Personal and organisational health literacy in the non-specific symptom pathway for cancer: An ethnographic study.

INTRODUCTION: People being investigated for cancer face a wealth of complex information. Non-specific symptom pathways (NSS) were implemented in the United Kingdom in 2017 to address the needs of patients experiencing symptoms such as weight loss, fatigue or general practitioner 'gut feeling', who did not have streamlined pathways for cancer investigation. This study aimed to explore the health literacy skills needed by patients being investigated for cancer in NSS pathways. METHODS: This study employed ethnographic methods across four hospitals in England, including interviews, patient shadowing and clinical care observations, to examine NSS pathways for cancer diagnosis. We recruited 27 patients who were shadowed and interviewed during their care. We also interviewed 27 professionals. The analysis focused on patient communication and understanding, drawing on the concepts of personal and organisational health literacy. RESULTS: Our analysis derived six themes highlighting the considerable informational demands of the NSS pathway. Patients were required to understand complex blood tests and investigations in primary care and often did not understand why they were referred. The NSS pathway itself was difficult to understand with only a minority of patients appreciating that multiple organs were being investigated for cancer. The process of progressing through the pathway was also difficult to understand, particularly around who was making decisions and what would happen next. The results of investigations were complex, often including incidental findings. Patients whose persistent symptoms were not explained were often unsure of what to do following discharge. CONCLUSION: We have identified several potential missed opportunities for organisations to support patient understanding of NSS pathways which could lead to inappropriate help-seeking post-discharge. Patients' difficulties in comprehending previous investigations and findings could result in delays, overtesting or inadequately targeted investigations, hindering the effective use of their medical history. Third, patients' limited understanding of their investigations and results may impede their ability to engage in patient safety by reporting potential care errors. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patient, public, clinical and policy representatives contributed to developing the research objectives through a series of meetings and individual conversations in preparation for the study. We have held several events in which patients and the public have had an opportunity to give feedback about our results, such as local interest groups in North London and academic conferences. A clinical contributor (J.-A. M.) was involved in data analysis and writing the manuscript.

Satisfaction with remote consultations in primary care during COVID-19: a population survey of UK adults.

BACKGROUND: Mode of access to primary care changed during the COVID-19 pandemic; remote consultations became more widespread. With remote consultations likely to continue in UK primary care, it is important to understand people's perceptions of remote consultations and identify potential resulting inequalities. AIM: To assess satisfaction with remote GP consultations in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic and identify demographic variation in satisfaction levels. DESIGN AND SETTING: A cross-sectional survey from the second phase of a large UK-based study, which was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHOD: In total, 1426 adults who self-reported having sought help from their doctor in the past 6 months completed an online questionnaire (February to March 2021). Items included satisfaction with remote consultations and demographic variables. Associations were analysed using multivariable regression. RESULTS: A novel six-item scale of satisfaction with remote GP consultations had good psychometric properties. Participants with higher levels of education had significantly greater satisfaction with remote consultations than participants with mid-level qualifications (B = -0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -1.41 to -0.23) or those with low or no qualifications (B = -1.65, 95% CI = -2.29 to -1.02). People living in Wales reported significantly higher satisfaction compared with those living in Scotland (B = -1.94, 95% CI = -3.11 to -0.78), although caution is warranted due to small group numbers. CONCLUSION: These findings can inform the use and adaptation of remote consultations in primary care. Adults with lower educational levels may need additional support to improve their experience and ensure equitable care via remote consultations.

The Role of Smoking Status in Making Risk-Informed Diagnostic Decisions in the Lung Cancer Pathway: A Qualitative Study of Health Care Professionals and Patients.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer clinical guidelines and risk tools often rely on smoking history as a significant risk factor. However, never-smokers make up 14% of the lung cancer population, and this proportion is rising. Consequently, they are often perceived as low-risk and may experience diagnostic delays. This study aimed to explore how clinicians make risk-informed diagnostic decisions for never-smokers. METHODS: Qualitative interviews were conducted with 10 lung cancer diagnosticians, supported by data from interviews with 20 never-smoker lung cancer patients. The data were analyzed using a framework analysis based on the Model of Pathways to Treatment framework and data-driven interpretations. RESULTS: Participants described 3 main strategies for making risk-informed decisions incorporating smoking status: guidelines, heuristics, and potential harms. Clinicians supplemented guidelines with their own heuristics for never-smokers, such as using higher thresholds for chest X-ray. Decisions were easier for patients with high-risk symptoms such as hemoptysis. Clinicians worried about overinvestigating never-smoker patients, particularly in terms of physical and psychological harms from invasive procedures or radiation. To minimize unnecessary anxiety about lung cancer risk, clinicians made efforts to downplay this. Conversely, some patients found that this caused process harms such as delays and miscommunications. CONCLUSION: Improved guidance and methods of risk differentiation for never-smokers are needed to avoid diagnostic delays, overreassurance, and clinical pessimism. This requires an improved evidence base and initiatives to increase awareness among clinicians of the incidence of lung cancer in never-smokers. As the proportion of never-smoker patients increases, this issue will become more urgent. HIGHLIGHTS: Smoking status is the most common risk factor used by clinicians to guide decision making, and guidelines often focus on this factor.Some clinicians also use their own heuristics for never-smokers, and this becomes particularly relevant for patients with lower risk symptoms.Clinicians are also concerned about the potential harms and risks associated with deploying resources on diagnostics for never-smokers.Some patients find it difficult to decide whether or not to go ahead with certain procedures due to efforts made by clinicians to downplay the risk of lung cancer.Overall, the study highlights the complex interplay between smoking history, clinical decision making, and patient anxiety in the context of lung cancer diagnosis and treatment.

Assessing awareness of blood cancer symptoms and barriers to symptomatic presentation: measure development and results from a population survey in the UK.

BACKGROUND: Low levels of cancer awareness may contribute to delays in seeking medical help and subsequent delays in diagnosis. For blood cancer this may be a particularly prominent problem due to the high prevalence of undifferentiated symptoms such as bodily pain, weakness, nausea and weight loss, resulting in low symptom awareness. The delay is exacerbated by the dismissal of similar symptoms which are often interpreted as mild disease, resulting in multiple consultations prior to diagnosis. This study describes the development of a Cancer Awareness Measure for Blood Cancer (Blood CAM) and presents results from a population-representative survey using the measure. METHODS: A rapid systematic review identified constructs relevant to blood cancer. Items were taken from previous awareness measures and other literature and reviewed by expert groups including health care professionals and patients. Cognitive interviews were conducted with ten members of the public to check comprehension and clarity. A total sample of 434 participants completed the survey at Time 1 and n = 302 at Time 2 (two weeks later). RESULTS: Internal reliability was high across the different constructs included in the questionnaire (> 0.70) and test-retest reliability was moderate to good (0.49-0.79). The most commonly recognised blood cancer symptoms were unexplained weight loss (68.9%) and unexplained bleeding (64.9%) and the least commonly recognised symptoms were night sweats (31.3%) breathlessness and rash/itchy skin (both 44%). In terms of symptom experience, fatigue was the most commonly reported symptom (26.7%) followed by night sweats (25.4%). Exploratory factor analysis of barriers to presenting at primary care revealed three distinct categories of barriers; emotional, external/practical and service/healthcare professional related. Service and emotional barriers were most common. CONCLUSIONS: We developed a valid and reliable tool to assess blood cancer awareness and showed variable awareness of blood cancer symptoms which can help target public health campaigns. We also incorporated additional measures (e.g. confidence to re-consult, ability to understand symptoms) that could be used to tailor public messaging for blood cancer and for other harder to suspect and diagnose cancers.

The relationship between patient enablement and help-seeking in the context of blood cancer symptoms.

OBJECTIVE: Approaches to improve earlier diagnosis of cancer often focus on symptom awareness as a key driver of help-seeking behaviour and other psychological influences are less well understood. This is the first study to explore the role of patient enablement on help-seeking for people experiencing potential blood cancer symptoms. METHODS: A cross-sectional, nationally representative survey was completed by 434 respondents (>18 years). Questions asked about symptom experiences, medical help-seeking and re-consultation. Existing patient enablement items were included in the newly developed Blood Cancer Awareness Measure. We collected data on patient socio-demographic characteristics. RESULTS: Of those responding to the survey 224/434 (51.6%) reported experiencing at least one potential blood cancer symptom. Half of those experiencing symptoms (112/224) had sought medical help. Results from logistic regression analysis showed that higher scores on patient enablement were associated with being less likely to seek help (Odds Ratio [OR] 0.89, Confidence Interval [CI] 0.81-0.98) after controlling for socio-demographics. Separate analyses showed that higher enablement was associated with being more comfortable to re-consult if symptoms didn't go away or got worse (OR 1.31, CI 1.16-1.48); after a test result suggested there was nothing to worry about, but symptoms persisted (OR 1.23, CI 1.12-1.34) or to request further tests, scans or investigations (OR 1.31, CI 1.19-1.44). CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to our hypotheses, patient enablement was associated with lower likelihood of help-seeking for potential blood cancer symptoms. Yet enablement appears to play an important role in likelihood of re-consulting when symptoms persist, get worse or need further investigation.

What causes delays in diagnosing blood cancers? A rapid review of the evidence.

OBJECTIVE: We undertook a rapid review of literature relating to the diagnosis of blood cancers, to find out what factors contribute to delays in diagnosis, including symptom recognition, appraisal and help-seeking behaviours. METHODS: We used rapid review methodology following Tricco et al. to synthesise current literature from two electronic databases. We searched for studies about symptom appraisal help-seeking for all blood cancers published between 2001 and 2021, written in English. RESULTS: Fifteen studies were included in the review, of which 10 were published in the United Kingdom. We found a number of factors associated with delays in blood cancer diagnosis. These included patient factors such as gender, age and ethnicity, as well as health system factors such as poor communication and seeing a locum clinician in primary care. A narrative synthesis of the evidence produced four types of symptom interpretation by patients: (1) symptoms compatible with normal state of health, (2) event-linked problems, (3) mild or chronic illness and (4) non-specific unwell state. These four interpretations were linked to different help-seeking behaviours. After seeking help, patients often experienced delays due to healthcare professionals' (HCPs') non-serious interpretation of symptoms, misleading blood tests, discontinuity of care and other barriers in the diagnostic pathway. CONCLUSION: Blood cancers are difficult to diagnose due to non-specific heterogeneous symptoms, and this is reflected in how those symptoms are interpreted by patients and managed by HCPs. It is important to understand how different interpretations affect delays in help-seeking, and what HCPs can do to support timely follow-up for patients.

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

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

Relationship between intersectionality and cancer inequalities: a scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Persistent inequalities in cancer care and cancer outcomes exist within and between countries. However, the evidence pertaining to the root causes driving cancer inequalities is mixed. This may be explained by the inadequate attention paid to experiences of patients with cancer living at the intersection of multiple social categories (eg, social class, ethnicity). This is supported by the intersectionality framework. This framework offers an alternative lens through which to analyse and understand how these interlocking systems of oppression uniquely shape the experiences of patients with cancer and drive inequalities. In this protocol, we outline a scoping review that will systematically map what is known about the relationship between intersectionality and inequalities in care experience and cancer outcomes of patients with cancer; and to determine how the intersectionality framework has been applied in studies across the cancer care pathway and across countries. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study will be guided by Arksey and O'Malley's, and Levac et al's frameworks for scoping reviews. We will identify and map the evidence on cancer inequalities and intersectionality from 1989 to present date. Electronic databases (EMBASE, PsychINFO, CINAHL, Medline, Web of Science, ProQuest) and a systematic search strategy using a combination of keywords and Boolean operators AND/OR will be used to identify relevant studies. Screening of eligible papers and data extraction will be conducted by two independent reviewers, and disagreements resolved by discussion with the research team. We will use an iterative process to data charting using a piloted form. Findings will be collated into a narrative report. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not required since data used are from publicly available secondary sources. Findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals, conferences and stakeholder meetings. Further, findings will inform the next phases of a multistage research project aimed at understanding inequalities among patients with breast cancer.

Understanding Uptake and Experience of Interpreting Services in Primary Care in a South Asian Population in the UK.

This cross-sectional study addresses the evidence gap in uptake of interpretation services and patient experiences among a South Asian population in the UK without English language proficiency.

What are the similarities and differences in lung cancer symptom appraisal and help-seeking according to smoking status? A qualitative study with lung cancer patients.

OBJECTIVE: Lung cancer in never-smokers represents a growing proportion of patients. The relationship between smoking status, symptom appraisal and help-seeking behaviour is complex. Little is known about cancer symptom-related health behaviours according to smoking status. The aim of the study was to explore lung cancer patients' experiences of a lung cancer diagnosis, identifying differences by smoking history. METHOD: This was a qualitative study involving telephone interviews with 40 lung cancer patients (20 never smokers, 11 former smokers and 9 current smokers). We used framework analysis to analyse the data using the Common Sense Model of Illness Self-Regulation as a theoretical framework, developed after initial analysis. RESULTS: All patients were likely to delay seeking help for symptoms in primary care regardless of smoking history, but for different reasons. Smoking history was instrumental to how individuals perceived and responded to early symptoms of lung cancer. Differences in interpretation and coping responses to new symptoms seemed to be caused by the higher presence of comorbidities due to smoking, and perceptions of the current state of health. Individuals with a smoking history reported acting with urgency in seeking help and follow up, whereas patients who experienced low levels of concern were more easily reassured by clinicians, resulting in delays. CONCLUSIONS: Never and former smokers perceive, interpret, and respond to symptoms of lung cancer differently to smokers. However, few people attribute their lung symptoms to cancer initially, even with a smoking history. Interventions that drive increased urgency and vigilance in never smokers may be effective.

Healthcare Professional and Patient Perceptions of Changes in Colorectal Cancer Care Delivery During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Impact on Health Inequalities.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic changed the way in which people were diagnosed and treated for cancer. We explored healthcare professional and patient perceptions of the main changes to colorectal cancer delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic and how they impacted on socioeconomic inequalities in care. METHODS: In 2020, using a qualitative approach, we interviewed patients (n = 15) who accessed primary care with colorectal cancer symptoms and were referred for further investigations. In 2021, we interviewed a wide range of healthcare professionals (n = 30) across the cancer care pathway and gathered national and local documents/guidelines regarding changes in colorectal cancer care. RESULTS: Changes with the potential to exacerbate inequalities in care, included: the move to remote consultations; changes in symptomatic triage, new COVID testing procedures/ways to access healthcare, changes in visitor policies and treatment (e.g., shorter course radiotherapy). Changes that improved patient access/convenience or the diagnostic process have the potential to reduce inequalities in care. DISCUSSION: Changes in healthcare delivery during the COVID-19 pandemic have the ongoing potential to exacerbate existing health inequalities due to changes in how patients are triaged, changes to diagnostic and disease management processes, reduced social support available to patients and potential over-reliance on digital first approaches. We provide several recommendations to help mitigate these harms, whilst harnessing the gains.

Adapting a breast cancer early presentation intervention for Black women: A focus group study with women of Black African and Black Caribbean descent in the United Kingdom.

OBJECTIVE: Black women in the United Kingdom are more likely than White women to be diagnosed with advanced breast cancer and have lower survival rates. We consulted women of Black Caribbean and Black African descent in the United Kingdom on how the Promoting Early Presentation (PEP) booklet and intervention could be adapted for Black women to promote early presentation with breast cancer symptoms. METHODS: Focus groups with 22 women of Black African and Black Caribbean descent, of whom five had been treated for breast cancer. The participants were recruited from a large UK breast cancer charity and community settings. Data were analysed using Framework Analysis. RESULTS: Four themes summarised the participants' views on how the booklet and intervention could be adapted: Justify the focus on Black women, Black people do not talk about cancer, Make interventions inclusive and engaging, and Engage Black communities to deliver interventions. CONCLUSION: Breast cancer behaviour change interventions need to be more inclusive, illustrate how breast cancer symptoms manifest on black skin, and emphasise that breast cancer is curable to increase awareness and reduce cancer fear. Researchers should involve Black communities in the design and delivery of interventions to address appropriately cultural barriers to early presentation.

How does safety netting for lung cancer symptoms help patients to reconsult appropriately? A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Safety netting in primary care is considered an important intervention for managing diagnostic uncertainty. This is the first study to examine how patients understand and interpret safety netting advice around low-risk potential lung cancer symptoms, and how this affects reconsultation behaviours. METHODS: Qualitative interview study in UK primary care. Pre-covid-19, five patients were interviewed in person within 2-3 weeks of a primary care consultation for potential lung cancer symptom(s), and again 2-5 months later. The general practitioner (GP) they last saw was interviewed face-to-face once. During the covid-19 pandemic, an additional 15 patients were interviewed only once via telephone, and their GPs were not interviewed or contacted in any way. Audio-recorded interviews were transcribed verbatim and analysed using inductive thematic analysis. RESULTS: The findings from our thematic analysis suggest that patients prefer active safety netting, as part of thorough and logical diagnostic uncertainty management. Passive or ambiguous safety netting may be perceived as dismissive and cause delayed reconsultation. GP safety netting strategies are not always understood, potentially causing patient worry and dissatisfaction. Telephone consultations and the diagnostic overshadowing of COVID-19 on respiratory symptoms impacted GPs' safety netting strategies and patients' appetite for active follow up measures. CONCLUSIONS: Safety netting guidelines do not yet offer solutions that have been proven to promote symptom vigilance and timely reconsultation for low-risk lung cancer symptoms. This may have been affected by primary care practices during the COVID-19 pandemic. Patients prefer active or pre-planned safety netting coupled with thorough consultation techniques and a comprehensible diagnostic strategy, and may respond adversely to passive safety netting advice.

Health behaviour change among UK adults during the pandemic: findings from the COVID-19 cancer attitudes and behaviours study.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 related lockdowns may have affected engagement in health behaviours among the UK adult population. This prospective observational study assessed socio-demographic patterning in attempts to change and maintain a range of health behaviours and changes between two time points during the pandemic. METHODS: Adults aged 18 years and over (n = 4,978) were recruited using Dynata (an online market research platform) and the HealthWise Wales platform, supplemented through social media advertising. Online surveys were conducted in August/September 2020 when lockdown restrictions eased in the UK following the first major UK lockdown (survey phase 1) and in February/March 2021 during a further national lockdown (survey phase 2). Measures derived from the Cancer Awareness Measure included self-reported attempts to reduce alcohol consumption, increase fruit/vegetable consumption, increase physical activity, lose weight and reduce/stop smoking. Multivariable logistic regressions were used to assess individual health behaviour change attempts over time, adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, employment and education. RESULTS: Around half of participants in survey phase 1 reported trying to increase physical activity (n = 2607, 52.4%), increase fruit/vegetables (n = 2445, 49.1%) and lose weight (n = 2413, 48.5%), with 19.0% (n = 948) trying to reduce alcohol consumption among people who drink. Among the 738 participants who smoked, 51.5% (n = 380) were trying to reduce and 27.4% (n = 202) to stop smoking completely. Most behaviour change attempts were more common among women, younger adults and minority ethnic group participants. Efforts to reduce smoking (aOR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.82-1.17) and stop smoking (aOR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.80-1.20) did not differ significantly in phase 2 compared to phase 1. Similarly, changes over time in attempts to improve other health behaviours were not statistically significant: physical activity (aOR: 1.07; 95% CI: 0.99-1.16); weight loss (aOR: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.90-1.00); fruit/vegetable intake (aOR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.91-1.06) and alcohol use (aOR: 1.32, 95% CI: 0.92-1.91). CONCLUSION: A substantial proportion of participants reported attempts to change health behaviours in the initial survey phase. However, the lack of change observed over time indicated that overall motivation to engage in healthy behaviours was sustained among the UK adult population, from a period shortly after the first lockdown toward the end of the second prolonged lockdown.

How does social context influence appraisal and help-seeking for potential cancer symptoms in adults aged 50 and over? A qualitative interview study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate how social context and social network activation influence appraisal and help-seeking for symptoms potentially indicative of cancer. METHODS: Semi-structured telephone interview study. Community dwelling adults who had experienced at least one symptom potentially indicative of cancer within the last month were sampled from a national symptom survey. RESULTS: Thirty-four interviews were conducted. Participants looked to peers and wider society to judge whether symptoms might be normal for their age. Involvement of others in symptom appraisal promoted an active management strategy, such as contacting a healthcare professional or trying a medication. There were practical, emotional, attitudinal, normative and moral barriers to involving others. Cancer narratives from significant others, public health campaigns and the media influenced symptom appraisal. Participants held mental representations of types of people who get cancer, for example, smokers and unfit people. This had two consequences. First, participants did not identify themselves as a candidate for cancer; impeding help-seeking. Second, social judgements about lifestyle introduced stigma. CONCLUSION: Involving friends/family in symptom appraisal facilitates help-seeking but barriers exist to involving others. Campaigns to promote earlier cancer diagnosis should incorporate age-appropriate narratives, address misconceptions about 'types' of people who get cancer and tackle stigma about lifestyle factors.

Socioeconomic differences in help seeking for colorectal cancer symptoms during COVID-19: a UK-wide qualitative interview study.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 has led to rapid changes in healthcare delivery, raising concern that these changes may exacerbate existing inequalities in patient outcomes. AIM: To understand how patients' help-seeking experiences in primary care for colorectal cancer symptoms during COVID-19 were affected by their socioeconomic status (SES). DESIGN AND SETTING: Qualitative semi-structured interviews with males and females across the UK, recruited using purposive sampling by SES. METHOD: Interviews were carried out with 39 participants (20 higher SES; 19 lower SES) who contacted primary care about possible symptoms of colorectal cancer during COVID-19. Data were analysed using framework analysis followed by comparative thematic analysis to explore differences between groups. RESULTS: Three themes were identified with differences between SES groups: 1) how people decided to seek medical help through appraisal of symptoms; 2) how people navigated services; and 3) impact of COVID-19 on how patients interacted with healthcare professionals. The lower SES group expressed uncertainty appraising symptoms and navigating services (in terms of new processes resulting from COVID-19 and worries about infection). There was also potential for increased disparity in diagnosis and management, with other methods of getting in touch (for example, email or 111) taken up more readily by higher SES patients. CONCLUSION: The findings suggest that COVID-19 exacerbated disparities between higher and lower SES participants. This study raises awareness around challenges in help seeking in the context of the pandemic, which are likely to persist (post-COVID-19) as healthcare systems settle on new models of care (for example, digital). Recommendations are provided to reduce inequalities of care.

Barriers and facilitators to colonoscopy following fecal immunochemical test screening for colorectal cancer: A key informant interview study.

OBJECTIVES: People who are referred for colonoscopy, following an abnormal colorectal cancer (CRC) screening result, are at increased risk of CRC. Despite this, many individuals decline the procedure. The aim of this study was to investigate why. METHODS: As little is currently known about non-attendance at follow-up colonoscopy, and follow-up of abnormal screening results is a nurse-led process, we decided to conduct key informant interviews with Specialist Screening Practitioners ([SSPs] nurses working in the English Bowel Cancer Screening Program). Interviews were conducted online. Transcripts were assessed using inductive and deductive coding techniques. RESULTS: 21 SSPs participated in an interview. Five main types of barriers and facilitators to colonoscopy were described, namely: Sociocultural, Practical, Psychological, Health-related and COVID-related. Key psychological and sociocultural factors included: 'Fear of pain and discomfort associated with the procedure' and 'Lack of support from family and friends'. Key practical, health-related and COVID-related factors included: 'Family and work commitments', 'Existing health conditions as competing priorities' and 'Fear of getting COVID-19 at the hospital'. CONCLUSIONS: A range of barriers and facilitators to follow-up colonoscopy exist. Future studies conducted with patients are needed to further explore barriers to colonoscopy. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Strategies to reduce non-attendance should adopt a multifaceted approach.