Uptake and 4-week quit rates from an opt-out co-located smoking cessation service delivered alongside community-based low-dose computed tomography screening within the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial.

BACKGROUND: Up to 50% of those attending for low-dose computed tomography screening for lung cancer continue to smoke and co-delivery of smoking cessation services alongside screening may maximise clinical benefit. Here we present data from an opt-out co-located smoking cessation service delivered alongside the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial (YLST). METHODS: Eligible YLST participants were offered an immediate consultation with a smoking cessation practitioner (SCP) at their screening visit with ongoing smoking cessation support over subsequent weeks. RESULTS: Of 2150 eligible participants, 1905 (89%) accepted the offer of an SCP consultation during their initial visit, with 1609 (75%) receiving ongoing smoking cessation support over subsequent weeks. Uptake of ongoing support was not associated with age, ethnicity, deprivation or educational level in multivariable analyses, although men were less likely to engage (adjusted OR (ORadj) 0.71, 95% CI 0.56-0.89). Uptake was higher in those with higher nicotine dependency, motivation to stop smoking and self-efficacy for quitting. Overall, 323 participants self-reported quitting at 4 weeks (15.0% of the eligible population); 266 were validated by exhaled carbon monoxide (12.4%). Multivariable analyses of eligible smokers suggested 4-week quitting was more likely in men (ORadj 1.43, 95% CI 1.11-1.84), those with higher motivation to quit and previous quit attempts, while those with a stronger smoking habit in terms of cigarettes per day were less likely to quit. CONCLUSIONS: There was high uptake for co-located opt-out smoking cessation support across a wide range of participant demographics. Protected funding for integrated smoking cessation services should be considered to maximise programme equity and benefit.

Defining the road map to a UK national lung cancer screening programme.

Lung cancer screening with low-dose CT was recommended by the UK National Screening Committee (UKNSC) in September, 2022, on the basis of data from trials showing a reduction in lung cancer mortality. These trials provide sufficient evidence to show clinical efficacy, but further work is needed to prove deliverability in preparation for a national roll-out of the first major targeted screening programme. The UK has been world leading in addressing logistical issues with lung cancer screening through clinical trials, implementation pilots, and the National Health Service (NHS) England Targeted Lung Health Check Programme. In this Policy Review, we describe the consensus reached by a multiprofessional group of experts in lung cancer screening on the key requirements and priorities for effective implementation of a programme. We summarise the output from a round-table meeting of clinicians, behavioural scientists, stakeholder organisations, and representatives from NHS England, the UKNSC, and the four UK nations. This Policy Review will be an important tool in the ongoing expansion and evolution of an already successful programme, and provides a summary of UK expert opinion for consideration by those organising and delivering lung cancer screenings in other countries.

Barriers and facilitators to engaging in smoking cessation support among lung screening participants.

INTRODUCTION: Embedded smoking cessation support within lung cancer screening is recommended in the UK; however, little is known about why individuals decline smoking cessation support in this setting. This study identified psychosocial factors that influence smoking cessation and quit motivation among those who declined support for quitting smoking alongside lung cancer screening. METHODS: Qualitative interviews conducted between August 2019 - April 2021 with thirty adults with a smoking history, recruited from the Yorkshire Lung Screening Trial. Participants had declined smoking cessation support. Verbatim interview transcripts were thematically analysed. RESULTS: Fifty percent of participants were male and the majority were from the most deprived groups. Participants reported low motivation and a variety of barriers to stopping smoking. Participants described modifiable behavioural factors that influenced their quit motivation including self-efficacy, perceived effectiveness of stop-smoking services including smoking cessation aids, risk-minimising beliefs, lack of social support, absence of positive influences on smoking and beliefs about smoking/smoking cessation. Broader contextual factors included social isolation and stigma, COVID-19 and comorbid mental and physical health conditions that deterred smoking cessation. CONCLUSIONS: To encourage engagement in smoking cessation support during lung cancer screening, interventions should seek to encourage positive beliefs about the effectiveness of smoking cessation aids and increase confidence in quitting as part of supportive, person-centred care. Interventions should also acknowledge the wider social determinants of health among the lung screening-eligible population. IMPLICATIONS: This study provides an in-depth understanding of the beliefs surrounding smoking and smoking cessation and further potential psychosocial factors that influence those attending lung cancer screening. Many of the barriers to smoking cessation found in the present study are similar to those outside of a lung screening setting however this work offers an understanding of potential facilitators that should be considered in future lung screening programmes.

Assessing, updating and utilising primary care smoking records for lung cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography for high-risk populations is being implemented in the UK. However, inclusive identification and invitation of the high-risk population is a major challenge for equitable lung screening implementation. Primary care electronic health records (EHRs) can be used to identify lung screening-eligible individuals based on age and smoking history, but the quality of EHR smoking data is limited. This study piloted a novel strategy for ascertaining smoking status in primary care and tested EHR search combinations to identify those potentially eligible for lung cancer screening. METHODS: Seven primary care General Practices in South Wales, UK were included. Practice-level data on missing tobacco codes in EHRs were obtained. To update patient EHRs with no tobacco code, we developed and tested an algorithm that sent a text message request to patients via their GP practice to update their smoking status. The patient's response automatically updated their EHR with the relevant tobacco code. Four search strategies using different combinations of tobacco codes for the age range 55-74+ 364 were tested to estimate the likely impact on the potential lung screening-eligible population in Wales. Search strategies included: BROAD (wide range of ever smoking codes); VOLUME (wide range of ever-smoking codes excluding "trivial" former smoking); FOCUSED (cigarette-related tobacco codes only), and RECENT (current smoking within the last 20 years). RESULTS: Tobacco codes were not recorded for 3.3% of patients (n = 724/21,956). Of those with no tobacco code and a validated mobile telephone number (n = 333), 55% (n = 183) responded via text message with their smoking status. Of the 183 patients who responded, 43.2% (n = 79) had a history of smoking and were potentially eligible for lung cancer screening. Applying the BROAD search strategy was projected to result in an additional 148,522 patients eligible to receive an invitation for lung cancer screening when compared to the RECENT strategy. CONCLUSION: An automated text message system could be used to improve the completeness of primary care EHR smoking data in preparation for rolling out a national lung cancer screening programme. Varying the search strategy for tobacco codes may have profound implications for the size of the population eligible for lung-screening invitation.

Attitudes towards the integration of smoking cessation into lung cancer screening in the United Kingdom: A qualitative study of individuals eligible to attend.

INTRODUCTION: There is limited research exploring how smoking cessation treatment should be implemented into lung cancer screening in the United Kingdom. This study aimed to understand attitudes and preferences regarding the integration of smoking cessation support within lung cancer screening from the perspective of those eligible. METHODS: Thirty-one lung cancer screening eligible individuals aged 55-80 years with current or former smoking histories were recruited using community outreach and social media. Two focus groups (three participants each) and 25 individual telephone interviews were conducted. Data were analysed using the framework approach to thematic analysis. RESULTS: Three themes were generated: (1) bringing lung cancer closer to home, where screening was viewed as providing an opportunity to motivate smoking cessation, depending on perceived personal risk and screening result; (2) a sensitive approach to cessation with the uptake of cessation support considered to be largely dependent on screening practitioners' communication style and expectations of stigma and (3) creating an equitable service that focuses on ease of access as a key determinant of uptake, where integrating cessation within the screening appointment may sustain increased quit motivation and prevent loss to follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The integration of smoking cessation into lung cancer screening was viewed positively by those eligible to attend. Screening appointments providing personalized lung health information may increase cessation motivation. Services should proactively support participants with possible fatalistic views regarding risk and decreased cessation motivation upon receiving a good screening result. To increase engagement in cessation, services need to be person-centred. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This study has included patient and public involvement throughout, including input regarding study design, research materials, recruitment strategies and research summaries.

Acceptability of a standalone written leaflet for the National Health Service for England Targeted Lung Health Check Programme: A concurrent, think-aloud study.

BACKGROUND: Many countries are introducing low-dose computed tomography screening programmes for people at high risk of lung cancer. Effective communication strategies that convey risks and benefits, including unfamiliar concepts and outcome probabilities based on population risk, are critical to achieving informed choice and mitigating inequalities in uptake. METHODS: This study investigated the acceptability of an aspect of NHS England's communication strategy in the form of a leaflet that was used to invite and inform eligible adults about the Targeted Lung Health Check (TLHC) programme. Acceptability was assessed in terms of how individuals engaged with, comprehended and responded to the leaflet. Semi-structured, 'think aloud' interviews were conducted remotely with 40 UK screening-naïve current and former smokers (aged 55-73). The verbatim transcripts were analysed thematically using a coding framework based on the Dual Process Theory of cognition. RESULTS: The leaflet helped participants understand the principles and procedures of screening and fostered cautiously favourable intentions. Three themes captured the main results of the data analysis: (1) Response-participants experienced anxiety about screening results and further investigations, but the involvement of specialist healthcare professionals was reassuring; (2) Engagement-participants were rapidly drawn to information about lung cancer prevalence, and benefits of screening, but deliberated slowly about early diagnosis, risks of screening and less familiar symptoms of lung cancer; (3) Comprehension-participants understood the main principles of the TLHC programme, but some were confused by its rationale and eligibility criteria. Radiation risks, abnormal screening results and numerical probabilities of screening outcomes were hard to understand. CONCLUSION: The TLHC information leaflet appeared to be acceptable to the target population. There is scope to improve aspects of comprehension and engagement in ways that would support informed choice as a distributed process in lung cancer screening. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The insight and perspectives of patient representatives directly informed and improved the design and conduct of this study.

Co-development of an evidence-based personalised smoking cessation intervention for use in a lung cancer screening context.

BACKGROUND: Optimising smoking cessation services within a low radiation-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening programme has the potential to improve cost-effectiveness and overall efficacy of the programme. However, evidence on the optimal design and integration of cessation services is limited. We co-developed a personalised cessation and relapse prevention intervention incorporating medical imaging collected during lung cancer screening. The intervention is designed to initiate and support quit attempts among smokers attending screening as part of the Yorkshire Enhanced Stop Smoking study (YESS: ISRCTN63825779). Patients and public were involved in the development of an intervention designed to meet the needs of the target population. METHODS: An iterative co-development approach was used. Eight members of the public with a history of smoking completed an online survey to inform the visual presentation of risk information in subsequent focus groups for acceptability testing. Three focus groups (n = 13) were conducted in deprived areas of Yorkshire and South Wales with members of the public who were current smokers or recent quitters (within the last year). Exemplar images of the heart and lungs acquired by LDCT, absolute and relative lung cancer risk, and lung age were shown. Data were analysed thematically, and discussed in stakeholder workshops. Draft versions of the intervention were developed, underpinned by the Extended Parallel Processing Model to increase self-efficacy and response-efficacy. The intervention was further refined in a second stakeholder workshop with a patient panel. RESULTS: Individual LDCT scan images of the lungs and heart, in conjunction with artistic impressions to facilitate interpretation, were considered by public participants to be most impactful in prompting cessation. Public participants thought it important to have a trained practitioner guiding them through the intervention and emphasising the short-term benefits of quitting. Presentation of absolute and relative risk of lung cancer and lung age were considered highly demotivating due to reinforcement of fatalistic beliefs. CONCLUSION: An acceptable personalised intervention booklet utilising LDCT scan images has been developed for delivery by a trained smoking cessation practitioner. Our findings highlight the benefit of co-development during intervention development and the need for further evaluation of effectiveness.

Supporting patients to stop smoking when they attend lung cancer screening will improve the overall benefit and value for money of the service. This study developed a booklet containing pictures of a person's own lungs and heart taken during a lung cancer screening scan. The booklet shows areas of damage to the heart and lungs caused by smoking, delivered alongside positive messages to build confidence to stop smoking and let patients know about the benefits of stopping smoking. To develop the booklet, we worked with members of public who currently or used to smoke. Eight members of public completed a survey asking about the best ways to present information about risk. Thirteen members of the public took part in focus groups to co-develop the booklet. One workshop with academic and healthcare professionals and one workshop with a public involvement panel were held to develop and finalise the booklet. Members of the public said they wanted information about the short-term benefits of quitting smoking, and that coloured drawings next to the scan picture would help them to understand what the scan picture meant. Having someone specially trained to guide them through the booklet was considered important. Being told about their risk for lung cancer in the future was off-putting and might discourage a quit attempt. We have co-developed a booklet to support people to quit smoking when they go for lung cancer screening. The booklet is currently being tested to see whether it can support people to quit smoking.

Health behaviour change among UK adults during the pandemic: findings from the COVID-19 cancer attitudes and behaviours study.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 related lockdowns may have affected engagement in health behaviours among the UK adult population. This prospective observational study assessed socio-demographic patterning in attempts to change and maintain a range of health behaviours and changes between two time points during the pandemic. METHODS: Adults aged 18 years and over (n = 4,978) were recruited using Dynata (an online market research platform) and the HealthWise Wales platform, supplemented through social media advertising. Online surveys were conducted in August/September 2020 when lockdown restrictions eased in the UK following the first major UK lockdown (survey phase 1) and in February/March 2021 during a further national lockdown (survey phase 2). Measures derived from the Cancer Awareness Measure included self-reported attempts to reduce alcohol consumption, increase fruit/vegetable consumption, increase physical activity, lose weight and reduce/stop smoking. Multivariable logistic regressions were used to assess individual health behaviour change attempts over time, adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, employment and education. RESULTS: Around half of participants in survey phase 1 reported trying to increase physical activity (n = 2607, 52.4%), increase fruit/vegetables (n = 2445, 49.1%) and lose weight (n = 2413, 48.5%), with 19.0% (n = 948) trying to reduce alcohol consumption among people who drink. Among the 738 participants who smoked, 51.5% (n = 380) were trying to reduce and 27.4% (n = 202) to stop smoking completely. Most behaviour change attempts were more common among women, younger adults and minority ethnic group participants. Efforts to reduce smoking (aOR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.82-1.17) and stop smoking (aOR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.80-1.20) did not differ significantly in phase 2 compared to phase 1. Similarly, changes over time in attempts to improve other health behaviours were not statistically significant: physical activity (aOR: 1.07; 95% CI: 0.99-1.16); weight loss (aOR: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.90-1.00); fruit/vegetable intake (aOR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.91-1.06) and alcohol use (aOR: 1.32, 95% CI: 0.92-1.91). CONCLUSION: A substantial proportion of participants reported attempts to change health behaviours in the initial survey phase. However, the lack of change observed over time indicated that overall motivation to engage in healthy behaviours was sustained among the UK adult population, from a period shortly after the first lockdown toward the end of the second prolonged lockdown.

Randomised controlled trial and economic evaluation of a targeted cancer awareness intervention for adults living in deprived areas of the UK.

BACKGROUND: Cancer outcomes are poor in socioeconomically deprived communities, with low symptom awareness contributing to prolonged help-seeking and advanced disease. Targeted cancer awareness interventions require evaluation. METHODS: This is a randomised controlled trial involving adults aged 40+ years recruited in community and healthcare settings in deprived areas of South Yorkshire and South-East Wales. INTERVENTION: personalised behavioural advice facilitated by a trained lay advisor. CONTROL: usual care. Follow-up at two weeks and six months post-randomisation. PRIMARY OUTCOME: total cancer symptom recognition score two weeks post-randomisation. RESULTS: Two hundred and thirty-four participants were randomised. The difference in total symptom recognition at two weeks [adjusted mean difference (AMD) 0.6, 95% CI: -0.03, 1.17, p = 0.06] was not statistically significant. Intervention participants reported increased symptom recognition (AMD 0.8, 95% CI: 0.18, 1.37, p = 0.01) and earlier intended presentation (AMD -2.0, 95% CI: -3.02, -0.91, p < 0.001) at six months. "Lesser known" symptom recognition was higher in the intervention arm (2 weeks AMD 0.5, 95% CI: 0.03, 0.97 and six months AMD 0.7, 95% CI: 0.16, 1.17). Implementation cost per participant was £91.34, with no significant between-group differences in healthcare resource use post-intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Improved symptom recognition and earlier anticipated presentation occurred at longer-term follow-up. The ABACus Health Check is a viable low-cost intervention to increase cancer awareness in socioeconomically deprived communities. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN16872545.

COVID-19 and the multidisciplinary care of patients with lung cancer: an evidence-based review and commentary.

Delivering lung cancer care during the COVID-19 pandemic has posed significant and ongoing challenges. There is a lack of published COVID-19 and lung cancer evidence-based reviews, including for the whole patient pathway. We searched for COVID-19 and lung cancer publications and brought together a multidisciplinary group of stakeholders to review and comment on the evidence and challenges. A rapid review of the literature was undertaken up to 28 October 2020, producing 144 papers, with 113 full texts screened. We focused on new primary data collection (qualitative or quantitative evidence) and excluded case reports, editorials and commentaries. Following exclusions, 15 published papers were included in the review and are summarised. They included one qualitative paper and 14 quantitative studies (surveys or cohort studies), with a total of 2295 lung cancer patients data included (mean study size 153 patients; range 7-803). Review of current evidence and commentary included awareness and help-seeking; lung cancer screening; primary care assessment and referral; diagnosis and treatment in secondary care, including oncology and surgery; patient experience and palliative care. Cross-cutting themes and challenges were identified using qualitative methods for patients, healthcare professionals and service delivery, with a clear need for continued studies to guide evidence-based decision-making.

Intentions to participate in cervical and colorectal cancer screening during the COVID-19 pandemic: A mixed-methods study.

Worldwide, cancer screening faced significant disruption in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. If this has led to changes in public attitudes towards screening and reduced intention to participate, there is a risk of long-term adverse impact on cancer outcomes. In this study, we examined previous participation and future intentions to take part in cervical and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening following the first national lockdown in the UK. Overall, 7543 adults were recruited to a cross-sectional online survey in August-September 2020. Logistic regression analyses were used to identify correlates of strong screening intentions among 2319 participants eligible for cervical screening and 2502 eligible for home-based CRC screening. Qualitative interviews were conducted with a sub-sample of 30 participants. Verbatim transcripts were analysed thematically. Of those eligible, 74% of survey participants intended to attend cervical screening and 84% intended to complete home-based CRC screening when next invited. Thirty percent and 19% of the cervical and CRC samples respectively said they were less likely to attend a cancer screening appointment now than before the pandemic. Previous non-participation was the strongest predictor of low intentions for cervical (aOR 26.31, 95% CI: 17.61-39.30) and CRC (aOR 67.68, 95% CI: 33.91-135.06) screening. Interview participants expressed concerns about visiting healthcare settings but were keen to participate when screening programmes resumed. Intentions to participate in future screening were high and strongly associated with previous engagement in both programmes. As screening services recover, it will be important to monitor participation and to ensure people feel safe to attend.

Development and user-testing of a brief decision aid for aspirin as a preventive approach alongside colorectal cancer screening.

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.

Evaluation of a national lung cancer symptom awareness campaign in Wales.

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.

Recruitment and retention of participants from socioeconomically deprived communities: lessons from the Awareness and Beliefs About Cancer (ABACus3) Randomised Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Recruitment of research participants poses challenges in socioeconomically deprived areas. The Awareness and Beliefs About Cancer (ABACus) phase 3 Randomised Control Trial recruited adult participants from socioeconomically deprived areas using a combined healthcare/community engagement model. We report the strategies used to successfully recruit and retain our trial participant sample. METHODS: Community and healthcare settings in areas of high socioeconomic deprivation were identified by lay advisors who recruited participants opportunistically or by appointment. Follow-up was done by telephone or post at 2-weeks and 6-months after recruitment, and all participants were offered financial incentives. Qualitative interviews were conducted with lay advisors regarding their experience and reflections. RESULTS: The lay advisors identified and contacted 107 potential recruitment venues across South and West Yorkshire and South East Wales of which 41.1% (n = 42) were opened for recruitment. A total of 234 participants were recruited, with 91% (n = 212) retention at 2-weeks and 85% (n = 199) at 6-months. Community settings yielded 75% (n = 176) of participants. Participants had a mean age of 61.3 years and 63.3% (n = 148) were female, with 66% (n = 154) resident in the most deprived geographical areas. Lay advisors described recruitment as intensive, although engaging participants was easier in community settings. CONCLUSIONS: The ABACus3 trial achieved recruitment and high retention with a population that is often "hard to reach" or entirely missed in health research. Strategies were specifically tailored to engage the venues and adult residents of highly deprived areas. Future studies recruiting adults living in the most deprived areas might benefit from community recruitment and from collaborating with local gatekeepers who are key to engagement. This study adheres to CONSORT guidelines. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Retrospectively registered with ISRCTN ( http://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN16872545 ) on 12.01.2018.

Improving cancer symptom awareness and help-seeking among adults living in socioeconomically deprived communities in the UK using a facilitated health check: A protocol for the Awareness and Beliefs About Cancer (ABACus) Randomised Control Trial.

BACKGROUND: Cancer survival is lower in socioeconomically deprived communities, partly due to low awareness of symptoms, negative beliefs and delayed help-seeking. We developed an interactive health check questionnaire facilitated by trained lay advisors. It entails 29 questions about background, lifestyle and health with tailored behaviour change advice. Personalised results are printed using a traffic light (red/amber/green) system, highlighting areas where action should be taken. This is an individually randomised control trial to test effectiveness of the health check on symptom recognition. METHODS: A total 246 participants aged 40+ years will be recruited from community and healthcare settings in socioeconomically deprived areas of Yorkshire and South Wales. Participants will be randomised to receive the health check or standard care (1:1 ratio). Outcome measures include: adapted Awareness and Beliefs about Cancer (primary outcome), brief State Trait Anxiety Inventory, intentions and motivation to adopt recommended health behaviours (early symptom presentation, cancer screening and lifestyle behaviours), adapted Client Service Receipt Inventory, brief medical history/screening and demographic questionnaire at: baseline; 2-weeks; and 6-months post-randomisation. A purposive sample of intervention sessions will be audio-recorded (n = 24) and half will additionally be observed (n = 12). Semi-structured interviews will take place at 2-weeks (n = 30) and 6-months (n = 15-20) post-randomisation. The primary analysis will compare cancer symptom recognition scores between arms at 2-weeks. Secondary analysis will assess cancer beliefs, barriers/time to presentation, screening and lifestyle behaviours, anxiety and costs. A process evaluation will assess intervention fidelity, dose and contamination. The London-Surrey NHS Research Ethics Committee (Ref: 17/LO/1507) approved this trial. DISCUSSION: This is a trial of a theoretically underpinned complex intervention which has undergone phase 1 and 2 development work. The findings will evaluate evidence about the effect of the health check on symptom awareness. Although there are few exclusion criteria there are limitations regarding the population we are able to reach, who may have even higher risks of late diagnosis and poor cancer prognosis. However, the health check has the potential to improve cancer symptom awareness and encourage early help-seeking behaviour in deprived populations, thereby reducing inequalities in longer term cancer outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Retrospectively registered with ISRCTN (Ref: ISRCTN16872545 ) on 12.01.2018.

Negative cancer beliefs, recognition of cancer symptoms and anticipated time to help-seeking: an international cancer benchmarking partnership (ICBP) study.

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.

Development of a Behavior Change Intervention to Encourage Timely Cancer Symptom Presentation Among People Living in Deprived Communities Using the Behavior Change Wheel.

Background: Targeted public awareness interventions are needed to improve earlier cancer diagnosis and reduce socioeconomic inequalities in cancer outcomes. The health check (intervention) is a touchscreen questionnaire delivered by trained lay advisors that aims to raise awareness of cancer symptoms and risk factors and encourage timely help seeking. Purpose: This study aimed to apply the Behavior Change Wheel to intervention refinement by identifying barriers and facilitators to timely symptom presentation among people living in socioeconomically deprived communities. Methods: Primary data (six focus groups with health professionals, community partners and public) and secondary data (systematic review of barriers and facilitators to cancer symptom presentation) were mapped iteratively to the Behavior Change Wheel. Results: Barriers and facilitators were identified from the systematic review and focus groups comprising 14 members of the public aged over 40, 14 community partners, and 14 healthcare professionals. Barriers included poor symptom knowledge and lack of motivation to engage in preventive or proactive behaviors. Facilitators included cues/prompts to action, general practitioner preparedness to listen, and social networks. The following behavior change techniques were selected to address identified barriers and facilitators: information about health consequences, prompts/cues, credible sources, restricting physical and social environment, social support, goal setting, and action planning. Conclusions: The Behavior ChangeWheel triangulated findings from primary and secondary data sources. An intervention combining education and enablement could encourage timely symptom presentation to primary care among people living in socioeconomically deprived communities. Social encouragement and support is needed to increase symptom knowledge, challenge negative cancer beliefs, and prompt decisions to engage with the healthcare system.

Attitudes towards lung cancer screening in a population sample.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death worldwide. Routine UK lung cancer screening is not yet available, thus understanding barriers to participation in lung screening could help maximize effectiveness if introduced. METHODS: Population-based survey of 1007 adults aged 16 and over in Wales using random quota sampling. Computer-assisted face-to-face interviews included demographic variables (age, gender, smoking, social group), four lung cancer belief statements and three lung screening attitudinal items. Determinants of lung screening attitudes were examined using multivariable regression adjusted for age, gender, social group and previous exposure to lung campaign messages. RESULTS: Avoidance of lung screening due to fear of what might be found was statistically significantly associated with negative lung cancer beliefs including fatalism (aOR = 8.8, 95% CI = 5.6-13.9, P ≤ 0.001), low perceived value of symptomatic presentation (aOR = 2.4, 95% CI = 1.5-3.9, P ≤ 0.001) and low treatment efficacy (aOR = 0.3, CI = 0.2-0.7, P ≤ 0.01). Low perceived effectiveness of lung screening was significantly associated with fatalism (aOR = 6.4, 95% CI = 3.5-11.7, P ≤ 0.001), low perceived value of symptom presentation (aOR = 4.9, 95% CI = 2.7-8.9, P ≤ 0.001) and low treatment efficacy (aOR = 0.1, 95% CI = 0.1-0.3, P ≤ 0.001). In contrast, respondents who thought lung screening could reduce cancer deaths had positive beliefs about lung cancer (aOR = 0.4, 95% CI = 0.2-0.7, P ≤ 0.001) and its treatment (aOR = 6.1, 95% CI = 3.0-12.6, P ≤ 0.001). CONCLUSION: People with negative beliefs about lung cancer may be more likely to avoid lung screening. Alongside the introduction of effective early detection strategies, interventions are needed to modify public perceptions of lung cancer, particularly for fatalism.

Feasibility and acceptability of a cancer symptom awareness intervention for adults living in socioeconomically deprived communities.

BACKGROUND: Cancer survival rates in the UK are lower in comparison with similar countries in Europe and this may be linked to socioeconomic inequalities in stage of cancer diagnosis and survival. Targeted cancer awareness interventions have the potential to improve earlier symptomatic diagnosis and reduce socioeconomic inequalities in cancer outcomes. The health check is an innovative, theory-based intervention designed to increase awareness of cancer symptoms and risk factors, and encourage timely help seeking among adults living in deprived communities. METHODS: A prospective, non-randomised evaluation was undertaken to test the feasibility and acceptability of the health check for adults aged 40 years and over living in deprived areas of Wales. Primary outcomes included recruitment and retention of approximately 100 adults, reach to participants in the lowest deprivation quartile, and intervention acceptability. Secondary outcomes included self-reported cancer symptom recognition, help-seeking behaviours and state anxiety pre/post intervention. RESULTS: Of 185 individuals approached, 98 (53%) completed the intervention. Sixty-six of 98 participants were recruited from community settings (67%) and 32 from healthcare settings (33%), with 56 (57%) from the lowest deprivation quartile. Eighty-three (85%) participants completed follow-up assessment. Participants recognised on average one extra cancer symptom post intervention, with improved recognition of and anticipated presentation for non-specific symptoms. State anxiety scores remained stable. Qualitative interviews (n = 25) demonstrated that the intervention was well received and motivated change. CONCLUSIONS: Recruitment was feasible in community and healthcare settings, with good reach to adults from low socioeconomic groups. The health check intervention was acceptable and demonstrated potential for improved cancer awareness and symptom presentation, especially for non-specific symptoms, in communities most affected by cancer.