A qualitative exploration of women's perspectives and acceptability of including new cancer awareness information in all-clear breast or cervical screening results.

OBJECTIVE: This study explored women's perspectives on the acceptability of including new cancer information with an all-clear breast or cervical screening result letter (using ovarian cancer as a case study). METHODS: In 2016, six focus group discussions were conducted with women aged 25-70 years old, eligible for invitation to the NHS breast or cervical screening programme and resident in England. The focus groups lasted 60-90 min and were held in community venues. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Thirty-eight women aged 25-67 years old participated in the focus groups. Data analysis yielded six descriptive themes: general cancer awareness, taking advantage of a 'teachable moment', a double-edge sword, barriers to accepting and using new cancer information, motivators for accepting and using new cancer information and wider strategies to increase cancer awareness in women. Women welcomed the inclusion of new cancer information in all-clear screening results but highlighted pertinent lessons to be considered to maximise the usefulness of the approach. CONCLUSION: While women perceived this approach as acceptable, it is pertinent to note the potential of the new cancer information to stimulate anxiety and potentially widen inequalities by excluding non-attenders at screening programmes. Specific complementary and tailored approaches are necessary to mitigate these limitations.

An integrated understanding of the complex drivers of emergency presentations and admissions in cancer patients: Qualitative modelling of secondary-care health professionals' experiences and views.

The number of cancer-related emergency presentations and admissions has been steadily increasing in the UK. Drivers of this phenomenon are complex, multifactorial and interlinked. The main objective of this study was to understand the complexity of emergency hospital use in cancer patients. We conducted semi-structured interviews with 42 senior clinicians (20 doctors, 22 nurses) with diverse expertise and experience in caring for acutely ill cancer patients in the secondary care setting. Data analysis included thematic analysis and purposive text analysis to develop Causal Loop Diagrams. Our Causal Loop Diagrams represent an integrated understanding of the complex factors (13) influencing emergency hospital use in cancer patients. Eight factors formed five reinforcing feedback loops and therefore were high-leverage influences: Ability of patients and carers to self-care and cope; Effective and timely management of ambulatory care sensitive conditions by primary and community care; Sufficient and effective social care for patients and carers; Avoidable emergency hospital use; Bed capacity; Patients accessing timely appropriate specialist inpatient or ambulatory care; Prompt and effective management and prevention of acute episode; Timely and safe discharge with appropriate support. The loops show that reduction of avoidable hospital use helps relieve hospital bed pressure; improved bed capacity then has a decisive, positive influence on patient pathway and thus outcome and experience in the hospital; in turn, better in-hospital care and discharge help patients and carers self-care and cope better back home with better support from community-based health and social care services, which then reduces their future emergency hospital use. To optimise acute and emergency cancer care, it is also essential that patients, carers and other clinicians caring for cancer patients have prompt access to senior cancer specialists for advice, assessment, clinical decision and other support. The findings provide a useful framework and focus for service planners aiming to optimise care.

Experience of, awareness of and help-seeking for potential cancer symptoms in smokers and non-smokers: A cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Presenting to primary care with potential cancer symptoms is contingent on one's ability to recognize potentially serious symptoms. We investigated differences between smokers and non-smokers in symptoms experienced, awareness and consulting of potential respiratory, head and neck cancer symptoms. METHODS: Smokers and non-smokers aged over 50 from Yorkshire general practice lists were sent a postal questionnaire asking about symptoms, consulting and awareness of cancer symptoms. Data were analysed using STATA14. RESULTS: Response rate after one reminder was 30.5% (1205/3954). Smoking status was associated with experience of cough (p<0.001), breathlessness (p = 0.002) and tiredness (p = 0.004) with smokers (25.8% of population) more likely than never-smokers (53.6% of population) to experience all three symptoms (cough OR = 2.56;95%CI[1.75-3.75], breathlessness OR = 2.39;95%CI[1.43-4.00], tiredness OR = 1.57;95%CI[1.12-2.19]). Smoking status was associated with awareness of breathlessness as a potential cancer symptom (p = 0.035) and consulting for cough (p = 0.011) with smokers less likely to consult than never-smokers (OR = 0.37;95% CI[0.17-0.80]). CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that current smokers are more likely to experience cough, breathlessness and tiredness, but are less likely to consult for cough than never-smokers. To increase cancer awareness and promote consulting among smokers, innovative interventions improving symptom recognition and empowering smokers to seek help are required.