Randomised trial of population-based BRCA testing in Ashkenazi Jews: long-term secondary lifestyle behavioural outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: Ashkenazi-Jewish (AJ) population-based BRCA testing is acceptable, cost-effective and amplifies primary prevention for breast & ovarian cancer. However, data describing lifestyle impact are lacking. We report long-term results of population-based BRCA testing on lifestyle behaviour and cancer risk perception. DESIGN: Two-arm randomised controlled trials (ISRCTN73338115, GCaPPS): (a) population-screening (PS); (b) family history (FH)/clinical criteria testing. SETTING: North London AJ-population. POPULATION/SAMPLE: AJ women/men >18 years. EXCLUSIONS: prior BRCA testing or first-degree relatives of BRCA-carriers. METHODS: Participants were recruited through self-referral. All participants received informed pre-test genetic counselling. The intervention included genetic testing for three AJ BRCA-mutations: 185delAG(c.68_69delAG), 5382insC(c.5266dupC) and 6174delT(c.5946delT). This was undertaken for all participants in the PS arm and participants fulfilling FH/clinical criteria in the FH arm. Patients filled out customised/validated questionnaires at baseline/1-year/2-year/3-year follow-ups. Generalised linear-mixed models adjusted for covariates and appropriate contrast tests were used for between-group/within-group analysis of lifestyle and behavioural outcomes along with evaluating factors associated with these outcomes. Outcomes are adjusted for multiple testing (Bonferroni method), with P < 0.0039 considered significant. OUTCOME MEASURES: Lifestyle/behavioural outcomes at baseline/1-year/2-year/3-year follow-ups. RESULTS: 1034 participants were randomised to PS (n = 530) or FH (n = 504) arms. No significant difference was identified between PS- and FH-based BRCA testing approaches in terms of dietary fruit/vegetable/meat consumption, vitamin intake, alcohol quantity/ frequency, smoking behaviour (frequency/cessation), physical activity/exercise or routine breast mammogram screening behaviour, with outcomes not affected by BRCA test result. Cancer risk perception decreased with time following BRCA testing, with no difference between FH/PS approaches, and the perception of risk was lowest in BRCA-negative participants. Men consumed fewer fruits/vegetables/vitamins and more meat/alcohol than women (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Population-based and FH-based AJ BRCA testing have similar long-term lifestyle impacts on smoking, alcohol, dietary fruit/vegetable/meat/vitamin, exercise, breast screening participation and reduced cancer risk perception.

Lung Screen Uptake Trial (LSUT): Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial Testing Targeted Invitation Materials.

Rationale: Low uptake of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening, particularly by current smokers of a low socioeconomic position, compromises effectiveness and equity.Objectives: To compare the effect of a targeted, low-burden, and stepped invitation strategy versus control on uptake of hospital-based Lung Health Check appointments offering LDCT screening.Methods: In a two-arm, blinded, between-subjects, randomized controlled trial, 2,012 participants were selected from 16 primary care practices using these criteria: 1) aged 60 to 75 years, 2) recorded as a current smoker within the last 7 years, and 3) no prespecified exclusion criteria contraindicating LDCT screening. Both groups received a stepped sequence of preinvitation, invitation, and reminder letters from their primary care practitioner offering prescheduled appointments. The key manipulation was the accompanying leaflet. The intervention group's leaflet targeted psychological barriers and provided low-burden information, mimicking the concept of the U.K. Ministry of Transport's annual vehicle test ("M.O.T. For Your Lungs").Measurements and Main Results: Uptake was 52.6%, with no difference between intervention (52.3%) and control (52.9%) groups in unadjusted (odds ratio [OR], 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82-1.16) or adjusted (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.82-1.17) analyses. Current smokers were less likely to attend (adjusted OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.56-0.86) than former smokers. Socioeconomic deprivation was significantly associated with lower uptake for the control group only (P < 0.01).Conclusions: The intervention did not improve uptake. Regardless of trial arm, uptake was considerably higher than previous clinical and real-world studies, particularly given that the samples were predominantly lower socioeconomic position smokers. Strategies common to both groups, including a Lung Health Check approach, could represent a minimum standard.Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02558101) and registered prospectively with the International Standard Registered Clinical/Social Study (N21774741).

Life skills, wealth, health, and wellbeing in later life.

Life skills play a key role in promoting educational and occupational success in early life, but their relevance at older ages is uncertain. Here we measured five life skills-conscientiousness, emotional stability, determination, control, and optimism-in 8,119 men and women aged 52 and older (mean 66.7 y). We show that the number of skills is associated with wealth, income, subjective wellbeing, less depression, low social isolation and loneliness, more close relationships, better self-rated health, fewer chronic diseases and impaired activities of daily living, faster walking speed, and favorable objective biomarkers (concentration of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, vitamin D and C-reactive protein, and less central obesity). Life skills also predicted sustained psychological wellbeing, less loneliness, and a lower incidence of new chronic disease and physical impairment over a 4-y period. These analyses took account of age, sex, parental socioeconomic background, education, and cognitive function. No single life skill was responsible for the associations we observed, nor were they driven by factors such as socioeconomic status or health. Despite the vicissitudes of later life, life skills impact a range of outcomes, and the maintenance of these attributes may benefit the older population.

Effects of evidence-based strategies to reduce the socioeconomic gradient of uptake in the English NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (ASCEND): four cluster-randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Uptake in the national colorectal cancer screening programme in England varies by socioeconomic status. We assessed four interventions aimed at reducing this gradient, with the intention of improving the health benefits of screening. METHODS: All people eligible for screening (men and women aged 60-74 years) across England were included in four cluster-randomised trials. Randomisation was based on day of invitation. Each trial compared the standard information with the standard information plus the following supplementary interventions: trial 1 (November, 2012), a supplementary leaflet summarising the gist of the key information; trial 2 (March, 2012), a supplementary narrative leaflet describing people's stories; trial 3 (June, 2013), general practice endorsement of the programme on the invitation letter; and trial 4 (July-August, 2013) an enhanced reminder letter with a banner that reiterated the screening offer. Socioeconomic status was defined by the Index of Multiple Deprivation score for each home address. The primary outcome was the socioeconomic status gradient in uptake across deprivation quintiles. This study is registered, number ISRCTN74121020. FINDINGS: As all four trials were embedded in the screening programme, loss to follow-up was minimal (less than 0·5%). Trials 1 (n=163,525) and 2 (n=150,417) showed no effects on the socioeconomic gradient of uptake or overall uptake. Trial 3 (n=265 434) showed no effect on the socioeconomic gradient but was associated with increased overall uptake (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1·07, 95% CI 1·04-1·10, p<0·0001). In trial 4 (n=168 480) a significant interaction was seen with socioeconomic status gradient (p=0·005), with a stronger effect in the most deprived quintile (adjusted OR 1·11, 95% CI 1·04-1·20, p=0·003) than in the least deprived (1·00, 0·94-1·06, p=0·98). Overall uptake was also increased (1·07, 1·03-1·11, p=0·001). INTERPRETATION: Of four evidence-based interventions, the enhanced reminder letter reduced the socioeconomic gradient in screening uptake, but further reducing inequalities in screening uptake through written materials alone will be challenging. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research.

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.

Perceived diagnostic delay and cancer-related distress: a cross-sectional study of patients with colorectal cancer.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine the effect of perceived diagnostic delay on cancer-related distress and determine whether fear of cancer-recurrence and quality of life mediate this relationship. METHODS: Cross-sectional study in which 311 colorectal cancer (CRC) survivors in Scotland completed a survey, which included questions on cancer-related distress (IES-R), perceived diagnostic delay, quality of life (trial outcome index of the FACT-C: FACT-C TOI) and fear of cancer recurrence. Fifteen patients withheld consent to data matching with medical records, leaving a sample size of 296. Participants were an average of 69 years old (range 56 to 81) and between 3.5 and 12 years post-diagnosis. Multiple regressions were used to test predictors of distress and regression and bootstrapping to test for mediation. RESULTS: Perceived diagnostic delay was correlated with higher cancer-related distress, while objective markers of diagnostic delay (disease stage at diagnosis and treatment received) were not. Some of the relationship between perceived diagnostic delay and cancer-related distress was mediated by quality of life, but not by fear of cancer recurrence. CONCLUSIONS: Perceived diagnostic delay was associated with higher cancer-related distress among CRC survivors. While poorer quality of life partly explained such associations, fear of cancer recurrence, stage at diagnosis and treatment did not. The exact features of diagnostic delay that are associated with cancer-related distress remain unclear. Future research should examine the experiences patients go through prior to diagnosis that may increase distress, in an effort to improve our understanding of the factors affecting emotional wellbeing among CRC survivors. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

What do people fear about cancer? A systematic review and meta-synthesis of cancer fears in the general population.

BACKGROUND: Cancer has long inspired fear, but the effect of fear is not well understood; it seems both to facilitate and to deter early diagnosis behaviours. To elucidate fear's behavioural effects, we systematically reviewed and synthesised qualitative literature to explore what people fear about cancer. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, PsycInfo, Web of Science, AnthroSource, and Anthrobase for studies on cancer fear in breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening and analysed 102 studies from 26 countries using thematic synthesis. RESULTS: Fears of cancer emanated from a core view of cancer as a vicious, unpredictable, and indestructible enemy, evoking fears about its proximity, the (lack of) strategies to keep it at bay, the personal and social implications of succumbing, and fear of dying from cancer. CONCLUSIONS: This view of cancer as 'an enemy' reprises the media's 'war on cancer' theme and may affect the acceptance of cancer early detection and prevention messages, since cancer's characteristics influenced whether 'fight' or 'flight' was considered appropriate.

Perceived Life Expectancy Is Associated with Colorectal Cancer Screening in England.

BACKGROUND: Cancer screening is a behavior that represents investment in future health. Such investment may depend on how much 'future' a person expects. PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate the prospective association between perceived personal life expectancy and participation in fecal occult blood test screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) in a national program. METHODS: Data were from interviews with 3975 men and women in the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (ELSA) within the eligible age range for the national screening program (60 to 74 years). Perceived life expectancy was indexed as the individual's estimate of their chance of living another 10-15 years (exact time varied by age), assessed in 2008/2009. Participation in CRC screening from 2010 to 2012/2013 was assessed in 2012/2013. Logistic regression was used to estimate the association between perceived life expectancy and screening participation, adjusted for numeracy and known mortality risk factors. RESULTS: Overall, 71% of respondents (2817/3975) reported completing at least one fecal occult blood test (FOBt) during the follow-up. Screening uptake was 76% (1272/1683) among those who estimated their 10-15-year life expectancy as 75-100%, compared with 52% (126/243) among those who estimated theirs as 0-25% (adjusted OR 1.74, 95% CI 1.29-2.34). CONCLUSIONS: A longer perceived life expectancy is associated with greater likelihood of participating in CRC screening in England. However, half of people with a low perceived life expectancy still participated in screening. Given that CRC screening is recommended for adults with a remaining life expectancy of ≥10 years, future research should investigate how to communicate the aims of screening more effectively.

The development and validation of an index to predict 10-year mortality risk in a longitudinal cohort of older English adults.

Background: we aimed to develop and validate a population-representative 10-year mortality risk index for older adults in England. Methods: data were from 10,798 men and women aged 50 years and older in the population-based English Longitudinal Study of Ageing in 2002/03, randomly split into development (n = 5,377) and validation cohorts (n = 5,421). Participants were asked about their sociodemographics, health behaviours, comorbidities, and functional status in the home-based interviews. Variables that were independently associated with all-cause mortality through March 2013 in the development cohort were weighted relative to one another to develop risk point scores for the index that was calibrated in the validation cohort. Results: the validated 10-year mortality risk index assigns points for: increasing age (50-59 years: 0 points; 60-64: 1 point; 65-69: 3 points; 70-74: 5 points; 75-79: 7 points; 80-84: 9 points; ≥85: 12 points), male (2 points), no vigorous physical activity (1 point), smoking (2 points), having a diagnosis of cancer (1 point), chronic lung disease (2 points) or heart failure (4 points), and having difficulty preparing a hot meal (2 points), pushing or pulling large objects (1 point) or walking 100 yards (1 point). In the full study cohort, 10-year mortality rates increased from 1.7% (11/664) in those with 0 points to 95% (189/199) among those with ≥16 points. Conclusion: this highly predictive 10-item mortality risk index is valid in the English population aged 50 years and older. It uses simple information that is often available in research studies and patient reports, and does not require biomarker data to predict mortality.

Cluster-randomised non-inferiority trial comparing DVD-assisted and traditional genetic counselling in systematic population testing for BRCA1/2 mutations.

BACKGROUND: Newer approaches to genetic counselling are required for population-based testing. We compare traditional face-to-face genetic counselling with a DVD-assisted approach for population-based BRCA1/2 testing. METHODS: A cluster-randomised non-inferiority trial in the London Ashkenazi Jewish population. INCLUSION CRITERIA: Ashkenazi Jewish men/women >18 years; exclusion criteria: (a) known BRCA1/2 mutation, (b) previous BRCA1/2 testing and (c) first-degree relative of BRCA1/2 carrier. Ashkenazi Jewish men/women underwent pre-test genetic counselling prior to BRCA1/2 testing in the Genetic Cancer Prediction through Population Screening trial (ISRCTN73338115). Genetic counselling clinics (clusters) were randomised to traditional counselling (TC) and DVD-based counselling (DVD-C) approaches. DVD-C involved a DVD presentation followed by shorter face-to-face genetic counselling. Outcome measures included genetic testing uptake, cancer risk perception, increase in knowledge, counselling time and satisfaction (Genetic Counselling Satisfaction Scale). Random-effects models adjusted for covariates compared outcomes between TC and DVD-C groups. One-sided 97.5% CI was used to determine non-inferiority. SECONDARY OUTCOMES: relevance, satisfaction, adequacy, emotional impact and improved understanding with the DVD; cost-minimisation analysis for TC and DVD-C approaches. RESULTS: 936 individuals (clusters=256, mean-size=3.6) were randomised to TC (n=527, clusters=134) and DVD-C (n=409, clusters=122) approaches. Groups were similar at baseline, mean age=53.9 (SD=15) years, women=66.8%, men=33.2%. DVD-C was non-inferior to TC for increase in knowledge (d=-0.07; lower 97.5% CI=-0.41), counselling satisfaction (d=-0.38, 97.5% CI=1.2) and risk perception (d=0.08; upper 97.5% CI=3.1). Group differences and CIs did not cross non-inferiority margins. DVD-C was equivalent to TC for uptake of genetic testing (d=-3%; lower/upper 97.5% CI -7.9%/1.7%) and superior for counselling time (20.4 (CI 18.7 to 22.2) min reduction (p<0.005)). 98% people found the DVD length and information satisfactory. 85-89% felt it improved their understanding of risks/benefits/implications/purpose of genetic testing. 95% would recommend it to others. The cost of genetic counselling for DVD-C=£7787 and TC=£17 307. DVD-C resulted in cost savings=£9520 (£14/volunteer). CONCLUSIONS: DVD-C is an effective, acceptable, non-inferior, time-saving and cost-efficient alternative to TC. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN 73338115.

Attitudes towards lung cancer screening in socioeconomically deprived and heavy smoking communities: informing screening communication.

BACKGROUND: While discussion continues over the future implementation of lung cancer screening, low participation from higher risk groups could limit the effectiveness of any national screening programme. OBJECTIVES: To compare smokers' beliefs about lung cancer screening with those of former and never smokers within a low socioeconomic status (SES) sample, to explore the views of lower SES smokers and ex-smokers in-depth, and to provide insights into effective engagement strategies. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Using proactive, community-based recruitment methods, we surveyed 175 individuals from socioeconomically deprived communities with high smoking prevalence and subsequently interviewed 21 smokers and ex-smokers. Participants were approached in community settings or responded to a mail-out from their housing association. RESULTS: Interviewees were supportive of screening in principle, but many were doubtful about its ability to deliver long-term survival benefit for their generation of "heavy smokers." Lung cancer was perceived as an uncontrollable disease, and the survey data showed that fatalism, worry and perceived risk of lung cancer were particularly high among smokers compared with non-smokers. Perceived blame and stigma around lung cancer as a self-inflicted smokers' disease were implicated by interviewees as important social deterrents of screening participation. The belief that lungs are not a treatable organ appeared to be a common lay explanation for poor survival and undermined the potential value of screening. CONCLUSIONS: Attitudes towards screening among this high-risk group are complex. Invitation strategies need to be carefully devised to achieve equitable participation in screening.

Ethnic minority women prefer strong recommendations to be screened for cancer.

BACKGROUND: Cancer screening invitations can explicitly recommend attendance or encourage individuals to consider the risks and benefits before deciding for themselves. Public preferences for these approaches might vary. We explored ethnic minority women's preferences for a strong recommendation to be screened. METHODS: Women aged 30-60 years from Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Caribbean, African and white British backgrounds (n = 120 per group) completed face-to-face interviews with a multi-lingual interviewer. The interview included a question on which approach to screening invitations they would prefer: i) A strong recommendation from the National Health Service (NHS) to go for screening, ii) A statement that the NHS thinks you should go for screening, but it's up to you to decide, iii) No recommendation. Analyses examined predictors of preference for a strong recommendation. RESULTS: Preferences varied by ethnicity (χ 2(5) = 98.20, p <.001). All ethnic minority groups had a preference for a strong recommendation to be screened (53-86% across ethnic groups vs 31% white British). Socio-demographic factors (marital status, education and employment), and indicators of acculturation (main language and migration status), contributed to explaining recommendation preferences (χ 2(5) = 35.95 and χ 2(3) = 11.59, respectively, both p <.001), but did not mediate the ethnicity effect entirely. Self-rated comprehension of written health information did not contribute to the model. CONCLUSIONS: A strong recommendation to participate in cancer screening appears to be important for ethnic minority women, particularly non-English speakers. Future research could explore how to best arrive at a consensus that respects patient autonomy while also accommodating those that would prefer to be guided by a trusted source.

Cancer and heart attack survivors' expectations of employment status: results from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing.

BACKGROUND: Sociodemographic, health- and work-related factors have been found to influence return to work in cancer survivors. It is feasible though that behavioural factors, such as expectation of being at work, could also affect work-related outcomes. Therefore, the effect of earlier identified factors and expectation of being at work on future employment status in cancer survivors was explored. To assess the degree to which these factors specifically concern cancer survivors, a comparison with heart attack survivors was made. METHODS: Data from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing were used. Cancer and heart attack survivors of working age in the UK were included and followed up for 2 years. Baseline characteristics of both cancer and heart attack survivors were compared regarding employment status. Univariate and multivariate regression analyses were performed in survivors at work, and the interaction between independent variables and diagnose group was assessed. RESULTS: In cancer survivors at work (N = 159), alcohol consumption, participating in moderate or vigorous sport activities, general health and participation were univariate associated with employment status at two-year follow-up. Only fair general health (compared to very good general health) remained statistically significant in the multivariate model (OR 0.31; 95% CI 0.13-0.76; p = 0.010). In heart attack survivors at work (N = 78), gender, general health and expectation of being at work were univariate associated with employment status at follow-up. Female gender (OR 0.03; 95% CI 0.00-0.57; p = 0.018) and high expectation of being at work (OR 10.68; 95% CI 1.23-93.92; p = 0.033) remained significant in the multivariate model. The influence of gender (p = 0.066) and general health (p = 0.020) regarding employment status was found to differ significantly between cancer and heart attack survivors. CONCLUSIONS: When predicting future employment status in cancer survivors in the UK, general health is the most relevant factor to consider. While expectation of being at work did not show any significant influence in cancer survivors, in heart attack survivors, it should not be disregarded though, when developing interventions to affect their employment status. Future research should focus on more specific measures for expectation, and additional behavioural factors, such as self-efficacy, and their effect on employment status.

Impact of a decision aid about stratified ovarian cancer risk-management on women's knowledge and intentions: a randomised online experimental survey study.

BACKGROUND: Risk stratification using genetic and other types of personal information could improve current best available approaches to ovarian cancer risk reduction, improving identification of women at increased risk of ovarian cancer and reducing unnecessary interventions for women at lower risk. Amounts of information given to women may influence key informed decision-related outcomes, e.g. knowledge. The primary aim of this study was to compare informed decision-related outcomes between women given one of two versions (gist vs. extended) of a decision aid about stratified ovarian cancer risk-management. METHODS: This was an experimental survey study comparing the effects of brief (gist) information with lengthier, more detailed (extended) information on cognitions relevant to informed decision-making about participating in risk-stratified ovarian cancer screening. Women with no personal history of ovarian cancer were recruited through an online survey company and randomised to view the gist (n = 512) or extended (n = 519) version of a website-based decision aid and completed an online survey. Primary outcomes were knowledge and intentions. Secondary outcomes included attitudes (values) and decisional conflict. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the gist and extended conditions in knowledge about ovarian cancer (time*group interaction: F = 0.20, p = 0.66) or intention to participate in ovarian cancer screening based on genetic risk assessment (t(1029) = 0.43, p = 0.67). There were also no between-groups differences in secondary outcomes. In the sample overall (n = 1031), knowledge about ovarian cancer increased from before to after exposure to the decision aid (from 5.71 to 6.77 out of a possible 10: t = 19.04, p < 0.001), and 74% of participants said that they would participate in ovarian cancer screening based on genetic risk assessment. CONCLUSIONS: No differences in knowledge or intentions were found between women who viewed the gist version and women who viewed the extended version of a decision aid about risk-stratified ovarian cancer screening. Knowledge increased for women in both decision aid groups. Further research is needed to determine the ideal volume and type of content for decision aids about stratified ovarian cancer risk-management. TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: This study was registered with the ISRCTN registry; registration number: ISRCTN48627877 .

Sexuality after a cancer diagnosis: A population-based study.

BACKGROUND: This study explored differences in sexual activity, function, and concerns between cancer survivors and cancer-free controls in a population-based study. METHODS: The data were from 2982 men and 3708 women who were 50 years old or older and were participating in the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing. Sexual well-being was assessed with the Sexual Relationships and Activities Questionnaire, and cancer diagnoses were self-reported. RESULTS: There were no differences between cancer survivors and controls in levels of sexual activity (76.0% vs 78.5% for men and 58.2% vs 55.5% for women) or sexual function. Men and women with cancer diagnoses were more dissatisfied with their sex lives than controls (age-adjusted percentages: 30.9% vs 19.8% for men [P = .023] and 18.2% vs 11.8% for women [P = .034]), and women with cancer were more concerned about levels of sexual desire (10.2% vs 7.1%; P = .006). Women diagnosed < 5 years ago were more likely to report difficulty with becoming aroused (55.4% vs 31.8%; P = .016) and achieving orgasm (60.6% vs 28.3%; P < .001) and were more concerned about sexual desire (14.8% vs 7.1%; P = .007) and orgasmic experience (17.6% vs 7.1%; P = .042) than controls, but there were no differences in men. CONCLUSIONS: Self-reports of sexual activity and functioning in older people with cancer are broadly comparable to age-matched, cancer-free controls. There is a need to identify the causes of sexual dissatisfaction among long-term cancer survivors despite apparently normal levels of sexual activity and function for their age. The development of interventions addressing low sexual desire and problems with sexual functioning in women is also important and may be particularly relevant for cancer survivors after treatment. Cancer 2016;122:3883-3891. © 2016 American Cancer Society.

Cancer fear and fatalism among ethnic minority women in the United Kingdom.

BACKGROUND: Cancer fear and fatalism are believed to be higher in ethnic minorities and may contribute to lower engagement with cancer prevention and early detection. We explored the levels of cancer fear and fatalism in six ethnic groups in the United Kingdom and examined the contribution of acculturation and general fatalism. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey of 720 White British, Caribbean, African, Indian, Pakistani, and Bangladeshi women (120 of each) was conducted. Three items assessed cancer fear and two cancer fatalism. Acculturation was assessed using (self-reported) migration status, ability to speak English, and understanding of health leaflets; general fatalism with a standard measure. RESULTS: Relative to White British women, African and Indian women were more fearful of cancer, Bangladeshi women less fearful, and Pakistani and Caribbean women were similar to White British women. Cancer fatalism was higher in all the ethnic minority groups compared with White British women. Less acculturated women were less likely to worry (ORs 0.21-0.45, all P<0.05) or feel particularly afraid (ORs 0.11-0.31, all P<0.05) but more likely to feel uncomfortable about cancer (ORs 1.97-3.03, all P<0.05). Lower acculturation (ORs 4.30-17.27, P<0.05) and general fatalism (OR 2.29, P<0.05) were associated with the belief that cancer is predetermined. CONCLUSIONS: In general, cancer fear and fatalism are more prevalent among ethnic minority than White British women and even more so in less acculturated ethnic minorities. This may affect their participation in cancer prevention and early detection.

Use of a 12 months' self-referral reminder to facilitate uptake of bowel scope (flexible sigmoidoscopy) screening in previous non-responders: a London-based feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: In March 2013, NHS England extended its national Bowel Cancer Screening Programme to include 'one-off' Flexible Sigmoidoscopy screening (NHS Bowel Scope Screening, BSS) for men and women aged 55. With less than one in two people currently taking up the screening test offer, there is a strong public health mandate to develop system-friendly interventions to increase uptake while the programme is rolling out. This study aimed to assess the feasibility of sending a reminder to previous BSS non-responders, 12 months after the initial invitation, with consideration for its potential impact on uptake. METHOD: This study was conducted in the ethnically diverse London Boroughs of Brent and Harrow, where uptake is below the national average. Between September and November 2014, 160 previous non-responders were randomly selected to receive a reminder of the opportunity to self-refer 12 months after their initial invitation. The reminder included instructions on how to book an appointment, and provided options for the time and day of the appointment and the gender of the endoscopist performing the test. To address barriers to screening, the reminder was sent with a brief locally tailored information leaflet designed specifically for this study. Participants not responding within 4 weeks were sent a follow-up reminder, after which there was no further intervention. Self-referral rates were measured 8 weeks after the delivery of the follow-up reminder and accepted as final. RESULTS: Of the 155 participants who received the 12 months' reminder (returned to sender, n=5), 30 (19.4%) self-referred for an appointment, of which 24 (15.5%) attended and were successfully screened. Attendance rates differed by gender, with significantly more women attending an appointment than men (20.7% vs 8.8%, respectively; OR=2.73, 95% CI=1.02-7.35, P=0.05), but not by area (Brent vs Harrow) or area-level deprivation. Of the 30 people who self-referred for an appointment, 27 (90%) indicated a preference for a same-sex practitioner, whereas three (10%) gave no preference. Preference for a same-sex practitioner was higher among women than men (χ(2)=7.78, P<0.05), with only 67% of men (six of nine) requesting a same-sex practitioner, compared with 100% of women (n=21). CONCLUSIONS: Sending previous non-responders a 12 months' reminder letter with a brief information leaflet is a feasible and efficacious intervention, which merits further investigation in a randomised controlled trial.

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

BACKGROUND: There is a socioeconomic gradient in the uptake of screening in the English NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP), potentially leading to inequalities in outcomes. We tested whether endorsement of bowel cancer screening by an individual's general practice (GP endorsement; GPE) reduced this gradient. METHODS: A cluster-randomised controlled trial. Over 20 days, individuals eligible for screening in England from 6480 participating general practices were randomly allocated to receive a GP-endorsed or the standard invitation letter. The primary outcome was the proportion of people adequately screened and its variation by quintile of Index of Multiple Deprivation. RESULTS: We enrolled 265,434 individuals. Uptake was 58.2% in the intervention arm and 57.5% in the control arm. After adjusting for age, sex, hub and screening episode, GPE increased the overall odds of uptake (OR=1.07, 95% CI 1.04-1.10), but did not affect its socioeconomic gradient. We estimated that implementing GPE could result in up to 165 more people with high or intermediate risk colorectal adenomas and 61 cancers detected, and a small one-off cost to modify the standard invitation (£78,000). CONCLUSIONS: Although GPE did not improve its socioeconomic gradient, it offers a low-cost approach to enhancing overall screening uptake within the NHS BCSP.

A national cluster-randomised controlled trial to examine the effect of enhanced reminders on the socioeconomic gradient in uptake in bowel cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: The NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme in England offers biennial guaiac faecal occult blood testing (gFOBt). There is a socioeconomic gradient in participation and socioeconomically disadvantaged groups have worse colorectal cancer survival than more advantaged groups. We compared the effectiveness and cost of an enhanced reminder letter with the usual reminder letter on overall uptake of gFOBt and the socioeconomic gradient in uptake. METHODS: We enhanced the usual reminder by including a heading 'A reminder to you' and a short paragraph restating the offer of screening in simple language. We undertook a cluster-randomised trial of all 168 480 individuals who were due to receive a reminder over 20 days in 2013. Randomisation was based on the day of invitation. Blinding of individuals was not possible, but the possibility of bias was minimal owing to the lack of direct contact with participants. The enhanced reminder was sent to 78 067 individuals and 90 413 received the usual reminder. The primary outcome was the proportion of people adequately screened and its variation by quintile of Index of Multiple Deprivation. Data were analysed by logistic regression with conservative variance estimates to take account of cluster randomisation. RESULTS: There was a small but statistically significant (P=0.001) increase in participation with the enhanced reminder (25.8% vs 25.1%). There was significant (P=0.005) heterogeneity of the effect by socioeconomic status with an 11% increase in the odds of participation in the most deprived quintile (from 13.3 to 14.1%) and no increase in the least deprived. We estimated that implementing the enhanced reminder nationally could result in up to 80 more people with high or intermediate risk colorectal adenomas and up to 30 more cancers detected each year if it were implemented nationally. The intervention incurred a small one-off cost of £78 000 to modify the reminder letter. CONCLUSIONS: The enhanced reminder increases overall uptake and reduces the socioeconomic gradient in bowel cancer screening participation at little additional cost.

Smart food policies for obesity prevention.

Prevention of obesity requires policies that work. In this Series paper, we propose a new way to understand how food policies could be made to work more effectively for obesity prevention. Our approach draws on evidence from a range of disciplines (psychology, economics, and public health nutrition) to develop a theory of change to understand how food policies work. We focus on one of the key determinants of obesity: diet. The evidence we review suggests that the interaction between human food preferences and the environment in which those preferences are learned, expressed, and reassessed has a central role. We identify four mechanisms through which food policies can affect diet: providing an enabling environment for learning of healthy preferences, overcoming barriers to the expression of healthy preferences, encouraging people to reassess existing unhealthy preferences at the point-of-purchase, and stimulating a food-systems response. We explore how actions in three specific policy areas (school settings, economic instruments, and nutrition labelling) work through these mechanisms, and draw implications for more effective policy design. We find that effective food-policy actions are those that lead to positive changes to food, social, and information environments and the systems that underpin them. Effective food-policy actions are tailored to the preference, behavioural, socioeconomic, and demographic characteristics of the people they seek to support, are designed to work through the mechanisms through which they have greatest effect, and are implemented as part of a combination of mutually reinforcing actions. Moving forward, priorities should include comprehensive policy actions that create an enabling environment for infants and children to learn healthy food preferences and targeted actions that enable disadvantaged populations to overcome barriers to meeting healthy preferences. Policy assessments should be carefully designed on the basis of a theory of change, using indicators of progress along the various pathways towards the long-term goal of reducing obesity rates.