1
|
Lloyd KE, Hall LH, Ziegler L, Foy R, Green SMC, MacKenzie M, Taylor DG, Smith SG. Acceptability of aspirin for cancer preventive therapy: a survey and qualitative study exploring the views of the UK general population. BMJ Open 2023; 13:e078703. [PMID: 38110374 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2023-078703] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/20/2023] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Aspirin could be offered for colorectal cancer prevention for the UK general population. To ensure the views of the general population are considered in future guidance, we explored public perceptions of aspirin for preventive therapy. DESIGN We conducted an online survey to investigate aspirin use, and awareness of aspirin for cancer prevention among the UK general population. We conducted semistructured interviews with a subsample of survey respondents to explore participants' acceptability towards aspirin for cancer preventive therapy. We analysed the interview data using reflexive thematic analysis and mapped the themes onto the Theoretical Domains Framework, and the Necessity and Concerns Framework. SETTING Online survey and remote interviews. PARTICIPANTS We recruited 400 UK respondents aged 50-70 years through a market research company to the survey. We purposefully sampled, recruited and interviewed 20 survey respondents. RESULTS In the survey, 19.0% (76/400) of respondents were aware that aspirin can be used to prevent cancer. Among those who had previously taken aspirin, 1.9% (4/216) had taken it for cancer prevention. The interviews generated three themes: (1) perceived necessity of aspirin; (2) concerns about side effects; and (3) preferred information sources. Participants with a personal or family history of cancer were more likely to perceive aspirin as necessary for cancer prevention. Concerns about taking aspirin at higher doses and its side effects, such as gastrointestinal bleeding, were common. Many described wanting guidance and advice on aspirin to be communicated from sources perceived as trustworthy, such as healthcare professionals. CONCLUSIONS Among the general population, those with a personal or family history of cancer may be more receptive towards taking aspirin for preventive therapy. Future policies and campaigns recommending aspirin may be of particular interest to these groups. Multiple considerations about the benefits and risks of aspirin highlight the need to support informed decisions on the medication.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kelly E Lloyd
- Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds Faculty of Medicine and Health, Leeds, UK
| | - Louise H Hall
- Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds Faculty of Medicine and Health, Leeds, UK
| | - Lucy Ziegler
- Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds Faculty of Medicine and Health, Leeds, UK
| | - Robbie Foy
- Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds Faculty of Medicine and Health, Leeds, UK
| | - Sophie M C Green
- Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds Faculty of Medicine and Health, Leeds, UK
| | | | - David G Taylor
- School of Pharmacy, University College London, London, UK
| | - Samuel G Smith
- Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds Faculty of Medicine and Health, Leeds, UK
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Green SMC, Hall LH, French DP, Rousseau N, Parbutt C, Walwyn R, Smith SG. Optimization of an Information Leaflet to Influence Medication Beliefs in Women With Breast Cancer: A Randomized Factorial Experiment. Ann Behav Med 2023; 57:988-1000. [PMID: 37494669 PMCID: PMC10578395 DOI: 10.1093/abm/kaad037] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 07/28/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Adherence to adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET) is low in women with breast cancer. Negative beliefs about the necessity of AET and high concerns are barriers to adherence. PURPOSE To use the multiphase optimization strategy to optimize the content of an information leaflet intervention, to change AET beliefs. METHODS We conducted an online screening experiment using a 25 factorial design to optimize the leaflet. The leaflet had five components, each with two levels: (i) diagrams about AET mechanisms (on/off); (ii) infographics displaying AET benefits (enhanced/basic); (iii) AET side effects (enhanced/basic); (iv) answers to AET concerns (on/off); (v) breast cancer survivor (patient) input: quotes and photographs (on/off). Healthy adult women (n = 1,604), recruited via a market research company, were randomized to 1 of 32 experimental conditions, which determined the levels of components received. Participants completed the Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire before and after viewing the leaflet. RESULTS There was a significant main effect of patient input on beliefs about medication (β = 0.063, p < .001). There was one significant synergistic two-way interaction between diagrams and benefits (β = 0.047, p = .006), and one antagonistic two-way interaction between diagrams and side effects (β = -0.029, p = .093). There was a synergistic three-way interaction between diagrams, concerns, and patient input (β = 0.029, p = .085), and an antagonistic four-way interaction between diagrams, benefits, side effects, and concerns (β = -0.038, p = .024). In a stepped approach, we screened in four components and screened out the side effects component. CONCLUSIONS The optimized leaflet did not contain enhanced AET side effect information. Factorial experiments are efficient and effective for refining the content of information leaflet interventions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sophie M C Green
- Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Louise H Hall
- Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - David P French
- Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Nikki Rousseau
- Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Catherine Parbutt
- Medicines Management and Pharmacy Services, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Rebecca Walwyn
- Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Samuel G Smith
- Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Smith SG, Green SMC, Ellison R, Foy R, Graham CD, Mason E, French DP, Hall LH, Wilkes H, McNaught E, Raine E, Walwyn R, Howdon D, Clark J, Rousseau N, Buxton J, Moore SJL, Parbutt C, Velikova G, Farrin A, Collinson M. Refining and optimising a behavioural intervention to support endocrine therapy adherence (ROSETA) in UK women with breast cancer: protocol for a pilot fractional factorial trial. BMJ Open 2023; 13:e069971. [PMID: 36737093 PMCID: PMC9900066 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-069971] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/05/2023] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Women with breast cancer who do not adhere to adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET) have increased risks of mortality and recurrence. There are multiple barriers to AET adherence, including medication side-effects, beliefs about medication, memory and psychological distress. We developed four intervention components, each targeting a different barrier. This pilot trial is part of the preparation phase of the Multiphase Optimisation Strategy, and aims to establish key trial parameters, establish intervention component adherence, establish availability and feasibility of outcome and process data, estimate variability in planned outcome measures and estimate cost of developing and delivering each intervention component. METHODS AND ANALYSIS The four intervention components are as follows: short message service text reminders (target: memory); a written information leaflet (target: medication beliefs); a guided self-help Acceptance and Commitment Therapy programme (target: psychological flexibility to reduce distress) and a self-management website (target: side-effect management). To evaluate the feasibility of recruitment, acceptability of the intervention components and the availability of outcome data, we will conduct a multisite, exploratory pilot trial using a 24-1 fractional factorial design, with a nested process evaluation. We will randomise 80 women with early-stage breast cancer who have been prescribed AET to one of eight experimental conditions. This will determine the combination of intervention components they receive, ranging from zero to four, with all conditions receiving usual care. Key outcomes of interest include medication adherence and quality of life. Progression to the optimisation phase will be based on predefined criteria for consent rates, patient adherence to intervention components and availability of medication adherence data. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION The study was reviewed by the Wales Research Authority Research Ethics Committee 3 (21/WA/0322). Written informed consent will be obtained from all patients before randomisation. The results of this trial will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER ISRTCN10487576.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Samuel G Smith
- Academic Unit of Primary Care, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Sophie M C Green
- Academic Unit of Primary Care, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Rachel Ellison
- Complex Interventions Division, Clinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Robbie Foy
- Academic Unit of Primary Care, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | | | - Ellen Mason
- Complex Interventions Division, Clinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - David P French
- School of Psychological Sciences, Division of Psychology and Mental Health, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Louise H Hall
- Academic Unit of Primary Care, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Hollie Wilkes
- Complex Interventions Division, Clinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Emma McNaught
- Complex Interventions Division, Clinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Erin Raine
- Academic Unit of Primary Care, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Rebecca Walwyn
- Complex Interventions Division, Clinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Daniel Howdon
- Academic Unit of Health Economics, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Jane Clark
- Department of Clinical and Health Psychology, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK
| | - Nikki Rousseau
- Surgical, Diagnostic and Devices Division, Clinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Jacqueline Buxton
- Academic Unit of Primary Care, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Sally J L Moore
- Academic Unit of Primary Care, Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Catherine Parbutt
- Medicines Management and Pharmacy Services, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK
| | - Galina Velikova
- Leeds Institute of Medical Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Amanda Farrin
- Complex Interventions Division, Clinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Michelle Collinson
- Complex Interventions Division, Clinical Trials Research Unit, Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Green SMC, French DP, Graham CD, Hall LH, Rousseau N, Foy R, Clark J, Parbutt C, Raine E, Gardner B, Velikova G, Moore SJL, Buxton J, Smith SG. Supporting adjuvant endocrine therapy adherence in women with breast cancer: the development of a complex behavioural intervention using Intervention Mapping guided by the Multiphase Optimisation Strategy. BMC Health Serv Res 2022; 22:1081. [PMID: 36002831 PMCID: PMC9404670 DOI: 10.1186/s12913-022-08243-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/07/2022] [Accepted: 06/21/2022] [Indexed: 01/05/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET) reduces the risk of breast cancer recurrence and mortality. However, up to three-quarters of women with breast cancer do not take AET as prescribed. Existing interventions to support adherence to AET have largely been unsuccessful, and have not focused on the most salient barriers to adherence. This paper describes the process of developing four theory-based intervention components to support adherence to AET. Our aim is to provide an exemplar of intervention development using Intervention Mapping (IM) with guidance from the Multiphase Optimisation Strategy (MOST). METHODS Iterative development followed the six-stage IM framework with stakeholder involvement. Stage 1 involved a literature review of barriers to adherence and existing interventions, which informed the intervention objectives outlined in Stage 2. Stage 3 identified relevant theoretical considerations and practical strategies for supporting adherence. Stage 4 used information from Stages 1-3 to develop the intervention components. Stages 1-4 informed a conceptual model for the intervention package. Stages 5 and 6 detailed implementation considerations and evaluation plans for the intervention package, respectively. RESULTS The final intervention package comprised four individual intervention components: Short Message Service to encourage habitual behaviours surrounding medication taking; an information leaflet to target unhelpful beliefs about AET; remotely delivered Acceptance and Commitment Therapy-based guided self-help to reduce psychological distress; and a website to support self-management of AET side-effects. Considerations for implementation within the NHS, including cost, timing and mode of delivery were outlined, with explanation as to how using MOST can aid this. We detail our plans for the final stage of IM which involve feasibility testing. This involved planning an external exploratory pilot trial using a 24-1 fractional factorial design, and a process evaluation to assess acceptability and fidelity of intervention components. CONCLUSIONS We have described a systematic and logical approach for developing a theoretically informed intervention package to support medication adherence in women with breast cancer using AET. Further research to optimise the intervention package, guided by MOST, has the potential to lead to more effective, efficient and scalable interventions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sophie M. C. Green
- grid.9909.90000 0004 1936 8403Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Clarendon Way, Leeds, LS2 9NL UK
| | - David P. French
- grid.5379.80000000121662407Manchester Centre for Health Psychology, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK
| | - Christopher D. Graham
- grid.4777.30000 0004 0374 7521Department of Psychology, Queen’s University Belfast, Belfast, UK
| | - Louise H. Hall
- grid.9909.90000 0004 1936 8403Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Clarendon Way, Leeds, LS2 9NL UK
| | - Nikki Rousseau
- grid.9909.90000 0004 1936 8403Leeds Institute of Clinical Trials Research, University of Leeds, Leeds, UK
| | - Robbie Foy
- grid.9909.90000 0004 1936 8403Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Clarendon Way, Leeds, LS2 9NL UK
| | - Jane Clark
- grid.443984.60000 0000 8813 7132St. James’s University Hospital, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK
| | - Catherine Parbutt
- grid.443984.60000 0000 8813 7132St. James’s University Hospital, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, Leeds, UK
| | - Erin Raine
- grid.9909.90000 0004 1936 8403Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Clarendon Way, Leeds, LS2 9NL UK
| | - Benjamin Gardner
- grid.13097.3c0000 0001 2322 6764Department of Psychology, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King’s College London, London, UK
| | - Galina Velikova
- grid.443984.60000 0000 8813 7132Leeds Institute of Medical Research at St James’s, University of Leeds, St James’s University Hospital, Leeds, UK ,grid.443984.60000 0000 8813 7132Leeds Cancer Centre, Leeds Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust, St James’s University Hospital, Leeds, UK
| | - Sally J. L. Moore
- grid.9909.90000 0004 1936 8403Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Clarendon Way, Leeds, LS2 9NL UK
| | - Jacqueline Buxton
- grid.9909.90000 0004 1936 8403Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Clarendon Way, Leeds, LS2 9NL UK
| | | | - Samuel G. Smith
- grid.9909.90000 0004 1936 8403Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Clarendon Way, Leeds, LS2 9NL UK
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Lloyd KE, Foy R, Hall LH, Ziegler L, Green SMC, Haider ZF, Taylor DG, MacKenzie M, Smith SG. Barriers and facilitators to using aspirin for preventive therapy: a qualitative study exploring the views and experiences of people with Lynch syndrome and healthcare providers. Hered Cancer Clin Pract 2022; 20:30. [PMID: 35999639 PMCID: PMC9396868 DOI: 10.1186/s13053-022-00235-z] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/28/2022] [Accepted: 07/26/2022] [Indexed: 11/21/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NG151) recommends considering daily aspirin for people with Lynch syndrome to reduce colorectal cancer risk. However, deciding whether to initiate aspirin could be a complex decision for patients and their healthcare providers, as both the potential benefits and harms need to be considered. METHODS We conducted semi-structured interviews to explore the barriers and facilitators to using aspirin for preventive therapy. We recruited 15 people with Lynch syndrome, and 23 healthcare providers across multiple professions in primary, and specialist care (e.g. clinical genetics) in the United Kingdom. Interview schedules were informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework. RESULTS There were three themes: 1) Considering potential harms and benefits; 2) Healthcare pathway; 3) Patients' level of interest in aspirin. All healthcare providers, across primary and specialist care, viewed general practitioners (GPs) as being responsible for prescribing and overseeing the use of aspirin. However, GPs were unfamiliar with aspirin for preventive therapy, and concerned about prescribing at higher doses (300-600 mg). To support decision-making, GPs wanted clarification from specialist clinicians on the evidence and dose to prescribe. Not all participants with Lynch syndrome received information on aspirin from their healthcare provider, and several were unsure who to discuss aspirin with. GPs were more inclined to prescribe aspirin for patients with expressed preferences for the medication, however several patients were uncertain and wanted further guidance. CONCLUSIONS Coordinated and multilevel strategies are needed, addressing the needs of both GPs and people with Lynch syndrome, to ensure consistent implementation of national guidance on aspirin for preventive therapy.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kelly E Lloyd
- Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Clarendon Way, Leeds, LS2 9NL, UK.
| | - Robbie Foy
- Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Clarendon Way, Leeds, LS2 9NL, UK
| | - Louise H Hall
- Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Clarendon Way, Leeds, LS2 9NL, UK
| | - Lucy Ziegler
- Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Clarendon Way, Leeds, LS2 9NL, UK
| | - Sophie M C Green
- Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Clarendon Way, Leeds, LS2 9NL, UK
| | - Zainab F Haider
- Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Clarendon Way, Leeds, LS2 9NL, UK
| | - David G Taylor
- School of Pharmacy, University College London, London, UK
| | | | - Samuel G Smith
- Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Clarendon Way, Leeds, LS2 9NL, UK
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Hall LH, King NV, Graham CD, Green SMC, Barber A, Neal RD, Foy R, Clark J, Lloyd KE, Smith SG. Strategies to self-manage side-effects of adjuvant endocrine therapy among breast cancer survivors: an umbrella review of empirical evidence and clinical guidelines. J Cancer Surviv 2021; 16:1296-1338. [PMID: 34664199 DOI: 10.1007/s11764-021-01114-7] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/06/2021] [Accepted: 09/13/2021] [Indexed: 01/04/2023]
Abstract
PURPOSE Side-effects of adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET) are common in breast cancer survivors, and can affect adherence to treatment. We synthesised the evidence for strategies to self-manage these side-effects. METHODS We searched for systematic reviews and clinical guidelines on self-management strategies for AET side-effects (arthralgia, fatigue, hot flashes, gastrointestinal discomfort, nausea, vulvovaginal symptoms, and sleep disturbance). We searched oncology organisation's websites and eight databases (Inception-November 2020). Screening, data extraction and quality assessment were completed independently in duplicate. PROSPERO 2019CRD4201914001. RESULTS We identified 33 systematic reviews and 18 clinical guidelines. 21% of reviews were high quality, and the average quality score for guidelines was 44%. Evidence for most strategies was absent or weak. There was consensus from a low-quality review and multiple guidelines to recommend moisturisers, gels and lubricants for vulvovaginal symptoms. Evidence was weak for physical activity for self-managing most symptoms, although two high-quality reviews indicated yoga and aerobic exercise could reduce fatigue. Primary research was often biased by weak and underpowered study designs. Eleven reviews did not report information on adverse events. CONCLUSIONS Most self-management strategies for breast cancer survivors experiencing side-effects from AET lack evidence. Primary research is needed using high-quality well-powered designs focusing on implementable strategies. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS Patients and clinicians should be aware that although the risk of harm is low for these self-management strategies, the likelihood of benefit is often unclear. Women should consider moisturisers, gels or lubricants for self-managing vulvovaginal symptoms, and yoga or aerobic exercise for alleviating fatigue.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Louise H Hall
- Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9NL, England, UK
| | - Natalie V King
- Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9NL, England, UK
| | - Christopher D Graham
- Department of Psychology, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, BT7 1NN, Northern Ireland, UK
| | - Sophie M C Green
- Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9NL, England, UK
| | - Alice Barber
- School of Medicine, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9NL, England, UK
| | - Richard D Neal
- Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9NL, England, UK
| | - Robbie Foy
- Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9NL, England, UK
| | - Jane Clark
- Department of Clinical and Health Psychology, St James's University Hospital, Leeds, LS9 7TF, England, UK
| | - Kelly E Lloyd
- Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9NL, England, UK
| | - Samuel G Smith
- Leeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9NL, England, UK.
| |
Collapse
|