Awareness of the link between human papillomavirus and oral cancer in UK university students.

Awareness of the link between human papillomavirus (HPV) and oral cancer varies across populations. Levels of awareness and factors may impact HPV vaccine uptake in women and the intent to obtain the vaccine in men if it becomes available. A cross-sectional survey of 1415 UK university students (495 men and 920 women) aged 18-25 years was conducted. Women who had and had not received the HPV vaccine were included. Vaccination was not available for men at the time of the survey. Seventy percent of participants had heard of oral cancer but only 25% were aware of the link between HPV and oral cancer. Women who ever engaged in sexual activity (adjusted odds ratio, aOR = 1.74; 95% CI: 1.12-2.72) or had at least one dose of the HPV vaccine (aOR = 1.71; 95% CI: 1.24-2.37) were more likely to be aware. Men who intend to receive the HPV vaccine in the future were more likely to be aware (aOR = 1.62; 95% CI: 1.04-2.53). Non-white women were less likely to be vaccinated (aOR = 0.56; 95% CI: 0.41-0.77). However, being aware was associated with HPV vaccine uptake in women (aOR = 1.65; 95% CI: 1.19-2.28) and borderline associated with the intent to obtain the HPV vaccine in men (aOR = 1.52; 95% CI: 0.99-2.35). Non-heterosexual men were more willing than heterosexuals to receive the vaccine. Following the UK gender-neutral HPV vaccination programme, there is an opportunity to increase awareness about the link between HPV and oral cancers aside from the cervical cancer link to influence HPV vaccine uptake.

Using specialist screening practitioners (SSPs) to increase uptake of bowel scope (flexible sigmoidoscopy) screening: results of a feasibility single-stage phase II randomised trial.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the feasibility of specialist screening practitioners (SSPs) offering patient navigation (PN) to facilitate uptake of bowel scope screening (BSS) among patients who do not confirm or attend their appointment. DESIGN: A single-stage phase II trial. SETTING: South Tyneside District Hospital, Tyne and Wear, England, UK. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals invited for BSS at South Tyneside District Hospital during the 6-month recruitment period were invited to participate in the study. INTERVENTION: Consenting individuals were randomly assigned to either the PN intervention or usual care group in a 4:1 ratio. The intervention involved BSS non-attenders receiving a phone call from an SSP to elicit their reasons for non-attendance and offer educational, practical and emotional support as required. If requested by the patient, another BSS appointment was then scheduled. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: The number of non-attenders in the intervention group who were navigated and then rebooked and attended their new BSS appointment. SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Barriers to BSS attendance, patient-reported outcomes including informed choice and satisfaction with BSS and the PN intervention, reasons for study non-participation, SSPs' evaluation of the PN process and a cost analysis. RESULTS: Of those invited to take part (n=1050), 152 (14.5%) were randomised into the study: PN intervention=109; usual care=43. Most participants attended their BSS appointment (PN: 79.8%; control: 79.1%) leaving 22 eligible for PN: only two were successfully contacted. SSPs were confident in delivering PN, but were concerned that low BSS awareness and information overload may have deterred patients from taking part in the study. Difficulty contacting patients was reported as a burden to their workload. CONCLUSIONS: PN, as implemented, was not a feasible intervention to increase BSS uptake in South Tyneside. Interventions to increase BSS awareness may be better suited to this population. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN13314752; Results.

Attitudes towards faecal immunochemical testing in patients at increased risk of colorectal cancer: an online survey of GPs in England.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing interest in using a quantitative faecal immunochemical test (FIT) to rule out colorectal cancer (CRC) in patients with high-risk symptoms in primary care. AIM: This study aimed to investigate GPs' attitudes and willingness to use a FIT over an urgent 2-week wait (2WW) referral. DESIGN AND SETTING: A cross-sectional online survey involving 1024 GPs working across England. METHOD: Logistic regression models were used to explore the likelihood of GPs using a FIT instead of a 2WW referral, and reported using odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs). RESULTS: Just over one-third of GPs (n = 365) preferred to use a FIT as a rule-out test over a 2WW referral. GPs were more willing if they were: aged 36-45 years (OR 1.59 [95% CI = 1.04 to 2.44]); 46-55 years (OR 1.99 [95% CI = 1.14 to 3.47]); thought a FIT was highly accurate (OR 1.63 [95% CI = 1.16 to 2.29]); thought patients would benefit compared with having a colonoscopy (OR 2.02 [95% CI = 1.46 to 2.79]); and were highly confident about discussing the benefits of a FIT (OR 2.14 [95% CI = 1.46 to 3.16]). GPs were less willing if they had had >10 urgent referrals in the past year (OR 0.62 [95% CI = 0.40 to 0.94]) and thought that longer consultations would be needed (OR 0.61 [95% CI = 0.44 to 0.83]). CONCLUSION: The study findings suggest that the acceptability of using a FIT as a rule-out test in primary care is currently low, with less than half of GPs who perceived the test to be accurate preferring it over colonoscopy. Any potential guideline changes recommending a FIT in patients with high-risk symptoms, instead of urgent referral to rule out CRC, are likely to require intensive supporting educational outreach to increase GP confidence in the accuracy and application of a FIT in this context.

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.

Acceptability of non-speculum clinician sampling for cervical screening in older women: A qualitative study.

OBJECTIVES: One reason that women over age 50 report avoiding cervical screening is increased discomfort postmenopause. This study aimed to explore the acceptability of human papillomavirus testing on clinician-collected vaginal samples without a speculum ('non-speculum') for cervical screening among older women. METHODS: Thirty-eight women in England aged 50-64 with a range of cervical screening experience ('up-to-date' n = 17, 'overdue screening' n = 18, 'never screened' n = 3) were identified via a recruitment agency. Women participated in focus groups or interviews about the potential for using clinician-collected samples without a speculum. Discussions were analysed using Framework Analysis. RESULTS: The two main themes identified were women's perceptions of the speculum and attitudes towards non-speculum screening. Many women reported negative experiences with the speculum, including increased pain after the menopause. Women generally had positive attitudes towards non-speculum clinician sampling and felt it would be a less intrusive option, but expressed concern that it could be less accurate than screening with a speculum. Women who were 'up-to-date' preferred conventional screening, while overdue and never screened women welcomed the option to be screened without a speculum. CONCLUSIONS: Human papillomavirus testing on non-speculum clinician-collected vaginal samples could be an acceptable alternative cervical screening method for older women. Offering this approach could increase screening uptake in older women who find conventional cervical screening to be less acceptable with ageing or the menopause.

Health care professionals' attitudes towards population-based genetic testing and risk-stratification for ovarian cancer: a cross-sectional survey.

BACKGROUND: Ovarian cancer is usually diagnosed at a late stage when outcomes are poor. Personalised ovarian cancer risk prediction, based on genetic and epidemiological information and risk stratified management in adult women could improve outcomes. Examining health care professionals' (HCP) attitudes to ovarian cancer risk stratified management, willingness to support women, self-efficacy (belief in one's own ability to successfully complete a task), and knowledge about ovarian cancer will help identify training needs in anticipation of personalised ovarian cancer risk prediction being introduced. METHODS: An anonymous survey was distributed online to HCPs via relevant professional organisations in the UK. Kruskal-Wallis tests and pairwise comparisons were used to compare knowledge and self-efficacy scores between different types of HCPs, and attitudes toward population-based genetic testing and risk stratified management were described. Content analysis was undertaken of free text responses concerning HCPs willingness to discuss risk management options with women. RESULTS: One hundred forty-six eligible HCPs completed the survey: oncologists (31%); genetics clinicians (30%); general practitioners (22%); gynaecologists (10%); nurses (4%); and 'others'. Scores for knowledge of ovarian cancer and genetics, and self-efficacy in conducting a cancer risk consultation were generally high but significantly lower for general practitioners compared to genetics clinicians, oncologists, and gynaecologists. Support for population-based genetic testing was not high (<50%). Attitudes towards ovarian cancer risk stratification were mixed, although the majority of participants indicated a willingness to discuss management options with patients. CONCLUSIONS: Larger samples are required to investigate attitudes to population-based genetic testing for ovarian cancer risk and to establish why some HCPs are hesitant to offer testing to all adult female patients. If ovarian cancer risk assessment using genetic testing and non-genetic information including epidemiological information is rolled out on a population basis, training will be needed for HCPs in primary care to enable them to provide appropriate support to women at each stage of the process.

Awareness, knowledge, perceptions, and attitudes towards genetic testing for cancer risk among ethnic minority groups: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Genetic testing for risk of hereditary cancer can help patients to make important decisions about prevention or early detection. US and UK studies show that people from ethnic minority groups are less likely to receive genetic testing. It is important to understand various groups' awareness of genetic testing and its acceptability to avoid further disparities in health care. This review aims to identify and detail awareness, knowledge, perceptions, and attitudes towards genetic counselling/testing for cancer risk prediction in ethnic minority groups. METHODS: A search was carried out in PsycInfo, CINAHL, Embase and MEDLINE. Search terms referred to ethnicity, genetic testing/counselling, cancer, awareness, knowledge, attitudes, and perceptions. Quantitative and qualitative studies, written in English, and published between 2000 and 2015, were included. RESULTS: Forty-one studies were selected for review: 39 from the US, and two from Australia. Results revealed low awareness and knowledge of genetic counselling/testing for cancer susceptibility amongst ethnic minority groups including African Americans, Asian Americans, and Hispanics. Attitudes towards genetic testing were generally positive; perceived benefits included positive implications for personal health and being able to inform family. However, negative attitudes were also evident, particularly the anticipated emotional impact of test results, and concerns about confidentiality, stigma, and discrimination. Chinese Australian groups were less studied, but of interest was a finding from qualitative research indicating that different views of who close family members are could impact on reported family history of cancer, which could in turn impact a risk assessment. CONCLUSION: Interventions are needed to increase awareness and knowledge of genetic testing for cancer risk and to reduce the perceived stigma and taboo surrounding the topic of cancer in ethnic minority groups. More detailed research is needed in countries other than the US and across a broader spectrum of ethnic minority groups to develop effective culturally sensitive approaches for cancer prevention.

Acceptability of the Cytosponge procedure for detecting Barrett's oesophagus: a qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the acceptability of the Cytosponge, a novel sampling device to detect Barrett's oesophagus (BE), a precursor to oesophageal adenocarcinoma (EAC), among people with risk factors for this condition. DESIGN: A qualitative study using semistructured interviews and focus group discussions. Data were explored by three researchers using thematic analysis. SETTING: Community setting in London, UK. PARTICIPANTS: A recruitment company identified 33 adults (17 men, 16 women) aged 50-69 years with gastro-oesophageal reflux disease (GERD), a risk factor for BE. The majority of participants were white British (73%). The focus groups were stratified by gender and education. 10 individuals were interviewed and 23 participated in four focus groups. RESULTS: 3 key themes emerged from the data: the anticipated physical experience, preferences for the content of information materials and comparisons with the current gold-standard test. Overall acceptability was high, but there was initial concern about the physical experience of taking the test, including swallowing and extracting the Cytosponge. These worries were reduced after handling the device and a video demonstration of the procedure. Knowledge of the relationship between GERD, BE and EAC was poor, and some suggested they would prefer not to know about the link when being offered the Cytosponge. Participants perceived the Cytosponge to be more comfortable, practical and economical than endoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: These qualitative data suggest the Cytosponge was acceptable to the majority of participants with risk factors for BE, and could be used as a first-line test to investigate GERD symptoms. Concerns about the physical experience of the test were alleviated through multimedia resources. The development of patient information materials is an important next step to ensuring patients are adequately informed and reassured about the procedure. Patient stakeholders should be involved in this process to ensure their concerns and preferences are considered. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN68382401; pre-results.