The role of defensive information processing in population-based colorectal cancer screening uptake.

BACKGROUND: Internationally, colorectal cancer screening participation remains low despite the availability of home-based testing and numerous interventions to increase uptake. To be effective, interventions should be based on an understanding of what influences individuals' decisions about screening participation. This study investigates the association of defensive information processing (DIP) with fecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based colorectal cancer screening uptake. METHODS: Regression modeling of data from a cross-sectional survey within a population-based FIT screening program was conducted. The survey included the seven subdomains of the McQueen DIP measure. The primary outcome variable was the uptake status (screening user or nonuser). Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate the odds ratio (OR) for screening nonuse by DIP (sub)domain score, with adjustments made for sociodemographic and behavioral factors associated with uptake. RESULTS: Higher scores (equating to greater defensiveness) on all DIP domains were significantly associated with lower uptake in the model adjusted for sociodemographic factors. In the model with additional adjustments for behavioral factors, the suppression subdomains of "deny immediacy to be tested" (OR, 0.53; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.43-0.65; p < .001) and "self-exemption" (OR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.68-0.96; p < .001) independently predicted nonuse of FIT-based screening. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study outside the United States that has identified DIP as a barrier to colorectal cancer screening uptake, and it is the first focused specifically on FIT-based screening. The findings suggest that two suppression barriers, namely denying the immediacy to be tested and self-exempting oneself from screening, may be promising targets for future interventions to improve uptake.

Barriers to colonoscopy in UK colorectal cancer screening programmes: Qualitative interviews with ethnic minority groups.

OBJECTIVE: People from ethnic minority backgrounds are less likely to attend colonoscopy, following faecal immunochemical test screening, and are more likely to be diagnosed with colorectal cancer at an advanced stage as a result. The aim of this research was to explore the barriers and facilitators to attending colonoscopy, perceived by ethnic minority groups living in the United Kingdom. METHODS: Semi-structured online and telephone interviews were conducted with thirty men and women of Black-African (n = 5), Black-Caribbean (n = 5), South Asian (n = 10) and White British (n = 10) descent. Participants were eligible for screening, but had not necessarily been invited for colonoscopy. All interviews were conducted in the participant's first language and were assessed using Framework-analysis, in line with a conceptual framework developed from previous interviews with healthcare professionals. RESULTS: Five thematic groups of barriers and facilitators were developed: 'Locus of control', 'Cultural attitudes and beliefs', 'Individual beliefs, knowledge and personal experiences with colonoscopy and cancer', 'Reliance on family and friends' and 'Health concerns'. Differences were observed, between ethnic groups, for: 'Locus of control', 'Cultural attitudes and beliefs' and 'Reliance on family and friends'. Black and South Asian participants frequently described the decision to attend colonoscopy as lying with 'God' (Muslims, specifically), 'the doctor', or 'family' (Locus of control). Black and South Asian participants also reported relying on friends and family for 'language, transport and emotional support' (Reliance on family and friends). Black-African participants, specifically, described cancer as 'socially taboo' (Cultural attitudes and beliefs). CONCLUSIONS: The results highlight several targets for culturally-tailored interventions to make colonoscopy more equitable.

Explaining the intention to get vaccinated against COVID-19: General attitudes towards vaccination and predictors from health behavior theories.

The goal of our study was to examine the intention to get vaccinated using predictors from the 5C Model of vaccination attitudes, the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB) and the Health Belief Model (HBM). Between August and November 2020, an online survey was delivered to 1428 participants in the UK and Germany (mean age = 40.6; 57% women), assessing socio-demographic and health factors, general vaccination attitudes, TBP and HBM variables, and COVID-19 vaccination intention. Vaccination intentions did not differ by country or survey period. Predictors of intention with the highest explanatory power in a relative weight analysis were confidence, collective responsibility (5C) perceived behavioral control, social norms, attitudes (especially negative affect & TPB cognitions), and perceived benefits (HBM). Women reported lower intention, although the effect size was small. Predictors from the TPB and HBM were effective to explain the intention to receive COVID-19 vaccines over and above socio-demographic variables, health-related factors and general vaccination attitudes. The results are interpreted in the context of current vaccination campaigns. Messages promoting sense of autonomy and control over the decision to get vaccinated, approval from significant others and reassurance that getting vaccinated will not be associated with fear or other negative feelings are important facilitators of vaccine uptake.

Testing temporal frames of colorectal cancer risks: evidence from randomized online experiments.

Low perceived risk of is associated with a low probability of engaging in risk preventive behaviours. Temporal framing has been suggested to make the risk seem higher, as narrower time frames appear to increase perceived risk and intentions to engage in risk-preventive behaviours. In two online experiments, we tested how manipulating risk information about colorectal cancer (CRC) influenced risk perception and preventive behaviours. 902 men and women aged 45-54 were recruited from an English online panel. Study 1 (N = 132) investigated how communicating CRC mortality instead of incidence rates influences risk perception, using both yearly and daily frames. In study 2 (N = 770), CRC incidence was described as occurring yearly, daily or hourly. The primary outcome measures were risk perception, intention to engage in preventive behaviours and whether participants chose to read information about ways to reduce CRC risk or skip it to finish the survey. Study 1 did not find a difference in intentions based on information about the risk of developing vs the risk of dying of CRC. Study 2 found that, while communicating CRC incidence occurring as every day increased information-seeking behaviour compared to every year and every hour (57.4% vs 45.9% vs 45.6%, p = 0.012), individuals in the daily condition were less likely to get all comprehension questions right (69.9% vs 78.2% vs 85.0%, respectively, p = 0.015). Temporal framing had no impact on perceived risk or intentions to engage in risk-reducing behaviours. While manipulating risk information in terms of temporal framing did not increase perceived risk, it may influence people's decision to engage with the information in the first place.

Adenoma characteristics associated with post-polypectomy proximal colon cancer incidence: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening is less effective at reducing cancer incidence in the proximal colon compared to the distal colorectum. We aimed to identify adenoma characteristics associated with proximal colon cancer (PCC). METHODS: Endoscopy and pathology data for patients with ≥1 adenoma detected at baseline colonoscopy were obtained from 17 UK hospitals between 2001 and 2010. Multivariable Cox regression models were used to estimate adjusted hazard ratios (aHRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for PCC, and, for comparison, distal CRC incidence, by adenoma characteristics. RESULTS: Among 18,431 patients, 152 and 105 developed PCC and distal CRC, respectively, over a median follow-up of 9.8 years. Baseline adenoma characteristics positively associated with PCC incidence included number (≥3 vs. < 3: aHR 2.10, 95% CI: 1.42-3.09), histology (tubulovillous/villous vs. tubular: aHR 1.61, 95% CI: 1.10-2.35) and location (any proximal vs. distal only: aHR 1.70, 95% CI: 1.20-2.42), for which there was borderline evidence of heterogeneity by subsite (p = 0.055). Adenoma dysplasia (high vs. low grade) was associated with distal CRC (aHR 2.42, 95% CI: 1.44-4.04), but not PCC (p-heterogeneity = 0.023). CONCLUSIONS: Baseline adenoma number, histology and proximal location were independently associated with PCC and may be important to identify patients at higher risk for post-polypectomy PCC.

Behavioural Challenges Associated With Risk-Adapted Cancer Screening.

Cancer screening programmes have a major role in reducing cancer incidence and mortality. Traditional internationally-adopted protocols have been to invite all 'eligible individuals' for the same test at the same frequency. However, as highlighted in Cancer Research UK's 2020 strategic vision, there are opportunities to increase effectiveness and cost-effectiveness, and reduce harms of screening programmes, by making recommendations on the basis of personalised estimates of risk. In some respects, this extends current approaches of providing more intensive levels of care outside screening programmes to individuals at very high risk due to their family history or underlying conditions. However, risk-adapted colorectal cancer screening raises a wide range of questions, not only about how best to change existing programmes but also about the psychological and behavioural effects that these changes might have. Previous studies in other settings provide some important information but remain to be tested and explored further in the context of colorectal screening. Conducting behavioural science research in parallel to clinical research will ensure that risk-adapted screening is understood and accepted by the population that it aims to serve.

Demographic and psychological predictors of community pharmacists' cancer-related conversations with patients: a cross-sectional analysis and survey study.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing interest in the role of community pharmacy in the early diagnosis and prevention of cancer. This study set out to examine how often community pharmacists (CPs) encourage patients to spot or respond to potential signs and symptoms of cancer, and how often they help people to make an informed decision about taking part in bowel cancer screening. METHODS: Data from 400 UK CPs, who completed the 2018 Cancer Research UK Healthcare Professional Tracker survey, were analysed. The primary outcomes were: 'how often CPs encourage patients to spot or respond to potential signs and symptoms of cancer' and 'how often CPs encourage eligible people to make an informed decision to participate in bowel cancer screening'. Associations between behaviours and demographic and psychological variables (Capability, Opportunity and Motivation) were assessed using multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: Most (n = 331, 82.8%) CPs reported occasionally, frequently or always encouraging patients to spot or respond to potential signs and symptoms of cancer, while only half (n = 203, 50.8%) reported occasionally, frequently or always helping people make an informed decision to participate in bowel cancer screening. Female sex (aOR: 3.20, 95%CI: 1.51, 6.81; p < 0.01) and increased Opportunity (aOR: 1.72, 95%CIs: 1.12, 2.64; p < 0.05) and Motivation (aOR: 1.76, 95%CIs: 1.37, 2.27; p < 0.001) were associated with encouraging patients to spot or respond to potential signs and symptoms of cancer; all three psychological variables were associated with helping people to make an informed decision to participate in bowel cancer screening (Capability: aOR: 1.39, 95%CIs: 1.26, 1.52, p < 0.001; Opportunity: aOR: 1.44, 95%CIs: 1.11, 1.87; p < 0.01; Motivation: aOR: 1.45, 95%CIs: 1.05, 2.00; p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Most CPs encourage patients to spot or respond to potential cancer symptoms, while only half help them make an informed decision to participate in bowel cancer screening. A multifaceted approach, targeting multiple COM-B components, is required to change these behaviours.

Testing Enhanced Active Choice to Optimize Acceptance and Participation in a Population-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening Program in Malta.

Opt-out strategies have been shown to improve participation in cancer screening; however, there are ethical concerns regarding the presumed consent. In this study, we tested an alternative opt-in strategy, called: "enhanced active choice," in which the response options summarize the consequences of the decision. The study was conducted as part of the Maltese colorectal cancer screening program, which offers men and women, aged 60-64, a "one-off" fecal immunochemical test (FIT). A total of 8349 individuals were randomly assigned to receive either an invitation letter that featured a standard opt-in strategy (control condition), or an alternative letter with a modified opt-in strategy (enhanced active choice condition). Our primary outcome was participation three months after the invitation was delivered. Additionally, we also compared the proportion who said they wanted to take part in screening. We used multivariable logistic regression for the analysis. Overall, 48.4% (N = 4042) accepted the invitation and 42.4% (N = 3542) did the screening test. While there were no statistically significant differences between the two conditions in terms of acceptance and participation, enhanced active choice did increase acceptance among men by 4.6 percentage points, which translated to a significant increase in participation of 3.4 percentage points. We conclude that enhanced active choice can improve male screening participation. Given the higher risk of CRC in men, as well as their lower participation screening, we believe this to be an important finding.

WASh multicentre randomised controlled trial: water-assisted sigmoidoscopy in English NHS bowel scope screening.

OBJECTIVES: The English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme invites 55 year olds for a sigmoidoscopy (Bowel Scope Screening (BSS)), aiming to resect premalignant polyps, thus reducing cancer incidence. A national patient survey indicated higher procedural pain than anticipated, potentially impacting on screening compliance and effectiveness. We aimed to assess whether water-assisted sigmoidoscopy (WAS), as opposed to standard CO2 technique, improved procedural pain and detection of adenomatous polyps. DESIGN: The WASh (Water-Assisted Sigmoidoscopy) trial was a multicentre, single-blind, randomised control trial for people undergoing BSS. Participants were randomised to either receive WAS or CO2 from five sites across England. The primary outcome measure was patient-reported moderate/severe pain, as assessed by patients on a standard Likert scale post procedure prior to discharge. The key secondary outcome was adenoma detection rate (ADR). The costs of each technique were also measured. RESULTS: 1123 participants (50% women, mean age 55) were randomised (561 WAS, 562 CO2). We found no difference in patient-reported moderate/severe pain between WAS and CO2 (14% in WAS, 15% in CO2; p=0.47). ADR was 15% in the CO2 arm and 11% in the WAS arm (p=0.03); however, it remained above the minimum national performance standard in both arms. There was no statistical difference in mean number of adenomas nor overall polyp detection rate. There was negligible cost difference between the two techniques. CONCLUSION: In the context of enema-prepared unsedated screening sigmoidoscopies performed by screening-accredited endoscopists, no difference in patient-reported pain was seen when using either a CO2 or WAS intubation technique. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN81466870.

Medication use and risk of proximal colon cancer: a systematic review of prospective studies with narrative synthesis and meta-analysis.

PURPOSE: Evidence of differences in the etiology of, and poorer survival from, proximal colon compared to the distal colorectum, necessitates research into its risk factors. This systematic review summarizes the evidence on medication use and proximal colon cancer risk. METHODS: MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for prospective studies investigating nine medication groups, namely non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), exogenous hormones, i.e., hormone replacement therapy (HRT) or oral contraceptives (OCs), statins, proton pump inhibitors, anti-hypertensives, metformin (an antidiabetic), antidiarrheals or laxatives, and the risk of proximal colon cancer. Narrative synthesis and meta-analyses, using random effects models to estimate risk ratios (RRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs), were conducted. RESULTS: Twenty nine publications investigating NSAIDs (n = 13), exogenous hormones [HRT (n = 9) or OCs (n = 4)] statins (n = 5), anti-hypertensives (n = 1), and metformin (n = 1) were included. Summary RRs reported a protective effect of aspirin use (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.73-0.89) but no associations between HRT (RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.83-1.02), OC (RR 1.06, 95% CI 0.98-1.14) or statin use (RR 0.94, 95% CI 0.67-1.31), and proximal colon cancer incidence compared to never/non-use. One study on metformin and one on anti-hypertensives reported no association. Sources of between-study heterogeneity included study design, period of exposure ascertainment, exposure source, and exposure comparison, but this exploration was hindered by the small numbers of studies. CONCLUSION: Despite some studies on NSAID or HRT use, evidence on the impact of a range of medications on proximal colon cancer risk is limited. This highlights the need for more research to inform chemoprevention strategies.

Patient barriers and facilitators of colonoscopy use: A rapid systematic review and thematic synthesis of the qualitative literature.

Colonoscopy is the gold standard test in the diagnosis of colorectal cancer. Despite this, many people across the world decline the procedure when invited for screening, surveillance or diagnostic evaluation. The aim of this review was to characterise the barriers and facilitators of colonoscopy use described in the qualitative literature. We searched PubMed and PsychInfo for studies that explored barriers and facilitators of colonoscopy use. To determine the eligibility of studies, we first reviewed titles, then abstracts, and finally the full paper. We started with a narrow search, which we expanded successively, until the number of new publications eligible after abstract review was <1% of the total number of publications identified. Papers were eligible if they: 1) focussed on an adult population, 2) used a qualitative research design and, 3) described at least one patient-related theme regarding colonoscopy use. We then extracted qualitative data from eligible papers and analysed using thematic synthesis. Fifty-seven studies met the inclusion criteria. Most explored barriers and facilitators of screening colonoscopy (n=53, 93.0%) and were conducted in the USA (n=48, 84.2%). Key psychological and social factors included: 'fear of pain and discomfort', 'concerns about doing the bowel preparation', and whether the test was recommended by the patient's physician. Key practical factors included cost, and whether colonoscopy was covered by the patient's healthcare insurance. Studies mostly focussed on screening colonoscopy in the USA, where there is no universal healthcare coverage. To better understand the barriers and facilitators in other contexts, further research is needed.

Ethnic inequalities in older adults bowel cancer awareness: findings from a community survey conducted in an ethnically diverse region in England.

BACKGROUND: To date, research exploring the public's awareness of bowel cancer has taken place with predominantly white populations. To enhance our understanding of how bowel cancer awareness varies between ethnic groups, and inform the development of targeted interventions, we conducted a questionnaire study across three ethnically diverse regions in Greater London, England. METHODS: Data were collected using an adapted version of the bowel cancer awareness measure. Eligible adults were individuals, aged 60+ years, who were eligible for screening. Participants were recruited and surveyed, verbally, by staff working at 40 community pharmacies in Northwest London, the Harrow Somali association, and St. Mark's Bowel Cancer Screening Centre. Associations between risk factor, symptom and screening awareness scores and ethnicity were assessed using multivariate regression. RESULTS: 1013 adults, aged 60+ years, completed the questionnaire; half were of a Black, Asian or Minority ethnic group background (n = 507; 50.0%). Participants recognised a mean average of 4.27 of 9 symptoms and 3.99 of 10 risk factors. Symptom awareness was significantly lower among all ethnic minority groups (all p's < 0.05), while risk factor awareness was lower for Afro-Caribbean and Somali adults, specifically (both p's < 0.05). One in three adults (n = 722; 29.7%) did not know there is a Bowel Cancer Screening Programme. Bowel screening awareness was particularly low among Afro-Caribbean and Somali adults (both p's < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Awareness of bowel cancer symptoms, risk factors and screening varies by ethnicity. Interventions should be targeted towards specific groups for whom awareness of screening and risk factors is low.

Preference for Deliberation and Perceived Usefulness of Standard- and Narrative-Style Leaflet Designs: Implications for Equitable Cancer-Screening Communication.

BACKGROUND: In the UK, cancer-screening invitations are mailed with information styled in a standard, didactic way to allow for informed choice. Information processing theory suggests this "standard style" could be more appealing to people who prefer deliberative thinking. People less likely to engage in deliberative thinking may be disenfranchised by the design of current standard-style information. PURPOSE: To examine the distribution of preference for deliberative thinking across demographic groups (Study 1) and explore associations between preference for deliberative thinking and perceived usefulness of standard- and narrative-style screening information (Study 2). METHODS: In Study 1, adults aged 45-59 (n = 4,241) were mailed a questionnaire via primary care assessing preference for deliberative thinking and demographic characteristics. In Study 2, a separate cohort of adults aged 45-59 (n = 2,058) were mailed standard- and narrative-style leaflets and a questionnaire assessing demographic characteristics, preference for deliberative thinking, and perceived leaflet usefulness. Data were analyzed using multiple regression. RESULTS: In Study 1 (n = 1,783) and Study 2 (n = 650), having lower socioeconomic status, being a women, and being of nonwhite ethnicity was associated with lower preference for deliberative thinking. In Study 2, the standard-style leaflet was perceived as less useful among participants with lower preference for deliberative thinking, while perceived usefulness of the narrative-style leaflet did not differ by preference for deliberative thinking. CONCLUSIONS: Information leaflets using a standard style may disadvantage women and those experiencing greater socioeconomic deprivation. More work is required to identify design styles that have a greater appeal for people with low preference for deliberative thinking.

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

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

Use of Social Media to Promote Cancer Screening and Early Diagnosis: Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: Social media is commonly used in public health interventions to promote cancer screening and early diagnosis, as it can rapidly deliver targeted public health messages to large numbers of people. However, there is currently little understanding of the breadth of social media interventions and evaluations, whether they are effective, and how they might improve outcomes. OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aimed to map the evidence for social media interventions to improve cancer screening and early diagnosis, including their impact on behavior change and how they facilitate behavior change. METHODS: Five databases and the grey literature were searched to identify qualitative and quantitative evaluations of social media interventions targeting cancer screening and early diagnosis. Two reviewers independently reviewed each abstract. Data extraction was carried out by one author and verified by a second author. Data on engagement was extracted using an adapted version of the key performance indicators and metrics related to social media use in health promotion. Insights, exposure, reach, and differing levels of engagement, including behavior change, were measured. The behavior change technique taxonomy was used to identify how interventions facilitated behavior change. RESULTS: Of the 23 publications and reports included, the majority (16/23, 70%) evaluated national cancer awareness campaigns (eg, breast cancer awareness month). Most interventions delivered information via Twitter (13/23, 57%), targeted breast cancer (12/23, 52%), and measured exposure, reach, and low- to medium-level user engagement, such as number of likes (9/23, 39%). There were fewer articles about colorectal and lung cancer than about breast and prostate cancer campaigns. One study found that interventions had less reach and engagement from ethnic minority groups. A small number of articles (5/23, 22%) suggested that some types of social media interventions might improve high-level engagement, such as intended and actual uptake of screening. Behavior change techniques, such as providing social support and emphasizing the consequences of cancer, were used to engage users. Many national campaigns delivered fundraising messages rather than actionable health messages. CONCLUSIONS: The limited evidence suggests that social media interventions may improve cancer screening and early diagnosis. Use of evaluation frameworks for social media interventions could help researchers plan more robust evaluations that measure behavior change. We need a greater understanding of who engages with these interventions to know whether social media can be used to reduce some health inequalities in cancer screening and early diagnosis. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2019-033592.

Faecal immunochemical tests (FIT) versus colonoscopy for surveillance after screening and polypectomy: a diagnostic accuracy and cost-effectiveness study.

OBJECTIVE: The English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) recommends 3 yearly colonoscopy surveillance for patients at intermediate risk of colorectal cancer (CRC) postpolypectomy (those with three to four small adenomas or one ≥10 mm). We investigated whether faecal immunochemical tests (FITs) could reduce surveillance burden on patients and endoscopy services. DESIGN: Intermediate-risk patients (60-72 years) recommended 3 yearly surveillance were recruited within the BCSP (January 2012-December 2013). FITs were offered at 1, 2 and 3 years postpolypectomy. Invitees consenting and returning a year 1 FIT were included. Participants testing positive (haemoglobin ≥40 µg/g) at years one or two were offered colonoscopy early; all others were offered colonoscopy at 3 years. Diagnostic accuracy for CRC and advanced adenomas (AAs) was estimated considering multiple tests and thresholds. We calculated incremental costs per additional AA and CRC detected by colonoscopy versus FIT surveillance. RESULTS: 74% (5938/8009) of invitees were included in our study having participated at year 1. Of these, 97% returned FITs at years 2 and 3. Three-year cumulative positivity was 13% at the 40 µg/g haemoglobin threshold and 29% at 10 µg/g. 29 participants were diagnosed with CRC and 446 with AAs. Three-year programme sensitivities for CRC and AAs were, respectively, 59% and 33% at 40 µg/g, and 72% and 57% at 10 µg/g. Incremental costs per additional AA and CRC detected by colonoscopy versus FIT (40 µg/g) surveillance were £7354 and £180 778, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Replacing 3 yearly colonoscopy surveillance in intermediate-risk patients with annual FIT could reduce colonoscopies by 71%, significantly cut costs but could miss 30%-40% of CRCs and 40%-70% of AAs. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN18040196; Results.

Rapid review of factors associated with flexible sigmoidoscopy screening use.

Flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) screening has been shown to reduce colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality among screened adults. The aim of this review was to identify patient-related factors associated with the screening test's use. We searched PubMed for studies that examined the association between FS screening use and one or more factors. To determine the eligibility of studies, we first reviewed titles, then abstracts, and finally the full paper. We started with a narrow search, which we expanded successively (by adding 'OR' terms) until the number of new publications eligible after abstract review was <1% of the total number of publications. We then abstracted factors from eligible papers and reported the number of times each was found to be positively or negatively associated with FS screening use. We identified 42 papers, most of which reported studies conducted in the United States of America (n = 21, 50%) and the United Kingdom (n = 13, 31%). Across studies, a wide range of factors were examined (n = 123), almost half of which were found to be associated with FS screening use at least once (n = 60). Sociodemographic and health and lifestyle factors that were frequently positively associated with FS screening use included: male gender, higher socioeconomic status and a family history of CRC. Frequently positively associated psychosocial factors included low perceived barriers and high perceived benefits. Findings suggest that future research should focus on developing a theoretical framework of cancer screening behaviour to allow a greater level of consistency and specificity in measuring key constructs.

Testing verbal quantifiers for social norms messages in cancer screening: evidence from an online experiment.

BACKGROUND: Studies have shown that presenting correct information about group norms to correct misperceptions of norms can influence health behaviours. In two online studies we investigated how different ways of communicating the current uptake of 43% of the English Bowel Scope Screening (BSS) programme affects intention among disinclined men and women. METHODS: In the first study, 202 participants were asked to interpret eight quantifiers for 43% uptake ('few', 'many', 'a considerable number', 'a large number', 'a great number', 'a lot', 'numerous' and 'nearly half') and to indicate how misleading they perceived each of them to be. In the second study, with 1245 participants, we compared the motivational impact of two quantifiers ('a large number' and 'nearly half' which were associated with the highest perceived uptake (48.9%) and considered least misleading in study 1 respectively) with a control message that did not contain any information on uptake, and a message which communicated actual uptake as a proportion (43%). RESULTS: While we found that both verbal quantifiers increased screening intentions compared with the control group (from 7.8 to 12.5%, aOR 1.72; 95%CI 1.00-2.96 in the case of 'a large number' and 14.3%, aOR 2.02; 95%CI 1.20-3.38 for 'nearly half'), simply communicating that 43% do the test, however, had no impact on intentions (9.9% vs. 7.8% aOR 1.25; 95%CI 0.73-2.16). CONCLUSION: Verbal quantifiers can be used to improve the perception of low uptake figures and avoid a demotivating effect.

Men's information-seeking behavior regarding cancer risk and screening: A meta-narrative systematic review.

OBJECTIVE: Preventive strategies are known to reduce cancer risk and incidence and improve prognosis. Men seldom seek medical information about cancer prevention and risk reduction. The aim of this meta-narrative systematic review was to critically appraise evidence from qualitative, quantitative, and mixed-methods studies that explored men's information-seeking behaviors in relation to cancer prevention and risk reduction. METHODS: MEDLINE, CINAHL Plus with Full Text, PsycINFO, PsycARTICLES, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection, Education Full Text, and ERIC were systematically searched for studies published in English between January 1, 2006 and May 30, 2016. A total of 4117 titles were identified; of which, 31 studies were included (21 qualitative studies, 9 quantitative studies, and 1 mixed-methods study). The methodological quality of the studies was appraised by using different tools. RESULTS: Most studies focused on screening for prostate (n = 18) and colorectal cancer (n = 7). Most men were passive information-gatherers rather than active information-seekers. Key sources of information included the Internet for active information-seekers and health care professionals for passive information-gatherers. Barriers to information-seeking included information overload, embarrassment, and fear. Low literacy and health literacy levels were addressed in 3 studies and were identified as impediments to active information-seeking. Facilitators to information-seeking included family support, media, celebrity endorsements, and targeted information. CONCLUSIONS: Men's information-seeking behavior regarding cancer risk reduction, prevention, and screening is influenced by several factors. This necessitates targeted interventions aimed at raising awareness of cancer prevention and screening, while accounting for men's informational needs, preferred learning strategies, and literacy levels.

Use of Two Self-referral Reminders and a Theory-Based Leaflet to Increase the Uptake of Flexible Sigmoidoscopy in the English Bowel Scope Screening Program: Results From a Randomized Controlled Trial in London.

Background: We previously initiated a randomized controlled trial to test the effectiveness of two self-referral reminders and a theory-based leaflet (sent 12 and 24 months after the initial invitation) to increase participation within the English Bowel Scope Screening program. Purpose: This study reports the results following the second reminder. Methods: Men and women included in the initial sample (n = 1,383) were re-assessed for eligibility 24 months after their invitation (12 months after the first reminder) and excluded if they had attended screening, moved away, or died. Eligible adults received the same treatment they were allocated 12 months previous, that is, no reminder ("control"), or a self-referral reminder with either the standard information booklet ("Reminder and Standard Information Booklet") or theory-based leaflet designed using the Behavior Change Wheel ("Reminder and Theory-Based Leaflet"). The primary outcome was the proportion screened within each group 12 weeks after the second reminder. Results: In total, 1,218 (88.1%) individuals were eligible. Additional uptake following the second reminder was 0.4% (2/460), 4.8% (19/399), and 7.9% (29/366) in the control, Reminder and Standard Information Booklet, and Reminder and Theory-Based Leaflet groups, respectively. When combined with the first reminder, the overall uptake for each group was 0.7% (3/461), 14.5% (67/461), and 21.5% (99/461). Overall uptake was significantly higher in the Reminder and Standard Information Booklet and Reminder and Theory-Based Leaflet groups than in the control (odds ratio [OR] = 26.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 8.1-84.0, p < .001 and OR = 46.9, 95% CI = 14.7-149.9, p < .001, respectively), and significantly higher in the Reminder and Theory-Based Leaflet group than in the Reminder and Standard Information Booklet group (OR = 1.8, 95% CI = 1.3-2.6, p < .001). Conclusion: A second reminder increased uptake among former nonparticipants. The added value of the theory-based leaflet highlights a potential benefit to reviewing the current information booklet. Trials Registry Number: ISRCTN44293755.