To what extent are psychological variables considered in the study of risk and protective factors for suicidal thoughts and behaviours in individuals with cancer? A systematic review of 70 years of research.

Psychological variables substantially shape the risk of suicidal thoughts and behaviours (STBs). However, it is unclear to what extent they are considered in individuals with cancer. We synthesized the quantitative research landscape concerning psychological risk/protective factors of STBs in the (psycho-) oncological context. This pre-registered review (PROSPERO-ID CRD42022331484) systematically searched the databases PubMed/Medline, CINAHL, PsycInfo, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science (as well as the grey literature and preprints). Risk of bias (RoB) was estimated using the ROBINS-I tool. Of 11,159 retrieved records, 319 studies were eligible for inclusion. Of those, 163 (51.1%) had investigated psychological factors (affective: n = 155; social: n = 65; cognitive: n = 63; personality/individual differences: n = 37; life events: n = 6), in a combined 3,561,741 participants. The most common STBs were suicidal ideation (n = 107) or death wishes (n = 20) rather than behaviour (suicide deaths: n = 26; attempts: n = 14). Most studies had a serious RoB. Thus, a large body of research investigated STBs in cancer patients/survivors, but it rarely aligned with the theoretical or clinical developments in suicide research. We propose a conceptual model of STBs in cancer delineating moderation and mediation effects to advance the integration of the fields, and to inform future research and practice.

Optimising recruitment to a lung cancer screening trial: A comparison of general practitioner and community-based recruitment.

OBJECTIVES: Pre-trial focus groups of the Early detection of Cancer of the Lung Scotland (ECLS) trial indicated that those at high risk of lung cancer are more likely to engage with community-based recruitment methods. The current study aimed to understand if general practitioner (GP) and community-based recruitment might attract different groups of people, and to quantitatively explore the demographic and psychosocial differences between people responding to GP or community-based recruitment. DESIGN: Secondary data analysis of ECLS trial baseline data. METHODS: Adults (n = 11,164) aged 50 to 75 years completed a baseline questionnaire as part of their participation in the ECLS trial. The questionnaire assessed smoking behaviour, health state, health anxiety and illness perception. Alongside demographic characteristics, how participants were made aware of the study/participant recruitment method (GP recruitment/community recruitment) was also obtained via trial records. RESULTS: The likelihood of being recruited via community-based methods increased as deprivation level decreased. Those recruited via the community had higher levels of perceived personal control of developing lung cancer and were more likely to understand their own risk of developing lung cancer, compared to those who were recruited to the trial via their GP. Health state and health anxiety did not predict recruitment methods in multivariable analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Community and opportunistic screening invitations were associated with uptake in people from less-deprived backgrounds, and therefore might not be the optimal method to reach those at high risk of lung cancer and living in more deprived areas.

The role of knowledge, primary care and community engagement to improve breast-screening access for Pakistani women in the United Kingdom: A secondary analysis of a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: Breast cancer incidence is rising among Pakistani women in the United Kingdom. However, uptake of breast screening remains low. This study aimed to improve access to breast screening for British-Pakistani women by exploring their knowledge of breast cancer and the role of primary care and community networks to support screening access amongst British-Pakistani women. METHODS: We undertook a secondary qualitative analysis of 18 semi-structured interviews with British-Pakistani women from East Lancashire in the United Kingdom. Anonymized transcripts of the interviews were used for a thematic analysis. RESULTS: Three themes were identified in the interviewees' responses: (i) 'Women's knowledge of breasts and breast cancer', which described how a cultural taboo exists around Pakistani women's bodies and around breast cancer; (ii) 'Role of primary care', which detailed how General Practitioners can support informed decisions and offer a trusted and valued information source; (iii) 'Community engagement', which described the potential to disseminate breast-screening information through the whole community, including primary care providers, all family members and mosques. CONCLUSIONS: Our analysis suggested three main targets for future interventions to improve access to breast screening for British-Pakistani women: (i) co-produced strategies to increase knowledge of breasts and breast screening; (ii) greater collaboration with local General Practitioners to support women to make informed choices about screening; and (iii) community engagement involving General Practitioners and community leaders, to inform everyone - not just screening-age women - about breast cancer and screening.

Increased Breast and Colorectal Cancer Risk in Type 2 Diabetes: Awareness Among Adults With and Without Diabetes and Information Provision on Diabetes Websites.

BACKGROUND: People with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have a higher risk of developing breast and bowel cancers but are less likely to participate in cancer screening. PURPOSE: Two interlinked studies examined public awareness of the fact that T2DM increases breast and bowel cancer risk, and provision of this information on diabetes websites. METHODS: Study-1: phase-1 surveyed awareness of T2DM-increased cancer risk in a nationally-representative British sample aged 50-74 (N = 1,458) and compared respondents with and without T2DM (n = 125 vs. n = 1,305); phase-2 surveyed an additional exclusively T2DM sample (N = 319). Study-2: High-ranking diabetes websites (N = 25) were reviewed to determine the rate of inclusion of cancer risk and cancer screening information in evident sections about diabetes-related health conditions. RESULTS: A low proportion of respondents were aware that T2DM increases risk of breast (13.7%) and bowel (27.6%) cancers, compared to much higher awareness of other diabetes-related conditions such as sight loss (82.2%) and foot problems (81.8%). Respondents with T2DM were significantly more likely than those without T2DM to be aware of all the surveyed diabetes-related health conditions (e.g., sight loss, OR: 3.14, 95%CI: 1.61-6.15; foot problems, OR: 2.58, 95%CI: 1.38-4.81), except breast (OR: 0.82, 95%CI: 0.46-1.45) and bowel (OR: 0.95, 95%CI: 0.63-1.45) cancer, for which awareness was equally low among people with and without T2DM. Few diabetes websites with a section on diabetes-related health conditions included cancer in this section (n = 4/19), and fewer still included cancer screening among any noted cancer-protective behaviors (n = 2/4). CONCLUSIONS: There is low public awareness that T2DM increases the risk of developing breast and bowel cancers, even among people with T2DM, which may be partly due to limited information provision regarding T2DM-increased cancer risk from diabetes care providers and organizations.

People with type 2 diabetes (T2D) have a higher risk of developing breast and bowel cancers. Despite this, they are less likely to participate in cancer screening, which can improve survival from cancer. We addressed two questions. Are people aware that T2D increases the risk of breast and bowel cancer? Are people being told about this by diabetes care providers and organizations? We surveyed a large representative sample of the British public (aged 50­74). We also reviewed key information about diabetes-related health problems provided on 25 top-ranking diabetes websites. There were three main findings. (1) Relatively few people knew that T2D increases the risk of breast and bowel cancer. In contrast, many people knew that T2D increases the risk of other conditions like sight loss, foot problems, and heart disease. (2) Awareness of higher cancer risk was equally low among people with T2D and those without. In contrast, knowledge of other diabetes-related conditions (e.g., sight loss, foot problems) was higher among people with T2D than those without. (3) Few websites included cancer in their key information about diabetes-related health problems. In contrast, nearly all the diabetes websites listed the more well-known risks of sight loss, foot problems, and heart disease.

Type and Severity of Mental Illness and Participation in Colorectal Cancer Screening.

INTRODUCTION: The effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening programs depends on the participation rate. This study examined the association between type and severity of mental illness and colorectal cancer screening participation. METHODS: Between 2012 and 2017, a total of 46,919 individuals were invited to sigmoidoscopy screening in Norway, and 70,019 were invited to fecal immunochemical testing. In 2022, logistic regression was used to evaluate the association between the use of antipsychotics, anxiolytics, hypnotics, and antidepressants in the year preceding the screening invitation and screening participation, adjusted for demographic and socioeconomic factors. Defined daily doses of individual drugs were used to assess dose‒response relationships. RESULTS: Overall, 19.2% (24.8% of women, 13.4% of men) of all invitees used at least 1 psychotropic medication. Nonparticipation in the 2 arms combined was associated with the use of anxiolytics (60.7% in users vs 43.2% in nonusers; OR=1.53; 95% CI=1.45, 1.62) and antipsychotics (64.3% vs 43.8%; OR=1.41; 95% CI=1.30, 1.53) and increased with higher doses for both drugs. Hypnotics and antidepressants were only weakly associated with nonparticipation in higher doses. Participation rates were 57.3%, 52.3%, 42.9%, and 35.4% in those prescribed 0, 1, 2, and 3-4 classes of psychotropic medications, respectively. The associations between the use of psychotropic medications and nonparticipation were similar for the 2 screening tests. CONCLUSIONS: These findings show significant disparities in colorectal cancer screening participation for individuals with mental illness, independent of the screening method. Moreover, screening participation varied depending on the type and severity of mental illness. Targeted interventions are warranted to ensure that people with mental illness are supported to access the benefits of colorectal cancer screening.

Understanding patient barriers and facilitators to uptake of lung screening using low dose computed tomography: a mixed methods scoping review of the current literature.

BACKGROUND: Targeted lung cancer screening is effective in reducing mortality by upwards of twenty percent. However, screening is not universally available and uptake is variable and socially patterned. Understanding screening behaviour is integral to designing a service that serves its population and promotes equitable uptake. We sought to review the literature to identify barriers and facilitators to screening to inform the development of a pilot lung screening study in Scotland. METHODS: We used Arksey and O'Malley's scoping review methodology and PRISMA-ScR framework to identify relevant literature to meet the study aims. Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods primary studies published between January 2000 and May 2021 were identified and reviewed by two reviewers for inclusion, using a list of search terms developed by the study team and adapted for chosen databases. RESULTS: Twenty-one articles met the final inclusion criteria. Articles were published between 2003 and 2021 and came from high income countries. Following data extraction and synthesis, findings were organised into four categories: Awareness of lung screening, Enthusiasm for lung screening, Barriers to lung screening, and Facilitators or ways of promoting uptake of lung screening. Awareness of lung screening was low while enthusiasm was high. Barriers to screening included fear of a cancer diagnosis, low perceived risk of lung cancer as well as practical barriers of cost, travel and time off work. Being health conscious, provider endorsement and seeking reassurance were all identified as facilitators of screening participation. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding patient reported barriers and facilitators to lung screening can help inform the implementation of future lung screening pilots and national lung screening programmes.

Optimizing the implementation of lung cancer screening in Scotland: Focus group participant perspectives in the LUNGSCOT study.

INTRODUCTION: Targeted lung cancer screening is effective in reducing lung cancer and all-cause mortality according to major trials in the United Kingdom and Europe. However, the best ways of implementing screening in local communities requires an understanding of the population the programme will serve. We undertook a study to explore the views of those potentially eligible for, and to identify potential barriers and facilitators to taking part in, lung screening, to inform the development of a feasibility study. METHODS: Men and women aged 45-70, living in urban and rural Scotland, and either self-reported people who smoke or who recently quit, were invited to take part in the study via research agency Taylor McKenzie. Eleven men and 14 women took part in three virtual focus groups exploring their views on lung screening. Focus group transcripts were transcribed and analysed using thematic analysis, assisted by QSR NVivo. FINDINGS: Three overarching themes were identified: (1) Knowledge, awareness and acceptability of lung screening, (2) Barriers and facilitators to screening and (3) Promoting screening and implementation ideas. Participants were largely supportive of lung screening in principle and described the importance of the early detection of cancer. Emotional and psychological concerns as well as system-level and practical issues were discussed as posing barriers and facilitators to lung screening. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding the views of people potentially eligible for a lung health check can usefully inform the development of a further study to test the feasibility and acceptability of lung screening in Scotland. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The LUNGSCOT study has convened a patient advisory group to advise on all aspects of study development and implementation. Patient representatives commented on the focus group study design, study materials and ethics application, and two representatives read the focus group transcripts.

Qualitative evaluation of a codesigned faith-based intervention for Muslim women in Scotland to encourage uptake of breast, colorectal and cervical cancer screening.

OBJECTIVES: This pilot study aimed to evaluate the acceptability of a codesigned, culturally tailored, faith-based online intervention to increase uptake of breast, colorectal and cervical screening in Scottish Muslim women. The intervention was codesigned with Scottish Muslim women (n=10) and underpinned by the reframe, reprioritise and reform model and the behaviour change wheel. SETTING: The study was conducted online, using Zoom, due to the COVID-19 pandemic. PARTICIPANTS: Participants (n=18) taking part in the intervention and subsequently in its evaluation, were Muslim women residing in Scotland, recruited through purposive and snowball sampling from a mosque and community organisations. Participants were aged between 25 years and 54 years and of Asian and Arab ethnicity. DESIGN: The study's codesigned intervention included (1) a peer-led discussion of barriers to screening, (2) a health education session led by a healthcare provider, (3) videos of Muslim women's experiences of cancer or screening, and (4) a religious perspective on cancer screening delivered by a female religious scholar (alimah). The intervention was delivered twice online in March 2021, followed 1 week later by two focus groups, consisting of the same participants, respectively, to discuss participants' experiences of the intervention. Focus group transcripts were analysed thematically. RESULTS: Participants accepted the content and delivery of the intervention and were positive about their experience of the intervention. Participants reported their knowledge of screening had increased and shared positive views towards cancer screening. They valued the multidimensional delivery of the intervention, appreciated the faith-based perspective, and in particular liked the personal stories and input from a healthcare provider. CONCLUSION: Participatory and community-centred approaches can play an important role in tackling health inequalities in cancer and its screening. Despite limitations, the intervention showed potential and was positively received by participants. Feasibility testing is needed to investigate effectiveness on a larger scale in a full trial.

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.

Decision Support Tools for Low-Dose CT Lung Cancer Screening: A Scoping Review of Information Content, Format, and Presentation Methods.

Several countries mandate informed or shared decision-making for low-dose CT (LDCT) lung cancer screening, but knowledge is limited about the type of information and presentation techniques used to support decision-making in practice. This review aimed to characterize the content, format, mode, and presentation methods of decision support tools (DSTs) for LDCT lung cancer screening. DSTs reported within peer-reviewed articles (January 2000-April 2021) were identified systematically from PubMed, PsycInfo, EMBASE, and CINAHL Plus. Inclusion criteria revolved around the development or evaluation of a resource or tool intended to support individual or shared decision-making for LDCT lung cancer screening. The data-charting and extraction framework was based on the International Patient Decision Aids Standards instrument and Template for Intervention Description and Reporting. Extracted data were organized within two categories: (1) study characteristics and context, format, and mode of DST use and (2) DST content and presentation methods. This review identified 22 DSTs in paper, video, or electronic formats across 26 articles. Most DSTs (n = 13) focused on knowledge exchange, whereas seven used interactive techniques to support values clarification (eg, Likert scales) and nine DSTs guided deliberation (eg, suggested discussion topics). The DSTs addressed similar topics, but the detail, quantification of probability, and presentation methods varied considerably. None described all the potential screening harms and results. The heterogeneity in DST design may affect the quality of decision-making, particularly for participants with lower literacy and numeracy. Evidence-based consensus guidelines for DST content and presentation methods should be developed collaboratively with screening-eligible adults.

What are common barriers and helpful solutions to colorectal cancer screening? A cross-sectional survey to develop intervention content for a planning support tool.

OBJECTIVE: Colorectal screening using faecal immunochemical tests (FITs) can save lives if the people invited participate. In Scotland, most people intend to complete a FIT but this is not reflected in uptake rates. Planning interventions can bridge this intention-behaviour gap. To develop a tool supporting people willing to do colorectal screening with planning to complete a FIT, this study aimed to identify frequently experienced barriers and solutions to these barriers. DESIGN: This is a cross-sectional study. SETTING: Participants were recruited through the Scottish Bowel Screening Programme to complete a mailed questionnaire. PARTICIPANTS: The study included 2387 participants who had completed a FIT (mean age 65 years, 40% female) and 359 participants who had not completed a FIT but were inclined to do so (mean age 63 years, 39% female). OUTCOME MEASURES: The questionnaire assessed frequency of endorsement of colorectal screening barriers and solutions. RESULTS: Participants who had not completed a FIT endorsed significantly more barriers than those who had completed a FIT, when demographic, health and behavioural covariates were held constant (F(1,2053)=13.40, p<0.001, partial η2=0.01). Participants who completed a FIT endorsed significantly more solutions than those who did not (U=301 585.50, z=-3.21, p<0.001, r=0.06). This difference became insignificant when covariates were controlled. Participants agreed on the most common barriers and solutions regardless of screening history. Barriers included procrastination, forgetting, fear of the test result, screening anxiety, disgust and low self-efficacy. Solutions included hand-washing, doing the FIT in private, reading the FIT instructions, benefit of early detection, feelings of responsibility, high self-efficacy and seeing oneself as a person who looks after one's health. CONCLUSION: This survey identified six barriers and seven solutions as key content to include in the development of a planning tool for colorectal screening using the FIT. Participatory research is required to codesign an engaging and accessible planning tool.

Understanding patient factors to increase uptake of cancer screening: a review.

Early detection of cancer through organized screening is a central component of population-level strategies to reduce cancer mortality. For screening programs to be effective, it is important that those invited to screening participate. However, uptake rates are suboptimal in many populations and vary between screening programs, indicating a complex combination of patient factors that require elucidation to develop evidence-based strategies to increase participation. In this review, the authors summarize individual-level (sociodemographic and psychosocial) factors associated with cancer screening uptake and evidence for the effectiveness of behavioral interventions to increase uptake. The authors reflect on current trends and future directions for behavioral cancer screening research to overcome challenges and address unmet needs in reducing cancer mortality.

The integrated screening action model (I-SAM): A theory-based approach to inform intervention development.

Screening can reduce deaths if the people invited participate. However, good uptake is hard to achieve, and our current approaches are failing to engage the most vulnerable. A coherent model of screening behaviour to guide our understanding and intervention development is yet to be established. The present aim was to propose an Integrated Screening Action Model (I-SAM) to improve screening access. The I-SAM synthesises existing models of health behaviour and empirical evidence. The I-SAM was developed following: i) an appraisal of the predominant models used within the screening literature; ii) the integration of the latest knowledge on behaviour change; with iii) the empirical literature, to inform the development of a theory-based approach to intervention development. There are three key aspects to the I-SAM: i) a sequence of stages that people pass through in engaging in screening behaviour (based on the Precaution Adoption Process Model); ii) screening behaviour is shaped by the interaction between participant and environmental influences (drawing from the Access Framework); and iii) targets for intervention should focus on the sources of behaviour - 'capability', 'opportunity', and 'motivation' (based on the COM-B Model). The I-SAM proposes an integrated model to support our understanding of screening behaviour and to identify targets for intervention. It will be an iterative process to test and refine the I-SAM and establish its value in supporting effective interventions to improve screening for all.

Clinician Attitudes to Using Low-Dose Radiation Therapy to Treat COVID-19 Lung Disease.

PURPOSE: Current treatments for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) lung disease have limited efficacy. Low-dose radiation therapy (LDRT) has received both interest and criticism as a potential treatment for this condition. In this qualitative study we explored clinicians' perspectives to identify barriers to testing LDRT in clinical trials and implementing it in clinical practice. METHODS AND MATERIALS: Semistructured interviews were undertaken with 6 clinicians from 3 medical disciplines. Interviews were recorded, transcribed verbatim, and analyzed thematically, using a framework approach. Common themes regarding barriers to using LDRT for COVID-19 lung disease were identified from the data. RESULTS: Three categories of barriers emerged: (1) the potential to do harm to the patient, including difficulty in predicting harm and lack of existing data to inform quantification of risks; (2) the feasibility of trialing this novel treatment strategy in the clinical setting, in particular trial design and recruitment, patient selection and buy-in from relevant clinician groups; and (3) the logistics of delivering the treatment, in particular risks of transmission to other patients and resources required for patient transfer. CONCLUSIONS: This study identified several barriers that may impede the evaluation and subsequent implementation of LDRT as a treatment for COVID-19 lung disease, from the perspectives of clinicians in 3 relevant specialties. By documenting and articulating these concerns, we hope to enhance discussion of why these barriers exist, and enable them to be addressed in a proactive manner to facilitate research into the potential benefits of radiation treatment for patients with COVID-19 lung disease going forward.

Evidencing the impact of cancer trials: insights from the 2014 UK Research Excellence Framework.

INTRODUCTION: An impactful clinical trial will have real-life benefits for patients and society beyond the academic environment. This study analyses case studies of cancer trials to understand how impact is evidenced for cancer trials and how impact evaluation can be more routinely adopted and improved. METHODS: The United Kingdom (UK) Government allocates research funding to higher-education institutions based on an assessment of the institutions' previous research efforts, in an exercise known as the Research Excellence Framework (REF). In addition to each institution's journal publications and research environment, for the first time in 2014, allocation of funding was also dependent on an evaluation of the wider, societal impact of research conducted. In the REF2014, impact assessment was performed by evaluation of impact case studies. In this study, case studies (n = 6637) submitted by institutions for the REF2014 were accessed and those focussing on cancer trials were identified. Manual content analysis was then used to assess the characteristics of the cancer trials discussed in the case studies, the impact described and the methods used by institutions to demonstrate impact. RESULTS: Forty-six case studies describing 106 individual cancer trials were identified. The majority were phase III randomised controlled trials and those recruiting patients with breast cancer. A list of indicators of cancer trial impact was generated using the previous literature and developed inductively using these case studies. The most common impact from a cancer trial identified in the case studies was on policy, in particular citation of trial findings in clinical guidelines. Impact on health outcomes and the economy were less frequent and health outcomes were often predicted rather than evidenced. There were few descriptions identified of trialists making efforts to maximise trial impact. DISCUSSION: Cancer trial impact narratives for the next REF assessment exercise in 2021 can be improved by evidencing actual rather than predicted Impact, with a clearer identification of the beneficiaries of cancer trials and the processes through which trial results are used. Clarification of the individuals responsible for performing impact evaluations of cancer trials and the provision of resources to do so needs to be addressed if impact evaluation is to be sustainable.

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.

Depressive symptoms, neuroticism, and participation in breast and cervical cancer screening: Cross-sectional and prospective evidence from UK Biobank.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cross-sectional and prospective associations between depressive symptoms, neuroticism, and participation in breast and cervical screening in the UK. METHODS: Women in the UK Biobank cohort with complete data who were eligible for breast cancer screening (aged 50-70 years, N = 143 461) and/or cervical screening (<65 years, N = 141 753) at baseline recruitment (2006-2010) and those with follow-up data (2014-2019) were identified (N = 11 050 and N = 9780 for breast and cervical screening). Depressive symptoms and neuroticism were self-reported at baseline (range 0-12 with higher scores reflecting greater severity). Primary outcomes were reporting being up to date with breast and cervical screening. For prospective analyses, patterns of screening participation from baseline to follow-up were identified. Logistic regression was used to analyse associations, adjusted for potential confounding factors. RESULTS: More severe depressive symptoms were associated with reduced likelihood of breast (OR = 0.960, 95% CI: 0.950,0.970) and cervical (OR = 0.958, 95% CI: 0.950,0.966) screening participation, in cross-sectional analyses. Higher neuroticism scores were associated with reduced cervical screening participation, but the opposite was found for breast cancer screening. Examination of individual neuroticism items revealed that anxiety and worry were associated with increased breast screening. At follow-up, higher baseline depressive symptoms were related to decreased cervical screening (OR = 0.955, 95% CI: 0.913,0.999), but not with breast screening. CONCLUSIONS: More severe depressive symptoms may be a barrier for breast and cervical screening and could be an indicator for more proactive strategies to improve uptake.

Why colorectal screening fails to achieve the uptake rates of breast and cervical cancer screening: a comparative qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: In Scotland, the uptake of clinic-based breast (72%) and cervical (77%) screening is higher than home-based colorectal screening (~60%). To inform new approaches to increase uptake of colorectal screening, we compared the perceptions of colorectal screening among women with different screening histories. METHODS: We purposively sampled women with different screening histories to invite to semistructured interviews: (1) participated in all; (2) participated in breast and cervical but not colorectal ('colorectal-specific non-participants'); (3) participated in none. To identify the sample we linked the data for all women eligible for all three screening programmes in Glasgow, Scotland (aged 51-64 years; n=68 324). Interviews covered perceptions of cancer, screening and screening decisions. Framework method was used for analysis. RESULTS: Of the 2924 women invited, 86 expressed an interest, and 59 were interviewed. The three groups' perceptions differed, with the colorectal-specific non-participants expressing that: (1) treatment for colorectal cancer is more severe than for breast or cervical cancer; (2) colorectal symptoms are easier to self-detect than breast or cervical symptoms; (3) they worried about completing the test incorrectly; and (4) the colorectal test could be more easily delayed or forgotten than breast or cervical screening. CONCLUSION: Our comparative approach suggested targets for future interventions to increase colorectal screening uptake including: (1) reducing fear of colorectal cancer treatments; (2) increasing awareness that screening is for the asymptomatic; (3) increasing confidence to self-complete the test; and (4) providing a suggested deadline and/or additional reminders.

Depression and anxiety among people living with and beyond cancer: a growing clinical and research priority.

BACKGROUND: A cancer diagnosis can have a substantial impact on mental health and wellbeing. Depression and anxiety may hinder cancer treatment and recovery, as well as quality of life and survival. We argue that more research is needed to prevent and treat co-morbid depression and anxiety among people with cancer and that it requires greater clinical priority. For background and to support our argument, we synthesise existing systematic reviews relating to cancer and common mental disorders, focusing on depression and anxiety. We searched several electronic databases for relevant reviews on cancer, depression and anxiety from 2012 to 2019. Several areas are covered: factors that may contribute to the development of common mental disorders among people with cancer; the prevalence of depression and anxiety; and potential care and treatment options. We also make several recommendations for future research. Numerous individual, psychological, social and contextual factors potentially contribute to the development of depression and anxiety among people with cancer, as well as characteristics related to the cancer and treatment received. Compared to the general population, the prevalence of depression and anxiety is often found to be higher among people with cancer, but estimates vary due to several factors, such as the treatment setting, type of cancer and time since diagnosis. Overall, there are a lack of high-quality studies into the mental health of people with cancer following treatment and among long-term survivors, particularly for the less prevalent cancer types and younger people. Studies that focus on prevention are minimal and research covering low- and middle-income populations is limited. CONCLUSION: Research is urgently needed into the possible impacts of long-term and late effects of cancer treatment on mental health and how these may be prevented, as increasing numbers of people live with and beyond cancer.