Co-development of an evidence-based personalised smoking cessation intervention for use in a lung cancer screening context.

BACKGROUND: Optimising smoking cessation services within a low radiation-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening programme has the potential to improve cost-effectiveness and overall efficacy of the programme. However, evidence on the optimal design and integration of cessation services is limited. We co-developed a personalised cessation and relapse prevention intervention incorporating medical imaging collected during lung cancer screening. The intervention is designed to initiate and support quit attempts among smokers attending screening as part of the Yorkshire Enhanced Stop Smoking study (YESS: ISRCTN63825779). Patients and public were involved in the development of an intervention designed to meet the needs of the target population. METHODS: An iterative co-development approach was used. Eight members of the public with a history of smoking completed an online survey to inform the visual presentation of risk information in subsequent focus groups for acceptability testing. Three focus groups (n = 13) were conducted in deprived areas of Yorkshire and South Wales with members of the public who were current smokers or recent quitters (within the last year). Exemplar images of the heart and lungs acquired by LDCT, absolute and relative lung cancer risk, and lung age were shown. Data were analysed thematically, and discussed in stakeholder workshops. Draft versions of the intervention were developed, underpinned by the Extended Parallel Processing Model to increase self-efficacy and response-efficacy. The intervention was further refined in a second stakeholder workshop with a patient panel. RESULTS: Individual LDCT scan images of the lungs and heart, in conjunction with artistic impressions to facilitate interpretation, were considered by public participants to be most impactful in prompting cessation. Public participants thought it important to have a trained practitioner guiding them through the intervention and emphasising the short-term benefits of quitting. Presentation of absolute and relative risk of lung cancer and lung age were considered highly demotivating due to reinforcement of fatalistic beliefs. CONCLUSION: An acceptable personalised intervention booklet utilising LDCT scan images has been developed for delivery by a trained smoking cessation practitioner. Our findings highlight the benefit of co-development during intervention development and the need for further evaluation of effectiveness.

Supporting patients to stop smoking when they attend lung cancer screening will improve the overall benefit and value for money of the service. This study developed a booklet containing pictures of a person's own lungs and heart taken during a lung cancer screening scan. The booklet shows areas of damage to the heart and lungs caused by smoking, delivered alongside positive messages to build confidence to stop smoking and let patients know about the benefits of stopping smoking. To develop the booklet, we worked with members of public who currently or used to smoke. Eight members of public completed a survey asking about the best ways to present information about risk. Thirteen members of the public took part in focus groups to co-develop the booklet. One workshop with academic and healthcare professionals and one workshop with a public involvement panel were held to develop and finalise the booklet. Members of the public said they wanted information about the short-term benefits of quitting smoking, and that coloured drawings next to the scan picture would help them to understand what the scan picture meant. Having someone specially trained to guide them through the booklet was considered important. Being told about their risk for lung cancer in the future was off-putting and might discourage a quit attempt. We have co-developed a booklet to support people to quit smoking when they go for lung cancer screening. The booklet is currently being tested to see whether it can support people to quit smoking.

Acceptability of a standalone written leaflet for the National Health Service for England Targeted Lung Health Check Programme: A concurrent, think-aloud study.

BACKGROUND: Many countries are introducing low-dose computed tomography screening programmes for people at high risk of lung cancer. Effective communication strategies that convey risks and benefits, including unfamiliar concepts and outcome probabilities based on population risk, are critical to achieving informed choice and mitigating inequalities in uptake. METHODS: This study investigated the acceptability of an aspect of NHS England's communication strategy in the form of a leaflet that was used to invite and inform eligible adults about the Targeted Lung Health Check (TLHC) programme. Acceptability was assessed in terms of how individuals engaged with, comprehended and responded to the leaflet. Semi-structured, 'think aloud' interviews were conducted remotely with 40 UK screening-naïve current and former smokers (aged 55-73). The verbatim transcripts were analysed thematically using a coding framework based on the Dual Process Theory of cognition. RESULTS: The leaflet helped participants understand the principles and procedures of screening and fostered cautiously favourable intentions. Three themes captured the main results of the data analysis: (1) Response-participants experienced anxiety about screening results and further investigations, but the involvement of specialist healthcare professionals was reassuring; (2) Engagement-participants were rapidly drawn to information about lung cancer prevalence, and benefits of screening, but deliberated slowly about early diagnosis, risks of screening and less familiar symptoms of lung cancer; (3) Comprehension-participants understood the main principles of the TLHC programme, but some were confused by its rationale and eligibility criteria. Radiation risks, abnormal screening results and numerical probabilities of screening outcomes were hard to understand. CONCLUSION: The TLHC information leaflet appeared to be acceptable to the target population. There is scope to improve aspects of comprehension and engagement in ways that would support informed choice as a distributed process in lung cancer screening. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The insight and perspectives of patient representatives directly informed and improved the design and conduct of this study.

Development and psychometric testing of the self-regulatory questionnaire for lung cancer screening (SRQ-LCS).

BACKGROUND: Research implicates psychological factors in low uptake of lung cancer screening. We developed and psychometrically tested a standardised measure of these psychological determinants in preparation for a prospective, longitudinal cohort study of screening uptake. METHODS: Leventhal's Common-Sense Model of Self-Regulation of Health and Illness provided the theoretical framework to generate the initial item pool. Items were refined during expert review and cognitive interviews which tested for face validity, redundancy, acceptability and comprehensibility. An online survey piloted the refined pool with 1500 current and former (quit ≤ 15 years) smokers aged 55-80. The response distributions, internal reliability and factor structure determined the final retained constructs. Regression analyses examined these constructs' associations with screening intention, smoking status and demographics. RESULTS: The final measure included seven factor-derived subscales (consequences, personal control, treatment control, illness coherence, emotional representation, behavioural response and appraisal, risk perception) with Cronbach's alphas ranging from 0.59 to 0.91 and four single-item questions (response efficacy for smoking cessation, treatment intention, perceived stigma and lung cancer survival). Most constructs were associated with smoking status and screening intention (p's < .05). CONCLUSIONS: The Self-Regulatory Questionnaire for Lung Cancer Screening (SRQ-LCS) is an acceptable, reliable and valid measure for investigating the psychological determinants of screening uptake.

Decision Support Tools for Low-Dose CT Lung Cancer Screening: A Scoping Review of Information Content, Format, and Presentation Methods.

Several countries mandate informed or shared decision-making for low-dose CT (LDCT) lung cancer screening, but knowledge is limited about the type of information and presentation techniques used to support decision-making in practice. This review aimed to characterize the content, format, mode, and presentation methods of decision support tools (DSTs) for LDCT lung cancer screening. DSTs reported within peer-reviewed articles (January 2000-April 2021) were identified systematically from PubMed, PsycInfo, EMBASE, and CINAHL Plus. Inclusion criteria revolved around the development or evaluation of a resource or tool intended to support individual or shared decision-making for LDCT lung cancer screening. The data-charting and extraction framework was based on the International Patient Decision Aids Standards instrument and Template for Intervention Description and Reporting. Extracted data were organized within two categories: (1) study characteristics and context, format, and mode of DST use and (2) DST content and presentation methods. This review identified 22 DSTs in paper, video, or electronic formats across 26 articles. Most DSTs (n = 13) focused on knowledge exchange, whereas seven used interactive techniques to support values clarification (eg, Likert scales) and nine DSTs guided deliberation (eg, suggested discussion topics). The DSTs addressed similar topics, but the detail, quantification of probability, and presentation methods varied considerably. None described all the potential screening harms and results. The heterogeneity in DST design may affect the quality of decision-making, particularly for participants with lower literacy and numeracy. Evidence-based consensus guidelines for DST content and presentation methods should be developed collaboratively with screening-eligible adults.

Lung cancer mortality reduction by LDCT screening: UKLS randomised trial results and international meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The NLST reported a significant 20% reduction in lung cancer mortality with three annual low-dose CT (LDCT) screens and the Dutch-Belgian NELSON trial indicates a similar reduction. We present the results of the UKLS trial. METHODS: From October 2011 to February 2013, we randomly allocated 4 055 participants to either a single invitation to screening with LDCT or to no screening (usual care). Eligible participants (aged 50-75) had a risk score (LLPv2) ≥ 4.5% of developing lung cancer over five years. Data were collected on lung cancer cases to 31 December 2019 and deaths to 29 February 2020 through linkage to national registries. The primary outcome was mortality due to lung cancer. We included our results in a random-effects meta-analysis to provide a synthesis of the latest randomised trial evidence. FINDINGS: 1 987 participants in the intervention and 1 981 in the usual care arms were followed for a median of 7.3 years (IQR 7.1-7.6), 86 cancers were diagnosed in the LDCT arm and 75 in the control arm. 30 lung cancer deaths were reported in the screening arm, 46 in the control arm, (relative rate 0.65 [95% CI 0.41-1.02]; p=0.062). The meta-analysis indicated a significant reduction in lung cancer mortality with a pooled overall relative rate of 0.84 (95% CI 0.76-0.92) from nine eligible trials. INTERPRETATION: The UKLS trial of single LDCT indicates a reduction of lung cancer death of similar magnitude to the NELSON and NLST trials and was included in a meta-analysis of nine randomised trials which provides unequivocal support for lung cancer screening in identified risk groups. FUNDING: NIHR Health Technology Assessment programme; NIHR Policy Research programme; Roy Castle Lung Cancer Foundation.

Psychological Targets for Lung Cancer Screening Uptake: A Prospective Longitudinal Cohort Study.

INTRODUCTION: Low uptake of low-dose computed tomography lung cancer screening by high-risk groups compromises its effectiveness and equity as a population-level early detection strategy. Numerous psychological factors are implicated qualitatively or retrospectively, but prospective data are needed to validate their associations with uptake behavior and specify psychological targets for intervention. METHODS: This is a prospective, longitudinal cohort study evaluating psychological correlates of lung cancer screening uptake. Ever-smokers (aged 55-77 y) were invited to a lung health check, at which low-dose computed tomography screening was offered through the SUMMIT Study-a multicenter screening implementation trial. One week after their screening invitation, 44,000 invitees were mailed the self-regulatory questionnaire for lung cancer screening. Regression analyses evaluated the constructs' associations with uptake (telephoning for an appointment) and sociodemographic characteristics. RESULTS: Higher odds of uptake were associated with both positive and negative perceptions. Positive perceptions included lung cancer controllability, benefits of early diagnosis, improved survival when lung cancer is detected early, willingness to be treated, and believing smoking cessation is effective in reducing risk. Negative perceptions included a higher lung cancer risk perception, negative beliefs about the consequences of lung cancer, perceiving lung cancer as stigmatized, and a negative emotional response. Although current smokers held the highest risk perceptions, they also reported negative perceptions that could undermine how they behave in response to their risk. CONCLUSIONS: Interventions to improve uptake should focus on changing perceptions that affect how an individual reacts when they believe their risk of lung cancer is high.

The person behind the nodule: a narrative review of the psychological impact of lung cancer screening.

Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer mortality globally, responsible for an estimated 1.76 million deaths worldwide in 2018 alone. Screening adults at high risk of lung cancer using low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) significantly reduces lung cancer mortality by finding the disease at an early, treatable stage. Many countries are actively considering whether to implement screening for their high-risk populations in light of the recently published Dutch-Belgian trial 'NELSON'. In deciding whether to implement a national screening programme, policymakers must weigh up the evidence for the relative risks posed to the entire screened population, including the potential psychological burden. This narrative review aimed to critically summarise the evidence for both negative and positive psychological responses experienced throughout the LDCT screening pathway, to describe their magnitude, duration and clinical relevance, and to draw out different aspects of measurement design crucial to their interpretation. A further aim was to discuss the available evidence for individual differences in psychological response, as well as interventions designed to promote psychological well-being. In summary, there was no evidence that the LDCT screening process caused adverse psychological outcomes overall, although those receiving indeterminate and suspicious LDCT results did report clinically raised anxiety and lung cancer-specific distress in the short-term. There was early evidence that demographic factors, smoking status and screening-ineligibility could be associated with individual differences in propensity to experience distress. Qualitative data suggested health beliefs could be modifiable mediators of these individual differences, but their aetiology requires quantitative and prospective research. There was also some evidence of positive psychological responses that could be capitalised on, and of the potential for person-centred communication interventions to achieve this. Further research needs to be embedded in real-world LDCT lung cancer screening services and use condition-specific measures to monitor outcomes and test evidence-based communication interventions in promoting psychological well-being.

Attitudes towards lung cancer screening in a population sample.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death worldwide. Routine UK lung cancer screening is not yet available, thus understanding barriers to participation in lung screening could help maximize effectiveness if introduced. METHODS: Population-based survey of 1007 adults aged 16 and over in Wales using random quota sampling. Computer-assisted face-to-face interviews included demographic variables (age, gender, smoking, social group), four lung cancer belief statements and three lung screening attitudinal items. Determinants of lung screening attitudes were examined using multivariable regression adjusted for age, gender, social group and previous exposure to lung campaign messages. RESULTS: Avoidance of lung screening due to fear of what might be found was statistically significantly associated with negative lung cancer beliefs including fatalism (aOR = 8.8, 95% CI = 5.6-13.9, P ≤ 0.001), low perceived value of symptomatic presentation (aOR = 2.4, 95% CI = 1.5-3.9, P ≤ 0.001) and low treatment efficacy (aOR = 0.3, CI = 0.2-0.7, P ≤ 0.01). Low perceived effectiveness of lung screening was significantly associated with fatalism (aOR = 6.4, 95% CI = 3.5-11.7, P ≤ 0.001), low perceived value of symptom presentation (aOR = 4.9, 95% CI = 2.7-8.9, P ≤ 0.001) and low treatment efficacy (aOR = 0.1, 95% CI = 0.1-0.3, P ≤ 0.001). In contrast, respondents who thought lung screening could reduce cancer deaths had positive beliefs about lung cancer (aOR = 0.4, 95% CI = 0.2-0.7, P ≤ 0.001) and its treatment (aOR = 6.1, 95% CI = 3.0-12.6, P ≤ 0.001). CONCLUSION: People with negative beliefs about lung cancer may be more likely to avoid lung screening. Alongside the introduction of effective early detection strategies, interventions are needed to modify public perceptions of lung cancer, particularly for fatalism.

The UK Lung Cancer Screening Trial: a pilot randomised controlled trial of low-dose computed tomography screening for the early detection of lung cancer.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer kills more people than any other cancer in the UK (5-year survival < 13%). Early diagnosis can save lives. The USA-based National Lung Cancer Screening Trial reported a 20% relative reduction in lung cancer mortality and 6.7% all-cause mortality in low-dose computed tomography (LDCT)-screened subjects. OBJECTIVES: To (1) analyse LDCT lung cancer screening in a high-risk UK population, determine optimum recruitment, screening, reading and care pathway strategies; and (2) assess the psychological consequences and the health-economic implications of screening. DESIGN: A pilot randomised controlled trial comparing intervention with usual care. A population-based risk questionnaire identified individuals who were at high risk of developing lung cancer (≥ 5% over 5 years). SETTING: Thoracic centres with expertise in lung cancer imaging, respiratory medicine, pathology and surgery: Liverpool Heart & Chest Hospital, Merseyside, and Papworth Hospital, Cambridgeshire. PARTICIPANTS: Individuals aged 50-75 years, at high risk of lung cancer, in the primary care trusts adjacent to the centres. INTERVENTIONS: A thoracic LDCT scan. Follow-up computed tomography (CT) scans as per protocol. Referral to multidisciplinary team clinics was determined by nodule size criteria. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Population-based recruitment based on risk stratification; management of the trial through web-based database; optimal characteristics of CT scan readers (radiologists vs. radiographers); characterisation of CT-detected nodules utilising volumetric analysis; prevalence of lung cancer at baseline; sociodemographic factors affecting participation; psychosocial measures (cancer distress, anxiety, depression, decision satisfaction); and cost-effectiveness modelling. RESULTS: A total of 247,354 individuals were approached to take part in the trial; 30.7% responded positively to the screening invitation. Recruitment of participants resulted in 2028 in the CT arm and 2027 in the control arm. A total of 1994 participants underwent CT scanning: 42 participants (2.1%) were diagnosed with lung cancer; 36 out of 42 (85.7%) of the screen-detected cancers were identified as stage 1 or 2, and 35 (83.3%) underwent surgical resection as their primary treatment. Lung cancer was more common in the lowest socioeconomic group. Short-term adverse psychosocial consequences were observed in participants who were randomised to the intervention arm and in those who had a major lung abnormality detected, but these differences were modest and temporary. Rollout of screening as a service or design of a full trial would need to address issues of outreach. The health-economic analysis suggests that the intervention could be cost-effective but this needs to be confirmed using data on actual lung cancer mortality. CONCLUSIONS: The UK Lung Cancer Screening (UKLS) pilot was successfully undertaken with 4055 randomised individuals. The data from the UKLS provide evidence that adds to existing data to suggest that lung cancer screening in the UK could potentially be implemented in the 60-75 years age group, selected via the Liverpool Lung Project risk model version 2 and using CT volumetry-based management protocols. FUTURE WORK: The UKLS data will be pooled with the NELSON (Nederlands Leuvens Longkanker Screenings Onderzoek: Dutch-Belgian Randomised Lung Cancer Screening Trial) and other European Union trials in 2017 which will provide European mortality and cost-effectiveness data. For now, there is a clear need for mortality results from other trials and further research to identify optimal methods of implementation and delivery. Strategies for increasing uptake and providing support for underserved groups will be key to implementation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN78513845. FUNDING: This project was funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment programme and will be published in full in Health Technology Assessment; Vol. 20, No. 40. See the NIHR Journals Library website for further project information.

Influences of cancer symptom knowledge, beliefs and barriers on cancer symptom presentation in relation to socioeconomic deprivation: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: People from lower socioeconomic groups have worse survival outcomes for cancer, which in part reflects later-stage disease at diagnosis. The mechanisms underlying delayed cancer symptom presentation in lower socioeconomic groups are not well understood. METHODS: Systematic review of studies of actual or anticipated symptom presentation across all tumour sites. Included studies measured socioeconomic group, symptom presentation and one or more of the following variables: cancer symptom knowledge, beliefs about cancer, barriers/facilitators to symptom presentation. RESULTS: A total of 60 studies was included. Symptom knowledge overall was lowest and actual presentation time was longest in lower socioeconomic groups. Knowledge for specific symptoms such as lumps and bleeding was good and encouraged timely symptom presentation, in contrast to non-specific symptoms which were not well recognised. The combination of fearful and fatalistic beliefs was typically associated with later presentation, especially in lower socioeconomic groups. Emotional barriers such as 'worry what the doctor might find' were more frequently reported in lower socioeconomic groups, and there was evidence to suggest that disclosing symptoms to family/friends could help or hinder early presentation. CONCLUSIONS: Poor symptom knowledge, fearful and fatalistic beliefs about cancer, and emotional barriers combine to prolong symptom presentation among lower socioeconomic groups. Targeted interventions should utilise social networks to improve knowledge of non-specific symptoms, challenge negative beliefs and encourage help-seeking, in order to reduce avoidable delays and minimise socioeconomic group inequalities.

Socioeconomic inequalities in attitudes towards cancer: an international cancer benchmarking partnership study.

Socioeconomic status (SES) differences in attitudes towards cancer have been implicated in the differential screening uptake and the timeliness of symptomatic presentation. However, the predominant emphasis of this work has been on cancer fatalism, and many studies focus on specific community subgroups. This study aimed to assess SES differences in positive and negative attitudes towards cancer in UK adults. A population-based sample of UK adults (n=6965, age≥50 years) completed the Awareness and Beliefs about Cancer scale, including six belief items: three positively framed (e.g. 'Cancer can often be cured') and three negatively framed (e.g. 'A cancer diagnosis is a death sentence'). SES was indexed by education. Analyses controlled for sex, ethnicity, marital status, age, self-rated health, and cancer experience. There were few education-level differences for the positive statements, and overall agreement was high (all>90%). In contrast, there were strong differences for negative statements (all Ps<0.001). Among respondents with lower education levels, 57% agreed that 'treatment is worse than cancer', 27% that cancer is 'a death sentence' and 16% 'would not want to know if I have cancer'. Among those with university education, the respective proportions were 34, 17 and 6%. Differences were not explained by cancer experience or health status. In conclusion, positive statements about cancer outcomes attract near-universal agreement. However, this optimistic perspective coexists alongside widespread fears about survival and treatment, especially among less-educated groups. Health education campaigns targeting socioeconomically disadvantaged groups might benefit from a focus on reducing negative attitudes, which is not necessarily achieved by promoting positive attitudes.

Option Grids to facilitate shared decision making for patients with Osteoarthritis of the knee: protocol for a single site, efficacy trial.

BACKGROUND: Despite policy interest, an ethical imperative, and evidence of the benefits of patient decision support tools, the adoption of shared decision making (SDM) in day-to-day clinical practice remains slow and is inhibited by barriers that include culture and attitudes; resources and time pressures. Patient decision support tools often require high levels of health and computer literacy. Option Grids are one-page evidence-based summaries of the available condition-specific treatment options, listing patients' frequently asked questions. They are designed to be sufficiently brief and accessible enough to support a better dialogue between patients and clinicians during routine consultations. This paper describes a study to assess whether an Option Grid for osteoarthritis of the knee (OA of the knee) facilitates SDM, and explores the use of Option Grids by patients disadvantaged by language or poor health literacy. METHODS/DESIGN: This will be a stepped wedge exploratory trial involving 72 patients with OA of the knee referred from primary medical care to a specialist musculoskeletal service in Oldham. Six physiotherapists will sequentially join the trial and consult with six patients using usual care procedures. After a period of brief training in using the Option Grid, the same six physiotherapists will consult with six further patients using an Option Grid in the consultation. The primary outcome will be efficacy of the Option Grid in facilitating SDM as measured by observational scores using the OPTION scale. Comparisons will be made between patients who have received the Option Grid and those who received usual care. A Decision Quality Measure (DQM) will assess quality of decision making. The health literacy of patients will be measured using the REALM-R instrument. Consultations will be observed and audio-recorded. Interviews will be conducted with the physiotherapists, patients and any interpreters present to explore their views of using the Option Grid. DISCUSSION: Option Grids offer a potential solution to the barriers to implementing traditional decision aids into routine clinical practice. The study will assess whether Option Grids can facilitate SDM in day-to-day clinical practice and explore their use with patients disadvantaged by language or poor health literacy. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN94871417.

Ovarian cancer symptom awareness and anticipated delayed presentation in a population sample.

BACKGROUND: While ovarian cancer is recognised as having identifiable early symptoms, understanding of the key determinants of symptom awareness and early presentation is limited. A population-based survey of ovarian cancer awareness and anticipated delayed presentation with symptoms was conducted as part of the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership (ICBP). METHODS: Women aged over 50 years were recruited using random probability sampling (n = 1043). Computer-assisted telephone interviews were used to administer measures including ovarian cancer symptom recognition, anticipated time to presentation with ovarian symptoms, health beliefs (perceived risk, perceived benefits/barriers to early presentation, confidence in symptom detection, ovarian cancer worry), and demographic variables. Logistic regression analysis was used to identify the contribution of independent variables to anticipated presentation (categorised as < 3 weeks or ≥ 3 weeks). RESULTS: The most well-recognised symptoms of ovarian cancer were post-menopausal bleeding (87.4%), and persistent pelvic (79.0%) and abdominal (85.0%) pain. Symptoms associated with eating difficulties and changes in bladder/bowel habits were recognised by less than half the sample. Lower symptom awareness was significantly associated with older age (p ≤ 0.001), being single (p ≤ 0.001), lower education (p ≤ 0.01), and lack of personal experience of ovarian cancer (p ≤ 0.01). The odds of anticipating a delay in time to presentation of ≥ 3 weeks were significantly increased in women educated to degree level (OR = 2.64, 95% CI 1.61 - 4.33, p ≤ 0.001), women who reported more practical barriers (OR = 1.60, 95% CI 1.34 - 1.91, p ≤ 0.001) and more emotional barriers (OR = 1.21, 95% CI 1.06 - 1.40, p ≤ 0.01), and those less confident in symptom detection (OR = 0.56, 95% CI 0.42 - 0.73, p ≤ 0.001), but not in those who reported lower symptom awareness (OR = 0.99, 95% CI 0.91 - 1.07, p = 0.74). CONCLUSIONS: Many symptoms of ovarian cancer are not well-recognised by women in the general population. Evidence-based interventions are needed not only to improve public awareness but also to overcome the barriers to recognising and acting on ovarian symptoms, if delays in presentation are to be minimised.

The UK Lung Screen (UKLS): demographic profile of first 88,897 approaches provides recommendations for population screening.

UNLABELLED: The UK Lung Cancer Screening trial (UKLS) aims to evaluate low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer population screening in the United Kingdom. In UKLS, a large population sample ages 50 to 75 years is approached with a questionnaire to determine lung cancer risk. Those with an estimated risk of at least 5% of developing lung cancer in the next 5 years (using the Liverpool Lung project risk model) are invited to participate in the trial. Here, we present demographic, risk, and response rate data from the first 88,897 individuals approached. Of note, 23,794 individuals (26.8% of all approached) responded positively to the initial questionnaire; 12% of these were high risk. Higher socioeconomic status correlated positively with response, but inversely with risk (P < 0.001). The 50- to 55-year age group was least likely to participate, and at lowest cancer risk. Only 5% of clinic attendees were ages ≤60 years (compared with 47% of all 88,897 approached); this has implications for cost effectiveness. Among positive responders, there were more ex-smokers than expected from population figures (40% vs. 33%), and fewer current smokers (14% vs. 17.5%). Of note, 32.7% of current smokers and 18.4% of ex-smokers were designated as high risk. Overall, 1,452 of 23,794 positive responders (6.1%) were deemed high risk and attended a recruitment clinic. UKLS is the first LDCT population screening trial, selecting high-risk subjects using a validated individual risk prediction model. KEY FINDINGS: (i) better recruitment from ex- rather than current smokers, (ii) few clinic attendees ages early 50s, and (iii) representative number of socioeconomically deprived people recruited, despite lower response rates.

An international measure of awareness and beliefs about cancer: development and testing of the ABC.

OBJECTIVES: To develop an internationally validated measure of cancer awareness and beliefs; the awareness and beliefs about cancer (ABC) measure. DESIGN AND SETTING: Items modified from existing measures were assessed by a working group in six countries (Australia, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Sweden and the UK). Validation studies were completed in the UK, and cross-sectional surveys of the general population were carried out in the six participating countries. PARTICIPANTS: Testing in UK English included cognitive interviewing for face validity (N=10), calculation of content validity indexes (six assessors), and assessment of test-retest reliability (N=97). Conceptual and cultural equivalence of modified (Canadian and Australian) and translated (Danish, Norwegian, Swedish and Canadian French) ABC versions were tested quantitatively for equivalence of meaning (≥4 assessors per country) and in bilingual cognitive interviews (three interviews per translation). Response patterns were assessed in surveys of adults aged 50+ years (N≥2000) in each country. MAIN OUTCOMES: Psychometric properties were evaluated through tests of validity and reliability, conceptual and cultural equivalence and systematic item analysis. Test-retest reliability used weighted-κ and intraclass correlations. Construction and validation of aggregate scores was by factor analysis for (1) beliefs about cancer outcomes, (2) beliefs about barriers to symptomatic presentation, and item summation for (3) awareness of cancer symptoms and (4) awareness of cancer risk factors. RESULTS: The English ABC had acceptable test-retest reliability and content validity. International assessments of equivalence identified a small number of items where wording needed adjustment. Survey response patterns showed that items performed well in terms of difficulty and discrimination across countries except for awareness of cancer outcomes in Australia. Aggregate scores had consistent factor structures across countries. CONCLUSIONS: The ABC is a reliable and valid international measure of cancer awareness and beliefs. The methods used to validate and harmonise the ABC may serve as a methodological guide in international survey research.

Psychological outcomes of familial ovarian cancer screening: no evidence of long-term harm.

OBJECTIVES: Ovarian cancer screening for women at increased genetic risk in the UK involves 4-monthly CA125 tests and annual ultrasound, with further tests prompted by an abnormal result. The study evaluated the longer-term psychological and behavioural effects of frequent ovarian screening. METHODS: Women completed T1 questionnaires before their first routine 4-monthly CA125 test, and T2 follow-up questionnaires one week after their result. Women with abnormal results completed a further questionnaire one week after return to routine screening (T3 primary end-point). T4 questionnaires were sent at nine months. Measures included cancer distress, general anxiety/depression, reassurance, and withdrawal from screening. RESULTS: A total 1999 (62%) of 3224 women completed T1 questionnaires. T2 questionnaires were completed by 1384/1609 participants (86%): 1217 (89%) with normal results and 167/242 (69%) with abnormal results. T3 questionnaires were completed by 141/163 (87%) women, with 912/1173 (78%) completing T4 questionnaires. Analysis of covariance indicated that, compared to women with normal results, women with abnormal results reported moderate cancer distress (F = 27.47, p ≤ .001, η(2) = 0.02) one week after their abnormal result and were significantly more likely to withdraw from screening (OR = 4.38, p ≤ .001). These effects were not apparent at T3 or T4. The effect of screening result on general anxiety/depression or overall reassurance was not significant. CONCLUSIONS: Women participating in frequent ovarian screening who are recalled for an abnormal result may experience transient cancer-specific distress, which may prompt reconsideration of risk management options. Health professionals and policy makers may be reassured that frequent familial ovarian screening does not cause sustained psychological harm.

Withdrawal from familial ovarian cancer screening for surgery: findings from a psychological evaluation study (PsyFOCS).

OBJECTIVE: A prospective psychological evaluation study of familial ovarian cancer screening (PsyFOCS) is underway in partnership with the UK Familial Ovarian Cancer Screening Study (UK FOCSS Phase 2). One of the aims of PsyFOCS is to examine factors associated with withdrawal from the UK FOCSS prior to the onset of 4-monthly screening. METHOD: 1999 of 3224 women completed a baseline questionnaire. 110 (5.5%) women withdrew from screening prior to their first routine Phase 2 screen, of which 73 (66.4% of withdrawals) had withdrawn because they had undergone removal of their ovaries and fallopian tubes (withdrawn group). The comparison group consisted of 1868 women who remained on screening. The baseline questionnaire included measures of cancer-specific distress, anxiety, depression and illness perceptions. RESULTS: Logistic regression analysis indicated that having had prior annual (Phase 1) screening (OR=13.34, p<.01), past experience of further tests (OR=2.37, p<.01) and greater cancer-specific distress (OR=1.38, p<.01) were associated with withdrawal for surgery. Belief in ageing as a cause of ovarian cancer was also associated with withdrawal (OR=1.32, p=.05). CONCLUSION: These cross-sectional data suggest that withdrawal from familial ovarian cancer screening may be influenced by both clinical and psychological factors. These may reflect women's experience of the drawbacks of screening and increased concern about ovarian cancer risk, as well as having opportunities to consider surgery as an alternative risk management strategy whilst using screening as an interim measure.