Changes in rural caregivers' health behaviors while supporting someone with cancer: A qualitative study.

PURPOSE: Caring for someone with cancer has a significant impact on usual routines, including caregivers' ability to maintain their own health and wellbeing. Caregivers living in rural areas face additional challenges in supporting someone with cancer, and little is known about the impact of caregiving on the health behaviors of rural caregivers. Therefore, this study explored how caring for someone with cancer affected rural caregivers' health behaviors. METHODS: Through semi-structured interviews, 20 rural caregivers described changes in their health behaviors while caring for someone with cancer and the factors underlying these changes. Specific prompts were provided for diet, physical activity, alcohol, smoking, sleep, social connection and leisure, and accessing health care when needed. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim. Content analysis was used to identify changes in health behaviors and the factors underlying these changes. The factors identified were mapped to the socioecological framework, identifying areas for intervention across multiple levels (individual, interpersonal, organizational, community, and policy). RESULTS: Rural caregivers reported both positive and negative changes to their diet, physical activity, alcohol, and smoking. Sleep, social connection and leisure, and accessing health care were negatively impacted since becoming a caregiver. CONCLUSIONS: Designing interventions to address rural caregivers' coping strategies, reduce carer burden and fatigue, improve access to cooking and exercise facilities and social support while away from home, reduce the need to travel for treatment, and increase the financial support available could yield widespread benefits for supporting the health and wellbeing of rural caregivers.

The implementation and mechanisms of advance notification for cancer screening: A scoping review.

OBJECTIVE: To describe and synthesise information on the content and delivery of advance notifications (information about cancer screening delivered prior to invitation) used to increase cancer screening participation and to understand the mechanisms that may underlie their effectiveness. METHODS: Searches related to advance notification and cancer screening were conducted in six electronic databases (APA PsycINFO, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, Embase, PubMed, Web of Science) and results were screened for eligibility. Study characteristics, features of the advance notifications (cancer type, format, delivery time, and content), and the effect of the notifications on cancer screening participation were extracted. Features were summarised and compared across effective versus ineffective notifications. RESULTS: Thirty-two articles were included in this review, reporting on 33 unique advance notifications. Of these, 79% were sent via postal mail, 79% were distributed prior to bowel cancer screening, and most were sent 2 weeks before the screening offer. Twenty-two full versions of the advance notifications were obtained for content analysis. Notifications included information about cancer risk, the benefits of screening, barriers to participation, social endorsement of cancer screening, and what to expect throughout the screening process. Of the 19 notifications whose effect was tested statistically, 68% were found to increase screening (by 0.7%-16%). Effectiveness did not differ according to the format, delivery time, or content within the notification, although some differences in cancer type were observed. CONCLUSION: Future research should explore the effectiveness of advance notification via alternative formats and for other screening contexts and disentangle the intervention- and person-level factors driving its effect on screening participation.

Decisions and prompts to screen for cervical, bowel, and breast cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate what makes Australians decide to screen and follow through for breast, cervical, and bowel cancer population screening programs. METHODS: A convenience sample (N = 962) answered open-text questions about their decision to screen and what prompted them to act in an online survey. Open text responses were coded based on shared meaning using content analysis. Frequencies of each code were calculated. RESULTS: For breast and cervical screening, decisions were commonly based on screening being routine (32.58%breast and 35.19%cervical) or receiving a reminder (20.53% breast 13.07% cervical), and similarly, common prompts were receiving a reminder (40.68% breast and 29.13% cervical), screening being routine (22.05% breast and 18.65% cervical). Participants reported deciding to screen for bowel cancer due to arrival of home screening test kit (40.50%) or the experience of loved one's cancer (13.57%) and were prompted by arrival of home test kit (23.58%), and convenience (15.72%). CONCLUSIONS: Findings can inform the development of interventions targeting non-participants of cancer screening programs. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Messages to encourage breast and cervical cancer screening should frame screening as part of regular healthcare routine. Messages to encourage bowel cancer screening should encourage immediate use of the screening kit upon arrival.