Would shared decision-making be useful in breast cancer screening programmes? A qualitative study using focus group discussions to gather evidence from French women with different socioeconomic backgrounds.

BACKGROUND: To inform the development of an online tool to be potentially used in shared decision-making about breast cancer screening, French women were questioned about participation in breast cancer screening, the health professional's role, and their perceptions of the proposed tool. METHODS: We organised focus group discussions with 55 French women. Two different strategies were used to recruit women from high and low socioeconomic backgrounds. We applied both inductive and deductive approaches to conduct a thematic analysis of the discussions. We analysed the responses by using the main determinants from different health behaviour models and compared the two groups. RESULTS: Independently of socioeconomic status, the most important determinant for a woman's participation in breast cancer screening was the perceived severity of breast cancer and the perceived benefits of its early detection by screening. Cues to action reported by both groups were invitation letters; recommendations by health professionals, or group/community activities and public events were reported by women from high and low socioeconomic backgrounds, respectively. Among other positive determinants, women from high socioeconomic backgrounds reported making informed decisions and receiving peer support whereas women from low socioeconomic backgrounds reported community empowerment through group/community events. Fear of cancer was reported as a barrier in both groups. Among other barriers, language issues were reported only by women from low socioeconomic backgrounds; women from high socioeconomic backgrounds reported breast cancer screening-related risks other than overdiagnosis and/or overtreatment. Barriers to accessing the online tool to be developed were mainly reported by women from high socioeconomic backgrounds. CONCLUSION: Limitations in implementing shared decision-making for women from low socioeconomic backgrounds were highlighted. An online tool that is suitable for all women, regardless of socioeconomic status, would provide "on-demand" reliable and tailored information about breast cancer screening and improve access to health professionals and social exchanges.

Role of mammography accessibility, deprivation and spatial effect in breast cancer screening participation in France: an observational ecological study.

BACKGROUND: The detection of cancer in its early latent stages can improve patients' chances of recovery and thereby reduce the overall burden of the disease. Our objectives were to investigate factors (geographic accessibility and deprivation level) affecting mammography screening participation variation and to determine how much geographic variation in participation rates can be explained by spillover effects between adjacent areas, while controlling for covariates. METHODS: Mammography screening participation rates between 2015 and 2016 were calculated by census blocks (CB), for women aged 50-74 years, residing in Lyon metropolitan area. Global spatial autocorrelation tests were applied to identify the geographic variation of participation. Spatial regression models were used to incorporate spatial structure to estimate associations between mammography participation rate and the combined effect (geographic accessibility and deprivation level) adjusting for modes of travel and social cohesion. RESULTS: The mammography participation rate was found to have a statistically significant and positive spatial correlation. The participation rate of one CB was significantly and positively associated with the participation rates of neighbouring CB. The participation was 53.2% in residential and rural areas and 46.6% in urban areas, p < 0.001. Using Spatial Lag models, whereas the population living in most deprived CBs have statistically significantly lower mammography participation rates than lower deprived ones, significant interaction demonstrates that the relation differs according to the degree of urbanization. CONCLUSIONS: This study makes an important methodological contribution in measuring geographical access and understanding better the combined effect of deprivation and the degree of urbanization on mammography participation and other contextual factors that affect the decision of using mammography screening services -which is a critical component of healthcare planning and equity.

Mapping Variation in Breast Cancer Screening: Where to Intervene?

Small geographic areas with lower mammography screening participation rates may reflect gaps in screening efforts. Our objective was to use spatial analyses to understand disparities in mammography screening use and to identify factors to increase its uptake in areas that need it in Lyon metropolitan area, France. Data for screened women between the ages of 50 and 74 were analyzed. Census blocks of screened and non screened women were extracted from the mammography screening programme 2015-2016 dataset. We used spatial regression models, within a generalized additive framework to determine clusters of census blocks with significantly higher prevalence of non-participation of mammography screening. Smoothed risk maps were crude and adjusted on the following covariates: deprivation index and opportunistic screening. Among 178,002 women aged 50 to 74, 49.9% received mammography screening. As hypothesized, women living in highly deprived census blocks had lower participation rates compared to less deprived blocks, 45.2% vs. 51.4% p < 0.001. Spatial analyses identified four clusters, one located in an urban area and three in suburban areas. Moreover, depending on the location of the cluster, the influence came from different variables. Knowing the impact of site-specific risk factors seems to be important for implementing an appropriate prevention intervention.

A motivational phone call improves participation to screening colonoscopy for those with a positive FIT in a national screening programme (NCT 03276091).

BACKGROUND: A large proportion of individuals with a positive faecal immunologic test (FIT) will never undergo the recommended colonoscopy despite a full sequence of reminders. AIMS: This prospective study aimed to recruit refractory individuals by a motivational personalised phone call given by a screening physician. METHODS: We evaluated the impact of a motivational phone call given by a physician of the screening organisation in order to convince patients with positive FIT to undergo a colonoscopy. RESULTS: 115 individuals with a positive FIT were targeted. After GP phone call, it was ascertained that 15 had had a colonoscopy, one died, one moved outside the region, and the GP refused the study phone call for 13. Finally, we attempted to call 85 individuals; 24 could not be reached, 5 colonoscopies had been performed, and thus 56 individuals were included. The main reason for colonoscopy refusal (33.9%) was wrong advice from the GP or the gastroenterologist. Among those included, 33.9% (19/56) underwent the colonoscopy within 22.7 months after FIT; 1 invasive cancer, 18 adenomas and 9 serrated sessile lesions were found. CONCLUSION: Motivational phone call performed by a physician from the screening organisation is effective to recruit a third of refractory individuals. Education for GPs and gastroenterologists is necessary to increase participation to colonoscopy and to avoid the performance of an inappropriate secondary FIT. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT 03276091.

Colon capsule versus computed tomography colonography for colorectal cancer screening in patients with positive fecal occult blood test who refuse colonoscopy: a randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: Some patients (10 % - 32 %) with a positive guaiac fecal occult blood test (gFOBT) do not undergo the recommended colonoscopy. The aim of this study was to compare video capsule endoscopy (VCE) and computed tomography colonography (CTC) in terms of participation rate and detection outcomes when offered to patients with a positive gFOBT who did not undergo the recommended colonoscopy. METHODS: An invitation letter offering CTC or VCE was sent to selected patients after randomization. Acceptance of the proposed (or alternative) procedure and procedure results were recorded. Sample size was evaluated according to the hypothesis of a 13 % increase of participation with VCE. RESULTS: A total of 756 patients were targeted. Following the invitation letter, 5.0 % (19/378) of patients underwent the proposed VCE and 7.4 % (28/378) underwent CTC, (P = 0.18). Following the letter, 9.8 % (37/378) of patients in the VCE group underwent a diagnostic procedure (19 VCE, 1 CTC, 17 colonoscopy) vs. 10.8 % in the CTC group (41/378: 28 CTC, 13 colonoscopy; P = 0.55). There were more potentially neoplastic lesions diagnosed in the VCE group than in the CTC group (12/20 [60.0 %] vs. 8/28 [28.6 %]; P = 0.04). Thus, 15/20 noninvasive procedures in the VCE group (19 VCE, 1 CTC; 75.0 %) vs. 10/28 in the CTC group (35.7 %; P = 0.01) resulted in a recommendation of further colonoscopy, but only 10/25 patients actually underwent this proposed colonoscopy. CONCLUSION: Patients with a positive gFOBT result who do not undergo the recommended colonoscopy are difficult to recruit to the screening program and simply proposing an additional, less-invasive procedure, such as VCE or CTC, is not an effective strategy.ClinicalTrials.govNCT02558881TRIAL REGISTRATION: Randomized, controlled trial NCT02558881 at clinicaltrials.gov.

Decision aid on breast cancer screening reduces attendance rate: results of a large-scale, randomized, controlled study by the DECIDEO group.

Controversies regarding the benefits of breast cancer screening programs have led to the promotion of new strategies taking into account individual preferences, such as decision aid. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of a decision aid leaflet on the participation of women invited to participate in a national breast cancer screening program. This Randomized, multicentre, controlled trial. Women aged 50 to 74 years, were randomly assigned to receive either a decision aid or the usual invitation letter. Primary outcome was the participation rate 12 months after the invitation. 16 000 women were randomized and 15 844 included in the modified intention-to-treat analysis. The participation rate in the intervention group was 40.25% (3174/7885 women) compared with 42.13% (3353/7959) in the control group (p = 0.02). Previous attendance for screening (RR = 6.24; [95%IC: 5.75-6.77]; p < 0.0001) and medium household income (RR = 1.05; [95%IC: 1.01-1.09]; p = 0.0074) were independently associated with attendance for screening. This large-scale study demonstrates that the decision aid reduced the participation rate. The decision aid activate the decision making process of women toward non-attendance to screening. These results show the importance of promoting informed patient choices, especially when those choices cannot be anticipated.

[Breast cancer screening in thirteen French departments]. / Dépistage du cancer du sein dans treize départements français.

BACKGROUND: In France, breast cancer screening programme, free of charge for women aged 50-74 years old, coexists with an opportunistic screening and leads to reduction in attendance in the programme. Here, we reported participation in organized and/or opportunistic screening in thirteen French departments. POPULATION AND METHODS: We analyzed screening data (organized and/or opportunistic) of 622,382 women aged 51-74 years old invited to perform an organized mammography screening session from 2010 to 2011 in the thirteen French departments. The type of mammography screening performed has been reported according to women age, their health insurance scheme, the rurality and the socioeconomic level of their area or residence. We also represented the tertiles of deprivation and participation in mammography screening for each department. RESULTS: A total of 390,831 (62.8%) women performed a mammography screening (organized and/or opportunistic) after the invitation. These women were mainly aged from 55-69 years old, insured by the general insurance scheme and lived in urban, semi-urban or affluent areas. CONCLUSION: The participation in mammography screening (organized and opportunistic) in France remains below the target rate of 70% expected by health authorities to reduce breast cancer mortality through screening.