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.

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.

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.

Barriers to bowel scope (flexible sigmoidoscopy) screening: a comparison of non-responders, active decliners and non-attenders.

BACKGROUND: Participation in bowel scope screening (BSS) is low (43%), limiting its potential to reduce colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality. This study aimed to quantify the prevalence of barriers to BSS and examine the extent to which these barriers differed according to non-participant profiles: non-responders to the BSS invitation, active decliners of the invitation, and non-attenders of confirmed appointments. METHODS: Individuals invited for BSS between March 2013 and December 2015, across 28 General Practices in England, were sent a questionnaire. Questions measured initial interest in BSS, engagement with the information booklet, BSS participation, and, where applicable, reasons for BSS non-attendance. Chi-square tests of independence were performed to examine the relationship between barriers, non-participant groups and socio-demographic variables. RESULTS: 1478 (45.8%) questionnaires were returned for analysis: 1230 (83.2%) attended screening, 114 (7.7%) were non-responders to the BSS invitation, 100 (6.8%) were active decliners, and 34 (2.3%) were non-attenders. Non-responders were less likely to have read the whole information booklet than active decliners (x2 (2, N = 157) = 7.00, p = 0.008) and non-attenders (x2 (2, N = 101) = 8.07, p = 0.005). Non-responders also had lower initial interest in having BSS than either active decliners (x2 (2, N = 213) = 6.07, p = 0.014) or non-attenders (x2 (2, N = 146) = 32.93, p < 0.001). Overall, anticipated pain (33%) and embarrassment (30%) were the most commonly cited barriers to BSS participation. For non-attenders, however, practical, appointment-related reasons were most common (27%). CONCLUSIONS: Interventions to improve BSS uptake should be more nuanced and use targeted strategies to address the specific needs of each group.

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.

Improving uptake of flexible sigmoidoscopy screening: a randomized trial of nonparticipant reminders in the English Screening Programme.

Background and study aims Uptake of flexible sigmoidoscopy screening in the English Bowel Scope Screening (BSS) Programme is low. The aim of this study was to test the impact of a nonparticipant reminder and theory-based leaflet to promote uptake among former nonresponders (previously did not confirm their appointment) and nonattenders (previously confirmed their appointment but did not attend). Patients and methods Eligible adults were men and women in London who had not attended a BSS appointment within 12 months of their invitation. Individuals were randomized (1:1:1) to receive no reminder (control), a 12-month reminder plus standard information booklet (TMR-SIB), or a 12-month reminder plus bespoke theory-based leaflet (TMR-TBL) designed to address barriers to screening. The primary outcome of the study was the proportion of individuals screened within each group 12 weeks after the delivery of the reminder. Results A total of 1383 men and women were randomized and analyzed as allocated (n = 461 per trial arm). Uptake was 0.2 % (n = 1), 10.4 % (n = 48), and 15.2 % (n = 70) in the control, TMR-SIB, and TMR-TBL groups, respectively. Individuals in the TMR-SIB and TMR-TBL groups were significantly more likely to attend screening than individuals in the control group (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 53.7, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 7.4 - 391.4, P < 0.001 and OR 89.0, 95 %CIs 12.3 - 645.4, P < 0.01, respectively). Individuals in the TMR-TBL group were also significantly more likely to attend screening than individuals in the TMR-SIB group (OR 1.7, 95 %CIs 1.1 - 2.5, P = 0.01). Across all groups, former nonattenders were more likely to participate in screening than former nonresponders (uptake was 14.2 % and 8.0 %, respectively; OR 2.5, 95 %CIs 1.4 - 4.4, P < 0.01). The adenoma detection rate among screened adults was 7.6 %, which is comparable to the rate in initial attenders. Conclusions Reminders targeting former nonparticipants can improve uptake and are effective for both former nonresponders and nonattenders. Theory-based information designed to target barriers to screening added significantly to this strategy.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The impact of supplementary narrative-based information on colorectal cancer screening beliefs and intention.

BACKGROUND: The potential benefits of colorectal cancer screening are limited by low uptake. This study tested whether providing narrative accounts of the colorectal cancer (CRC) screening experience positively affected beliefs about CRC screening and intention to be screened. METHODS: 4125 adults aged 45-59.5 years, from three general practices in England, were randomised to be sent the standard information on CRC screening or the standard information plus a narrative-based leaflet describing CRC screening experiences. Both groups were asked to complete and return a questionnaire on beliefs about CRC screening after reading the study materials. Between-group differences on responses were assessed with t-tests. A mediation analysis then addressed the mediating role of CRC screening beliefs on the group and intention relationship. RESULTS: Relative to the standard information group (n = 590), the standard information plus narrative leaflet group (n = 631) showed higher perceived vulnerability to CRC, higher perceived test response efficacy, a stronger belief that the screening test would provide peace of mind and less disgust with the test procedure. There were no between group differences on perceived self-efficacy or the understanding that the screening test should be done in the absence of symptoms. Respondents who received the additional narrative leaflet reported significantly higher CRC screening intentions than respondents who received the standard information only. Controlling for the CRC screening beliefs reduced the effect of group on intention to non-significance. CONCLUSIONS: An additional narrative leaflet had a positive impact on beliefs about CRC screening which led to stronger screening intentions.

Understanding low colorectal cancer screening uptake in South Asian faith communities in England--a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer screening uptake within the South Asian population in England is approximately half that of the general population (33 % vs 61 %), and varies by Muslim (31.9 %), Sikh (34.6 %) and Hindu (43.7 %) faith background. This study sought to explore reasons for low uptake of CRC screening in South Asian communities and for the variability of low uptake between three faith communities; and to identify strategies by which uptake might be improved. METHODS: We interviewed 16 'key informants' representing communities from the three largest South Asian faith backgrounds (Islam, Hinduism and Sikhism) in London, England. RESULTS: Reasons for low colorectal cancer screening uptake were overwhelmingly shared across South Asian faith groups. These were: limitations posed by written English; limitations posed by any written language; reliance on younger family members; low awareness of colorectal cancer and screening; and difficulties associated with faeces. Non-written information delivered verbally and interactively within faith or community settings was preferred across faith communities. CONCLUSIONS: Efforts to increase accessibility to colorectal cancer screening in South Asian communities should use local language broadcasts on ethnic media and face-to-face approaches within community and faith settings to increase awareness of colorectal cancer and screening, and address challenges posed by written materials.

Facilitators and barriers to help-seeking for breast and cervical cancer symptoms: a qualitative study with an ethnically diverse sample in London.

OBJECTIVE: Earlier diagnosis of cancer has become a policy priority. There is evidence that minority ethnic groups are more likely to delay help-seeking for cancer symptoms, but few studies have explored reasons for delay in these groups. The present study explored facilitators and barriers to help-seeking for breast and cervical cancer in an ethnically diverse sample of women. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were carried out with 54 healthy women from a range of ethnic backgrounds; Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Caribbean, African, Black British, Black other, White British and White other. Framework analysis was used to identify themes. RESULTS: Appraising a symptom as possibly due to cancer was an important facilitator of help-seeking, although for some the prospect of a cancer diagnosis was a deterrent. Women believed that earlier diagnosis improved the chance of survival, and this facilitated prompt help-seeking. A sympathetic GP facilitated help-seeking, and an unsympathetic GP was a deterrent. Some ethnic minority women described the use of alternative medicine and prayer as a first-line strategy that might delay help-seeking. Language barriers, racism and a tendency to 'soldier on' were also mentioned by these women. CONCLUSIONS: Models of delay in presentation for early cancer symptoms are likely to transfer across different ethnic groups. Encouraging open discussion about cancer among minority communities could help raise awareness about the importance of early detection and promote help-seeking as a priority response to a possible cancer symptom.

The influence of health literacy on comprehension of a colonoscopy preparation information leaflet.

BACKGROUND: Successful bowel preparation is important for safe, efficacious, cost-effective colonoscopy procedures; however, poor preparation is common. OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine whether there was an association between health literacy and comprehension of typical written instructions on how to prepare for a colonoscopy to enable more targeted interventions in this area. DESIGN: This is a cross-sectional observational study. SETTING: This study was performed at primary care clinics and federally qualified health centers in Chicago, Illinois. PATIENTS: Seven hundred sixty-four participants (mean age, 63 years; SD, 5.42) were recruited. The sample was from a mixed sociodemographic background, and 71.9% of the participants were classified as having adequate health literacy scores. INTERVENTION: Seven hundred sixty-four participants were presented with an information leaflet outlining the bowel preparatory instructions for colonoscopy. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Five questions were used to assess participants' comprehension of the instructions in an "open book" test. RESULTS: Comprehension scores on the bowel preparation items were low. The mean number of items correctly answered was 3.2 (SD, 1.2) of a possible 5. Comprehension scores overall and for each individual item differed significantly by health literacy level (all p < 0.001). After controlling for sex, age, race, socioeconomic status, and previous colonoscopy experience in a multivariable model, health literacy was a significant predictor of comprehension (inadequate vs adequate: ß = -0.2; p < 0.001; marginal vs adequate: ß = -0.2; p < 0.001). LIMITATIONS: The outcome represents a simulated task and not actual comprehension of preparation instructions for participants' own recommended behavior. CONCLUSIONS: Comprehension of a written colonoscopy preparation leaflet was generally low and significantly lower among people with low health literacy. Poor comprehension has implications for the safety and economic impact of gastroenterological procedures such as colonoscopy. Therefore, future interventions should aim to improve comprehension of complex medical information by reducing literacy-related barriers.

The Newcastle ENDOPREM™: a validated patient reported experience measure for gastrointestinal endoscopy.

OBJECTIVES: Measuring patient experience of gastrointestinal (GI) procedures is a key component of evaluation of quality of care. Current measures of patient experience within GI endoscopy are largely clinician derived and measured; however, these do not fully represent the experiences of patients themselves. It is important to measure the entirety of experience and not just experience directly during the procedure. We aimed to develop a patient-reported experience measure (PREM) for GI procedures. DESIGN: Phase 1: semi-structured interviews were conducted in patients who had recently undergone GI endoscopy or CT colonography (CTC) (included as a comparator). Thematic analysis identified the aspects of experience important to patients. Phase 2: a question bank was developed from phase 1 findings, and iteratively refined through rounds of cognitive interviews with patients who had undergone GI procedures, resulting in a pilot PREM. Phase 3: patients who had attended for GI endoscopy or CTC were invited to complete the PREM. Psychometric properties were investigated. Phase 4 involved item reduction and refinement. RESULTS: Phase 1: interviews with 35 patients identified six overarching themes: anxiety, expectations, information & communication, embarrassment & dignity, choice & control and comfort. Phase 2: cognitive interviews refined questionnaire items and response options. Phase 3: the PREM was distributed to 1650 patients with 799 completing (48%). Psychometric properties were found to be robust. Phase 4: final questionnaire refined including 54 questions assessing patient experience across five temporal procedural stages. CONCLUSION: This manuscript gives an overview of the development and validation of the Newcastle ENDOPREM™, which assesses all aspects of the GI procedure experience from the patient perspective. It may be used to measure patient experience in clinical care and, in research, to compare patients' experiences of different endoscopic interventions.

'It's like being conscripted, one volunteer is better than 10 pressed men': A qualitative study into the views of people who plan to opt-out of organ donation.

Objectives To overcome the shortage of organ donors, Scotland and England are introducing an opt-out organ donor registration system in 2020. This means individuals will be automatically considered to consent for donation unless they actively opt-out of the register. Research has found that emotional barriers play a key role in donor decisions under opt-in legislation, yet little is known about factors that influence donor decisions under opt-out consent. Our objectives were to investigate attitudes towards organ donation and opt-out consent from individuals who plan to opt-out, and to explore the reasons why they plan to opt-out. Design Qualitative interview study. Methods Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 individuals from Scotland (n = 14) and England (n = 1) who self-reported the intention to opt-out of the register following the legislative change to opt-out. The interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using thematic analysis. Results Three main themes were identified: (1) consent versus coercion, which describes the perception of freedom of choice under an opt-in system and fears of 'government interference' and threatened autonomy under opt-out, (2) self-protection, encompassing fears of medical mistrust, bodily integrity concerns, and apprehension regarding the recipient selection process, and lastly, (3) 'riddled with pitfalls', which includes the notion that opt-out consent may increase susceptibility of stigma and reproach when registering an opt-out decision. Conclusions This study reinforces existing opt-in literature surrounding medical mistrust and bodily integrity concerns. A threat to one's autonomous choice and heightened reactance arising from perceptions of unwarranted government control have emerged as novel barriers. Statement of contribution What is already known about this subject? Although around 90% of individuals in the United Kingdom support organ donation, just 40% are actively registered as donors. As part of measures to improve rates of organ transplantation, Scotland and England are moving to an opt-out organ donation consent system in 2020. Existing research has shown that feelings and emotions are important factors that influence donor relevant decisions under the current opt-in system, but little research has explored potential deterrents under the new plans for opt-out consent. Minimizing the number of people opting out of the donor register is key to ensure sustained rates of transplantation. What does this study add? This study explored why people plan to opt-out of the new system in Scotland and England. Medical mistrust and bodily integrity concerns remain as salient barriers under opt-out laws. Fears of unwarranted government control and a perceived threat to one's freedom of choice emerged as a novel barrier.

Patient experience of gastrointestinal endoscopy: informing the development of the Newcastle ENDOPREM™.

BACKGROUND: Measuring patient experience is important for evaluating the quality of patient care, identifying aspects requiring improvement and optimising patient outcomes. Patient Reported Experience Measures (PREMs) should, ideally, be patient derived, however no such PREMs for gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy exist. This study explored the experiences of patients undergoing GI endoscopy and CT colonography (CTC) in order to: identify aspects of care important to them; determine whether the same themes are relevant across investigative modalities; develop the framework for a GI endoscopy PREM. METHODS: Patients aged ≥18 years who had undergone oesophagogastroduodenoscopy (OGD), colonoscopy or CTC for symptoms or surveillance (but not within the national bowel cancer screening programme) in one hospital were invited to participate in semi-structured interviews. Recruitment continued until data saturation. Inductive thematic analysis was undertaken. RESULTS: 35 patients were interviewed (15 OGD, 10 colonoscopy, 10 CTC). Most patients described their experience chronologically, and five 'procedural stages' were evident: before attending for the test; preparing for the test; at the hospital, before the test; during the test; after the test. Six themes were identified: anxiety; expectations; choice & control; communication & information; comfort; embarrassment & dignity. These were present for all three procedures but not all procedure stages. Some themes were inter-related (eg, expectations & anxiety; communication & anxiety). CONCLUSION: We identified six key themes encapsulating patient experience of GI procedures and these themes were evident for all procedures and across multiple procedure stages. These findings will be used to inform the development of the Newcastle ENDOPREM™.

Predictors of intention translation in flexible sigmoidoscopy screening for colorectal cancer.

OBJECTIVE: This prospective study aimed to identify predictors of intention and subsequent attendance of flexible sigmoidoscopy screening using constructs derived from the Health Belief Model (HBM). METHOD: A total of 4,330 people aged 54 years and registered at 1 of 83 participating English general practices were sent a preinvitation questionnaire to assess sociodemographics, HBM variables including perceived benefits, barriers, seriousness, health motivation, and external cues to action as well a range of other constructs and personal characteristics known to relate to cancer screening. RESULTS: Of the 1,578 respondents (36.4%), 1,555 (98.5%) answered the intention question: 52.9% stated definitely yes, 38.1% probably yes, 6.8% probably not, and 2.2% definitely not. Intentions were positively associated with a higher score on a scale of benefits (odds ratio [OR] = 4.62; 95% confidence intervals [CI; 3.24, 6.59]) and health motivation, that is, interest in other ways of preventing colorectal cancer (OR = 2.61; 95% CI [1.62, 4.22]), while a higher score on perceived barriers (OR = 0.19; 95% CI [0.12, 0.31]) and currently following recommended healthy lifestyle behaviors (OR = 0.31; 95% CI [0.16, 0.59]) were negatively associated. Attendance was verified for 922 intenders (65.2%) of whom 737 (79.9%) attended. Attendance was predicted by health motivation (OR = 1.75; 95% CI [1.07, 2.86]), perceived benefits (OR = 1.82; 95% CI [1.37, 2.43]), perceived barriers (OR = 0.47; 95% CI [0.32, 0.69]), individual-level deprivation (OR = 0.26; 95% CI [0.14, 0.50]), and having diabetes (OR = 0.48; 95% CI [0.25, 0.94]). CONCLUSION: This study supported the usefulness of the HBM in predicting cancer screening and was further enhanced by adding non-HBM variables such as individual socioeconomic deprivation and comorbidities. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

The impact of descriptive norms on motivation to participate in cancer screening - Evidence from online experiments.

OBJECTIVE: The current study tested in two online experiments whether manipulating normative beliefs about cancer screening uptake increases intention to attend colorectal screening among previously disinclined individuals. METHODS: 2461 men and women from an Internet panel (Experiment 1 N = 1032; Experiment 2, N = 1423) who initially stated that they did not intend to take up screening were asked to guess how many men and women they believe to get screened for colorectal cancer. Across participants, we varied the presence/absence of feedback on the participant's estimate, as well as the stated proportion of men and women doing the screening test. RESULTS: Across the two experiments, we found that receiving one of the experimental messages stating that uptake is higher than estimated significantly increased the proportion of disinclined men and women becoming intenders. While, we found a positive relationship between the communicated uptake and screening intentions, we did not find evidence that providing feedback on the estimate has an added benefit. CONCLUSION: Screening intention can be effectively manipulated through a high uptake message. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Communication of high screening uptake is an easy and effective way to motivate disinclined individuals to engage in colorectal cancer screening.