Women's Intentions to Engage in Risk-Reducing Behaviours after Receiving Personal Ovarian Cancer Risk Information: An Experimental Survey Study.

Risk stratification using genetic and/or other types of information could identify women at increased ovarian cancer risk. The aim of this study was to examine women's potential reactions to ovarian cancer risk stratification. A total of 1017 women aged 45-75 years took part in an online experimental survey. Women were randomly assigned to one of three experimental conditions describing hypothetical personal results from ovarian cancer risk stratification, and asked to imagine they had received one of three results: (a) 5% lifetime risk due to single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) and lifestyle factors; (b) 10% lifetime risk due to SNPs and lifestyle factors; (c) 10% lifetime risk due to a single rare mutation in a gene. Results: 83% of women indicated interest in having ovarian cancer risk assessment. After receiving their hypothetical risk estimates, 29% of women stated they would have risk-reducing surgery. Choosing risk-reducing surgery over other behavioural responses was associated with having higher surgery self-efficacy and perceived response-efficacy, but not with perceptions of disease threat, i.e., perceived risk or severity, or with experimental condition. A substantial proportion of women age 45-75 years may be open to the idea of surgery to reduce risk of ovarian cancer, even if their absolute lifetime risk is only increased to as little as 5 or 10%.

Cancer stigma and cancer screening attendance: a population based survey in England.

BACKGROUND: Cancer-related stigma attracts considerable research interest, but few studies have examined stigmatisation in the healthy population. Qualitative studies suggest that stigma can discourage people from attending cancer screening. We aimed to quantify the prevalence and socio-demographic patterning of cancer stigma in the general population and to explore its association with cancer screening attendance. METHODS: In 2016, 1916 adults aged 18-70 years took part in home-based interviews in England. Measures assessed demographic characteristics, self-reported screening uptake for cervical (n = 681), breast (n = 326) and colorectal cancer (n = 371), and cancer stigma. Cancer stigma was measured with the validated Cancer Stigma Scale which assesses six subdomains (Severity, Personal Responsibility, Awkwardness, Avoidance, Policy Opposition, and Financial Discrimination), from which a mean score was calculated. Logistic regression analyses examined the association between cancer stigma and having been screened as recommended versus not. RESULTS: Levels of cancer stigma were low, but varied across the six subdomains. Items regarding the severity of a cancer diagnosis attracted the highest levels of agreement (30-51%), followed by statements about the acceptability of making financial decisions on the basis of a cancer diagnosis such as allowing banks to refuse a mortgage (16-31%) and policy opposition statements such as not having a responsibility to provide the best possible care for cancer patients (10-17%). A similar proportion anticipated feeling awkward around someone with cancer (10-17%). Only 8-11% agreed with personal responsibility statements, such as that a person with cancer is to blame for their condition, while 4-5% of adults anticipated avoiding someone with cancer. Stigma was significantly higher in men (p < .05) and in those from ethnic minority backgrounds (p < .001). Higher cancer stigma was associated with not being screened as recommended for all three screening programmes (cervical: adjusted OR 1.59, 95% CI 1.15-2.20; breast: adjusted OR = 1.97, 95% CI 1.17-3.32; colorectal: adjusted OR = 1.59, 95% CI 1.06-2.38). CONCLUSIONS: Cancer stigma is generally low, but some aspects of stigma are more prevalent than others. Stigma is more prevalent in certain population subgroups and is negatively associated with cancer screening uptake. These benchmark findings may help track and reduce cancer stigma over time.

Testing active choice for screening practitioner's gender in endoscopy among disinclined women: An online experiment.

OBJECTIVES: A large proportion of women have a preference for a same-gender endoscopy practitioner. We tested how information about practitioner gender affected intention to have bowel scope screening in a sample of women disinclined to have the test. METHODS: In an online experimental survey, women aged 35-54 living in England who did not intend to participate in bowel scope screening (N = 1060) were randomised to one of four experimental conditions: (1) control (practitioner's gender is unknown), (2) opposite-gender (male practitioner by default), (3) same gender (female practitioner by default), and (4) active choice (the patient could choose the gender of the practitioner). Intention was measured following the interventions. RESULTS: Of 1010 (95.3%) women who completed the survey, most were White-British (83.6%), and working (63.3%). Compared with control, both active choice and same-gender conditions increased intention among disinclined women (9.3% vs. 16.0% and 17.9%; OR: 1.85; 95% CI: 1.07-3.20 and OR: 2.07; 95% CI: 1.23-3.50). There were no differences in intention between the opposite-gender and control conditions (9.8% vs. 9.3%; OR: 1.06; 95% CI: 0.60-1.90) or the active choice and same-gender conditions (16.0% vs. 17.9%: OR: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.55-1.46, using same gender as baseline). CONCLUSIONS: Offering disinclined women a same-gender practitioner, either by choice or default, increased subsequent intention, while an opposite gender default did not negatively affect intention. Reducing uncertainty about gender of practitioner could positively affect uptake in women, and should be tested in a randomised controlled trial.