booklet ('SI'). The intervention group received the SI booklet and the Gist leaflet ('SI + Gist') which had been designed to help people with lower literacy engage with the invitation. Blinding of hubs was not possible and invited subjects were not made aware of a comparator condition. The primary outcome was the gradient in uptake across IMD quintiles.

RESULTS

In November 2012, 163,525 individuals were allocated to either the 'SI' intervention (n = 79,104) or the 'SI + Gist' group (n = 84,421). Overall uptake was similar between the intervention and control groups (SI: 57.3% and SI + Gist: 57.6%; OR = 1.02, 95% CI: 0.92-1.13, p = 0.77). Uptake was 42.0% (SI) vs. 43.0% (SI + Gist) in the most deprived quintile and 65.6% vs. 65.8% in the least deprived quintile (interaction p = 0.48). The SES gradient in uptake was similar between the study groups within age, gender, hub and screening round sub-groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Providing supplementary simplified information in addition to the standard information booklet did not reduce the SES gradient in uptake in the NHS BCSP. The effectiveness of the Gist leaflet when used alone should be explored in future research.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ISRCTN74121020 , registered: 17/20/2012.

GP participation in increasing uptake in a national bowel cancer screening programme: the PEARL project

BACKGROUND

The NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) in England does not involve general practitioners (GPs). Uptake is ∼58%. The Practice Endorsed Additional Reminder Letter (PEARL) study piloted a GP-endorsed reminder letter.

METHODS

General practices in Wessex with uptake <55% (prevalent invitations) were invited to participate. Subjects who had been invited for screening, sent a standard 28-day BCSP reminder letter but had not returned a test kit within 30 days of the standard reminder were sent a second reminder letter bearing the GP's letterhead and signature. Uptake was compared between PEARL and non-PEARL practices by standardised uptake ratio (standardised for prior prevalent uptake and other confounders). In addition, 25 non-PEARL practices were matched with PEARL practices for prior prevalent uptake and number of invitees.

RESULTS

Twenty-five practices agreed to participate. A total of 3149 GP-endorsed reminders were sent. Uptake in the PEARL practices was 54% compared with 51% in the matched-control practices. The adjusted RR for uptake was 1.08 (95% CI: 1.05, 1.11, P<0.001) for all invitees and 2.18 (1.79, 2.66, P<0.001) for invitees who had not returned a kit following the standard reminder.

CONCLUSIONS

The GP-endorsed reminder was associated with significantly increased uptake among subjects not responding to the standard reminder letter.

Concerns, perceived need and competing priorities: a qualitative exploration of decision-making and non-participation in a population-based flexible sigmoidoscopy screening programme to prevent colorectal cancer

OBJECTIVE

Optimising uptake of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is important to achieve projected health outcomes. Population-based screening by flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) was introduced in England in 2013 (NHS Bowel scope screening). Little is known about reactions to the invitation to participate in FS screening, as offered within the context of the Bowel scope programme. We aimed to investigate responses to the screening invitation to inform understanding of decision-making, particularly in relation to non-participation in screening.

DESIGN

Qualitative analysis of semistructured in-depth interviews and written accounts.

PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING

People from 31 general practices in the North East and East of England invited to attend FS screening as part of NHS Bowel scope screening programme were sent invitations to take part in the study. We purposively sampled interviewees to ensure a range of accounts in terms of beliefs, screening attendance, sex and geographical location.

RESULTS

20 screeners and 25 non-screeners were interviewed. Written responses describing reasons for, and circumstances surrounding, non-participation from a further 28 non-screeners were included in the analysis. Thematic analysis identified a range of reactions to the screening invitation, decision-making processes and barriers to participation. These include a perceived or actual lack of need; inability to attend; anxiety and fear about bowel preparation, procedures or hospital; inability or reluctance to self-administer an enema; beliefs about low susceptibility to bowel cancer or treatment and understanding of harm and benefits. The strength, rather than presence, of concerns about the test and perceived need for reassurance were important in the decision to participate for screeners and non-screeners. Decision-making occurs within the context of previous experiences and day-to-day life.

CONCLUSIONS

Understanding the reasons for non-participation in FS screening can help inform strategies to improve uptake and may be transferable to other screening programmes.

Inclusion of populations at risk of advanced melanoma in an opportunistic targeted screening project involving general practitioners

OBJECTIVE

The study objective was to measure the rates of inclusion of populations at risk of advanced melanoma in a pilot targeted screening project involving general practitioners.

DESIGN

This cross-sectional database study compared the inclusion rates of patients who signed inclusion in a targeted screening project with those of patients who did not, during a period in which both groups of patients consulted investigators.

SETTING

Data were extracted from the national healthcare insurance records in western France from 11 April to 30 October 2011.

PATIENTS

Patients, older than 18, considered for the data extraction had consulted one of the 78 participating GPs during the study period, and were affiliated with the national healthcare insurance.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Inclusion in the screening was the main outcome measure. Patients at risk of advanced melanoma were characterized by male gender, age over 50, low income, rural residence, farmer, and presence of chronic disease.

RESULTS

A total of 57,279 patients consulted GPs during the inclusion period and 2711 (4.73%) were included in the targeted screening. Populations at risk of advanced melanoma were less included: men (OR = 0.67; 95%CI [0.61-0.73]; p < 0.001), older than 50 (OR = 0.67; 95%CI [0.60-0.74]; p < 0.001), low income (OR = 0.65; 95%CI [0.55-0.77]; p < 0.001), farmer (OR = 0.23; 95%CI [0.17-0.30]; p < 0.001) and presence of a chronic disease (OR = 0.87; 95%CI [0.77-0.98]; p < 0.028).

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated inequalities in the inclusion of patients in a melanoma screening. Patients at risk of advanced cancer were screened less often. Further studies should focus on GPs ability to identify and screen these patients. KEY POINTS Advanced melanoma is more frequently diagnosed in men, older patients and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations, which leads to survival inequalities. • Despite the involvement of general practitioners, the implementation of targeted melanoma screening did not avoid inclusion inequalities. • Men, older patients, patients suffering from chronic diseases, and low-income patients were less likely to benefit from screening. • The display of a conventional or an alarmist poster in the waiting room did not statistically reduce these inclusion inequalities.

Reducing the Social Gradient in Uptake of the NHS Colorectal Cancer Screening Programme Using a Narrative-Based Information Leaflet: A Cluster-Randomised Trial

Objective. To test the effectiveness of adding a narrative leaflet to the current information material delivered by the NHS English colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programme on reducing socioeconomic inequalities in uptake. Participants. 150,417 adults (59-74 years) routinely invited to complete the guaiac Faecal Occult Blood test (gFOBt) in March 2013. Design. A cluster randomised controlled trial (ISRCTN74121020) to compare uptake between two arms. The control arm received the standard NHS CRC screening information material (SI) and the intervention arm received the standard information plus a supplementary narrative leaflet, which had previously been shown to increase screening intentions (SI + N). Between group comparisons were made for uptake overall and across socioeconomic status (SES). Results. Uptake was 57.7% and did not differ significantly between the two trial arms (SI: 58.5%; SI + N: 56.7%; odds ratio = 0.93; 95% confidence interval: 0.81-1.06; p = 0.27). There was no interaction between group and SES quintile (p = 0.44). Conclusions. Adding a narrative leaflet to existing information materials does not reduce the SES gradient in uptake. Despite the benefits of using a pragmatic trial design, the need to add to, rather than replace, existing information may have limited the true value of an evidence-based intervention on behaviour.