Acceptability and feasibility of a parent-mediated social-communication therapy for young autistic children in Brazil: A qualitative implementation study of Paediatric Autism Communication Therapy.

LAY ABSTRACT: Parents of autistic children and health professionals who work with autistic children in Brazil had positive views about introducing Paediatric Autism Communication Therapy as a therapy for autistic children in Brazil. The parents and clinicians also mentioned some difficulties about using Paediatric Autism Communication Therapy in Brazil. We made adaptations to Paediatric Autism Communication Therapy to address these difficulties. Paediatric Autism Communication Therapy is a therapy to support the development of social and communication skills for autistic children aged 2-10 years. The therapy is conducted with the autistic child's parent. Paediatric Autism Communication Therapy has not been used in Brazil before. There are few therapy options available for autistic children in Brazil and we believed that Paediatric Autism Communication Therapy may be useful. We asked three groups of people in Brazil about their views of Paediatric Autism Communication Therapy, after explaining how the therapy works. Group 1 included 18 parents of autistic children aged 2-10 years. Group 2 included 20 health professionals such as psychologists who work with autistic children. Group 3 included 15 parents of autistic children aged 2-7 years who received the Paediatric Autism Communication Therapy. We learned that parents and clinicians felt that Paediatric Autism Communication Therapy would be a beneficial therapy for autistic children in Brazil. We also found out about the challenges of using Paediatric Autism Communication Therapy in Brazil. We used these findings to make small cultural adaptations to Paediatric Autism Communication Therapy to make it more suitable for Brazil.

How do women at increased risk of breast cancer make sense of their risk? An interpretative phenomenological analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Offering breast cancer risk prediction for all women of screening age is being considered globally. For women who have received a clinically derived estimate, risk appraisals are often inaccurate. This study aimed to gain an in-depth understanding of women's lived experiences of receiving an increased breast cancer risk. DESIGN: One-to-one semi-structured telephone interviews. METHODS: Eight women informed that they were at a 10-year above-average (moderate) or high risk in a breast cancer risk study (BC-Predict) were interviewed about their views on breast cancer, personal breast cancer risk and risk prevention. Interviews lasted between 40 and 70 min. Data were analysed using Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis. RESULTS: Four themes were generated: (i) encounters with breast cancer and perceived personal significance, where the nature of women's lived experiences of others with breast cancer impacted their views on the significance of the disease, (ii) 'It's random really': difficulty in seeking causal attributions, where women encountered contradictions and confusion in attributing causes to breast cancer, (iii) believing versus identifying with a clinically-derived breast cancer risk, where personal risk appraisals and expectations influenced women's ability to internalize their clinically derived risk and pursue preventative action and (iv) perceived utility of breast cancer risk notification, where women reflected on the usefulness of knowing their risk. CONCLUSIONS: Providing (numerical) risk estimates appear to have little impact on stable yet internally contradictory beliefs about breast cancer risk. Given this, discussions with healthcare professionals are needed to help women form more accurate appraisals and make informed decisions.

What do women think about having received their breast cancer risk as part of a risk-stratified NHS Breast Screening Programme? A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Risk-stratified screening is being considered for national breast screening programmes. It is unclear how women experience risk-stratified screening and receipt of breast cancer risk information in real time. This study aimed to explore the psychological impact of undergoing risk-stratified screening within England's NHS Breast Screening Programme. METHODS: Individual telephone interviews were conducted with 40 women who participated in the BC-Predict study and received a letter indicating their estimated breast cancer risk as one of four risk categories: low (<2% 10-year risk), average (2-4.99%), above average (moderate; 5-7.99%) or high (≥8%). Audio-recorded interview transcriptions were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Two themes were produced: 'From risk expectations to what's my future health story?' highlights that women overall valued the opportunity to receive risk estimates; however, when these were discordant with perceived risk, this causes temporary distress or rejection of the information. 'Being a good (woman) citizen' where women felt positive contributing to society but may feel judged if they then cannot exert agency over the management of their risk or access follow-up support CONCLUSIONS: Risk-stratified breast screening was generally accepted without causing long-lasting distress; however, issues related to risk communication and access to care pathways need to be considered for implementation.

Quantifying the effects of risk-stratified breast cancer screening when delivered in real time as routine practice versus usual screening: the BC-Predict non-randomised controlled study (NCT04359420).

BACKGROUND: Risk stratification as a routine part of the NHS Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP) could provide a better balance of benefits and harms. We developed BC-Predict, to offer women when invited to the NHSBSP, which collects standard risk factor information; mammographic density; and in a sub-sample, a Polygenic Risk Score (PRS). METHODS: Risk prediction was estimated primarily from self-reported questionnaires and mammographic density using the Tyrer-Cuzick risk model. Women eligible for NHSBSP were recruited. BC-Predict produced risk feedback letters, inviting women at high risk (≥8% 10-year) or moderate risk (≥5-<8% 10-year) to have appointments to discuss prevention and additional screening. RESULTS: Overall uptake of BC-Predict in screening attendees was 16.9% with 2472 consenting to the study; 76.8% of those received risk feedback within the 8-week timeframe. Recruitment was 63.2% with an onsite recruiter and paper questionnaire compared to <10% with BC-Predict only (P < 0.0001). Risk appointment attendance was highest for those at high risk (40.6%); 77.5% of those opted for preventive medication. DISCUSSION: We have shown that a real-time offer of breast cancer risk information (including both mammographic density and PRS) is feasible and can be delivered in reasonable time, although uptake requires personal contact. Preventive medication uptake in women newly identified at high risk is high and could improve the cost-effectiveness of risk stratification. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Retrospectively registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04359420).

Psychological impact of risk-stratified screening as part of the NHS Breast Screening Programme: multi-site non-randomised comparison of BC-Predict versus usual screening (NCT04359420).

BACKGROUND: Adding risk stratification to standard screening via the NHS Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP) allows women at higher risk to be offered additional prevention and screening options. It may, however, introduce new harms such as increasing cancer worry. The present study aimed to assess whether there were differences in self-reported harms and benefits between women offered risk stratification (BC-Predict) compared to women offered standard NHSBSP, controlling for baseline values. METHODS: As part of the larger PROCAS2 study (NCT04359420), 5901 women were offered standard NHSBSP or BC-Predict at the invitation to NHSBSP. Women who took up BC-Predict received 10-year risk estimates: "high" (≥8%), "above average (moderate)" (5-7.99%), "average" (2-4.99%) or "below average (low)" (<2%) risk. A subset of 662 women completed questionnaires at baseline and at 3 months (n = 511) and 6 months (n = 473). RESULTS: State anxiety and cancer worry scores were low with no differences between women offered BC-Predict or NHSBSP. Women offered BC-Predict and informed of being at higher risk reported higher risk perceptions and cancer worry than other women, but without reaching clinical levels. CONCLUSIONS: Concerns that risk-stratified screening will produce harm due to increases in general anxiety or cancer worry are unfounded, even for women informed that they are at high risk.

Healthcare professionals' views following implementation of risk stratification into a national breast cancer screening programme.

BACKGROUND: It is crucial to determine feasibility of risk-stratified screening to facilitate successful implementation. We introduced risk-stratification (BC-Predict) into the NHS Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP) at three screening sites in north-west England from 2019 to 2021. The present study investigated the views of healthcare professionals (HCPs) on acceptability, barriers, and facilitators of the BC-Predict intervention and on the wider implementation of risk-based screening after BC-Predict was implemented in their screening site. METHODS: Fourteen semi-structured interviews were conducted with HCPs working across the breast screening pathway at three NHSBSP sites that implemented BC-Predict. Thematic analysis interpreted the data. RESULTS: Three pre-decided themes were produced. (1) Acceptability of risk-based screening: risk-stratification was perceived as a beneficial step for both services and women. HCPs across the pathway reported low burden of running the BC-Predict trial on routine tasks, but with some residual concerns; (2) Barriers to implementation: comprised capacity constraints of services including the inadequacy of current IT systems to manage women with different risk profiles and, (3) Facilitators to implementation: included the continuation of stakeholder consultation across the pathway to inform implementation and need for dedicated risk screening admin staff, a push for mammography staff recruitment and guidance for screening services. Telephone helplines, integrating primary care, and supporting access for all language needs was emphasised. CONCLUSION: Risk-stratified breast screening was viewed as a progressive step providing it does not worsen inequalities for women. Implementation of risk-stratified breast screening requires staff to be reassured that there will be systems in place to support implementation and that it will not further burden their workload. Next steps require a comprehensive assessment of the resource needed for risk-stratification versus current resource availability, upgrades to screening IT and building screening infrastructure. The role of primary care needs to be determined. Simplification and clarification of risk-based screening pathways is needed to support HCPs agency and facilitate implementation. Forthcoming evidence from ongoing randomised controlled trials assessing effectiveness of breast cancer risk-stratification will also determine implementation.

What are the views of three key stakeholder groups on extending the breast screening interval for low-risk women? A secondary qualitative analysis.

INTRODUCTION: There is increasing interest in risk-stratified breast screening, whereby the prevention and early detection offers vary by a woman's estimated risk of breast cancer. To date, more focus has been directed towards high-risk screening pathways rather than considering women at lower risk, who may be eligible for extended screening intervals. This secondary data analysis aimed to compare the views of three key stakeholder groups on how extending screening intervals for low-risk women should be implemented and communicated as part of a national breast screening programme. METHODS: Secondary data analysis of three qualitative studies exploring the views of distinct stakeholder groups was conducted. Interviews took place with 23 low-risk women (identified from the BC-Predict study) and 17 national screening figures, who were involved in policy-making and implementation. In addition, three focus groups and two interviews were conducted with 26 healthcare professionals. A multiperspective thematic analysis was conducted to identify similarities and differences between stakeholders. FINDINGS: Three themes were produced: Questionable assumptions about negative consequences, highlighting how other stakeholders lack trust in how women are likely to understand extended screening intervals; Preserving the integrity of the programme, centring on decision-making and maintaining a positive reputation of breast screening and Negotiating a communication pathway highlighting communication expectations and public campaign importance. CONCLUSIONS: A risk-stratified screening programme should consider how best to engage women assessed as having a low risk of breast cancer to ensure mutual trust, balance the practicality of change whilst ensuring acceptability, and carefully develop multilevel inclusive communication strategies. PATIENT AND PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The research within this paper involved patient/public contributors throughout including study design and materials input.

Implementing Risk-Stratified Breast Screening in England: An Agenda Setting Meeting.

It is now possible to accurately assess breast cancer risk at routine NHS Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP) appointments, provide risk feedback and offer risk management strategies to women at higher risk. These strategies include National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) approved additional breast screening and risk-reducing medication. However, the NHSBSP invites nearly all women three-yearly, regardless of risk. In March 2022, a one-day agenda setting meeting took place in Manchester to discuss the feasibility and desirability of implementation of risk-stratified screening in the NHSBSP. Fifty-eight individuals participated (38 face-to-face, 20 virtual) with relevant expertise from academic, clinical and/or policy-making perspectives. Key findings were presented from the PROCAS2 NIHR programme grant regarding feasibility of risk-stratified screening in the NHSBSP. Participants discussed key uncertainties in seven groups, followed by a plenary session. Discussions were audio-recorded and thematically analysed to produce descriptive themes. Five themes were developed: (i) risk and health economic modelling; (ii) health inequalities and communication with women; (iii); extending screening intervals for low-risk women; (iv) integration with existing NHSBSP; and (v) potential new service models. Most attendees expected some form of risk-stratified breast screening to be implemented in England and collectively identified key issues to be resolved to facilitate this.

How do women who are informed that they are at increased risk of breast cancer appraise their risk? A systematic review of qualitative research.

This review aimed to synthesise qualitative research on how women notified that they are at increased risk of breast cancer view their risk. Five electronic databases were systematically reviewed for qualitative research investigating how women who have received an increased breast cancer risk estimate appraise their risk status. Fourteen records reporting 12 studies were included and critically appraised. Data were thematically synthesised. Four analytical themes were generated. Women appraise their risk of breast cancer through comparison with their risk of other familial diseases. Clinically derived risk estimates were understood in relation to pre-conceived risk appraisals, with incongruences met with surprise. Family history is relied upon strongly, with women exploring similarities and differences in attributes between themselves and affected relatives to gauge the likelihood of diagnosis. Women at increased risk reported living under a cloud of inevitability or uncertainty regarding diagnosis, resulting in concerns about risk management. Women hold stable appraisals of their breast cancer risk which appear to be mainly formed through their experiences of breast cancer in the family. Healthcare professionals should explore women's personal risk appraisals prior to providing clinically derived risk estimates in order to address misconceptions, reduce concerns about inevitability and increase perceived control over risk reduction.

The Impact of Morbidity and Disability on Attendance at Organized Breast Cancer-Screening Programs: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Individuals with morbidity experience worse breast cancer outcomes compared with those without. This meta-analysis assessed the impact of morbidity on breast cancer-screening attendance and subsequent early detection (PROSPERO pre-registration CRD42020204918). MEDLINE, PsychInfo, and CINAHL were searched. Included articles published from 1988 measured organized breast-screening mammography attendance using medical records by women with morbidity compared with those without. Morbidities were assigned to nine diagnostic clusters. Data were pooled using random-effects inverse meta-analyses to produce odds ratios (OR) for attendance. 25 study samples (28 articles) were included. Data were available from 17,755,075 individuals, including at least 1,408,246 participants with one or more conditions;16,250,556 had none. Individuals with any morbidity had lower odds of attending breast screening compared with controls [k = 25; OR, 0.76; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.70-0.81; P = <0.001; I2 = 99%]. Six morbidity clusters had lower odds of attendance. The lowest were for neurological, psychiatric, and disability conditions; ORs ranged from 0.45 to 0.59 compared with those without. Morbidity presents a clear barrier for breast-screening attendance, exacerbating health inequalities and, includes a larger number of conditions than previously identified. Consensus is required to determine a standardized approach on how best to identify those with morbidity and determine solutions for overcoming barriers to screening participation based on specific morbidity profiles.

Attitudes towards the integration of smoking cessation into lung cancer screening in the United Kingdom: A qualitative study of individuals eligible to attend.

INTRODUCTION: There is limited research exploring how smoking cessation treatment should be implemented into lung cancer screening in the United Kingdom. This study aimed to understand attitudes and preferences regarding the integration of smoking cessation support within lung cancer screening from the perspective of those eligible. METHODS: Thirty-one lung cancer screening eligible individuals aged 55-80 years with current or former smoking histories were recruited using community outreach and social media. Two focus groups (three participants each) and 25 individual telephone interviews were conducted. Data were analysed using the framework approach to thematic analysis. RESULTS: Three themes were generated: (1) bringing lung cancer closer to home, where screening was viewed as providing an opportunity to motivate smoking cessation, depending on perceived personal risk and screening result; (2) a sensitive approach to cessation with the uptake of cessation support considered to be largely dependent on screening practitioners' communication style and expectations of stigma and (3) creating an equitable service that focuses on ease of access as a key determinant of uptake, where integrating cessation within the screening appointment may sustain increased quit motivation and prevent loss to follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: The integration of smoking cessation into lung cancer screening was viewed positively by those eligible to attend. Screening appointments providing personalized lung health information may increase cessation motivation. Services should proactively support participants with possible fatalistic views regarding risk and decreased cessation motivation upon receiving a good screening result. To increase engagement in cessation, services need to be person-centred. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This study has included patient and public involvement throughout, including input regarding study design, research materials, recruitment strategies and research summaries.

Does receiving high or low breast cancer risk estimates produce a reduction in subsequent breast cancer screening attendance? Cohort study.

Risk-stratified breast cancer screening may improve the balance of screening benefits to harms. We assess a potential new harm: reduced screening attendance in women receiving below average-risk (false reassurance) or higher-risk results (screening avoidance). Following initial screening, 26,668 women in the PROCAS study received breast cancer risk estimates, with attendance recorded for two subsequent screening rounds. First-screen attendance was slightly reduced in below-average (85.6%) but not higher-risk women, compared to other women (86.4%). Second-screen attendance increased for women at higher-risk (89.2%) but not below-average, compared to other women (78.8%). Concerns about this potential harm of risk-stratified screening therefore appear unfounded.

Changes in the nutritional content of children's lunches after the Food Dudes healthy eating programme.

Previous research into the effectiveness of healthy eating programmes has shown increases in healthful eating behaviour in primary schools; however, data collection methods have not been sufficiently sensitive to detect micronutrient changes. The present study extends the literature by measuring individual children's intake of macro- and micronutrients at lunchtime, before and after a programme targeting children's consumption of fruit and vegetables, to identify evidence-based health benefits of programme participation. Baseline data were collected over 4 d at lunchtime in two primary schools. The Food Dudes programme was then implemented in the intervention school. Follow-up data were collected over 4 d in each school 2 months after baseline. We employed a validated and sensitive photographic method to estimate individual children's (N 112) consumption of fruit, vegetables, and their intake of calories, macro- and selected micronutrients. Significant changes were observed in the intervention school but not in the control school: Children's consumption of fruit, vegetables, vitamin C and E intake increased, while their total energy consumption, fat, saturated fat, and sodium intake decreased. The present results show that the Food Dudes programme produced a positive nutritional change, with implications for its application as a healthy eating and obesity prevention intervention. These optimistic conclusions should be tested by further research to establish the longevity of the positive effects presented here.

Extending screening intervals for women at low risk of breast cancer: do they find it acceptable?

BACKGROUND: Trials of risk estimation in breast cancer screening programmes, in order to identify women at higher risk and offer extra screening/preventive measures, are ongoing. It may also be feasible to introduce less frequent screening for women at low-risk of breast cancer. This study aimed to establish views of women at low-risk of breast cancer regarding the acceptability of extending breast screening intervals for low-risk women beyond 3 y. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were used to explore views of low-risk women, where "low-risk" was defined as less than 2% estimated 10-year risk of breast cancer aged > 46 years. Low-risk women were identified via the BC-Predict study, where following routine screening, women were given their 10-year risk of breast cancer by letter, along with additional information explaining breast cancer risk factors. To gain diversity of views, purposive sampling by ethnicity and socioeconomic background was used to recruit women. Data were analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Twenty-three women participated in individual interviews. Three themes are reported: (1) A good opportunity to receive risk estimation, where women found it worthwhile to receive a low-risk result although some were surprised if expecting a higher risk result; (2) Multi-faceted acceptability of extended screening intervals, with reactions to less frequent screening dependent on whether women were confident in being low-risk status and current safety evidence, (3) Passive approval versus informed choice, highlighting that women found it difficult to consider choosing less frequent screening without professionals' recommendations, as they generally viewed attending breast screening as positive. CONCLUSIONS: Risk assessment and receiving a low-risk of breast cancer is acceptable although, further research is required with more diverse samples of women. Any recommendation of less frequent screening in this risk group should be evidence-based in order to be acceptable. Communication needs to be carefully developed, with a focus on ensuring informed choice, prior to trialling any extended screening recommendations in future studies.

Introducing a low-risk breast screening pathway into the NHS Breast Screening Programme: Views from healthcare professionals who are delivering risk-stratified screening.

OBJECTIVES: Proposals to stratify breast screening by breast cancer risk aim to produce a better balance of benefits to harms. Notably, risk estimation calculated from common risk factors and a polygenic risk score would enable high-risk women to benefit from more frequent screening or preventive medication. This service would also identify low-risk women who experience fewer benefits from attending, as lower grade and in situ cancers may be treated unnecessarily. It may therefore be appropriate for low-risk women to attend screening less. This study aimed to elicit views regarding implementing less frequent screening for low-risk women from healthcare professionals who implement risk-stratified screening. METHODS: Healthcare professionals involved in the delivery of risk-stratified breast screening were invited to participate in a focus group within the screening setting in which they work or have a telephone interview. Primary care staff were also invited to provide their perspective. Three focus groups and two telephone interviews were conducted with 28 healthcare professionals. To identify patterns across the sample, data were analysed as a single dataset using reflexive thematic analysis. RESULTS: Analysis yielded three themes: Reservations concerning the introduction of less frequent screening, highlighting healthcare professionals' unease and concerns towards implementing less frequent screening; Considerations for the management of public knowledge, providing views on media impact on public opinion and the potential for a low-risk pathway to cause confusion and raise suspicion regarding implementation motives; and Deliberating service implications and reconfiguration management, where the practicalities of implementation are discussed. CONCLUSIONS: Healthcare professionals broadly supported less frequent screening but had concerns about implementation. It will be essential to address concerns regarding risk estimate accuracy, healthcare professional confidence, service infrastructure and public communication prior to introducing less frequent screening for low-risk women.

Risk stratified breast cancer screening: UK healthcare policy decision-making stakeholders' views on a low-risk breast screening pathway.

BACKGROUND: There is international interest in risk-stratification of breast screening programmes to allow women at higher risk to benefit from more frequent screening and chemoprevention. Risk-stratification also identifies women at low-risk who could be screened less frequently, as the harms of breast screening may outweigh benefits for this group. The present research aimed to elicit the views of national healthcare policy decision-makers regarding implementation of less frequent screening intervals for women at low-risk. METHODS: Seventeen professionals were purposively recruited to ensure relevant professional group representation directly or indirectly associated with the UK National Screening Committee and National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) clinical guidelines. Interviews were analysed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Three themes are reported: (1) producing the evidence defining low-risk, describing requirements preceding implementation; (2) the impact of risk stratification on women is complicated, focusing on gaining acceptability from women; and (3) practically implementing a low-risk pathway, where feasibility questions are highlighted. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, national healthcare policy decision-makers appear to believe that risk-stratified breast screening is acceptable, in principle. It will however be essential to address key obstacles prior to implementation in national programmes.

What are the benefits and harms of risk stratified screening as part of the NHS breast screening Programme? Study protocol for a multi-site non-randomised comparison of BC-predict versus usual screening (NCT04359420).

BACKGROUND: In principle, risk-stratification as a routine part of the NHS Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP) should produce a better balance of benefits and harms. The main benefit is the offer of NICE-approved more frequent screening and/ or chemoprevention for women who are at increased risk, but are unaware of this. We have developed BC-Predict, to be offered to women when invited to NHSBSP which collects information on risk factors (self-reported information on family history and hormone-related factors via questionnaire; mammographic density; and in a sub-sample, Single Nucleotide Polymorphisms). BC-Predict produces risk feedback letters, inviting women at high risk (≥8% 10-year) or moderate risk (≥5 to < 8% 10-year) to have discussion of prevention and early detection options at Family History, Risk and Prevention Clinics. Despite the promise of systems such as BC-Predict, there are still too many uncertainties for a fully-powered definitive trial to be appropriate or ethical. The present research aims to identify these key uncertainties regarding the feasibility of integrating BC-Predict into the NHSBSP. Key objectives of the present research are to quantify important potential benefits and harms, and identify key drivers of the relative cost-effectiveness of embedding BC-Predict into NHSBSP. METHODS: A non-randomised fully counterbalanced study design will be used, to include approximately equal numbers of women offered NHSBSP (n = 18,700) and BC-Predict (n = 18,700) from selected screening sites (n = 7). In the initial 8-month time period, women eligible for NHSBSP will be offered BC-Predict in four screening sites. Three screening sites will offer women usual NHSBSP. In the following 8-months the study sites offering usual NHSBSP switch to BC-Predict and vice versa. Key potential benefits including uptake of risk consultations, chemoprevention and additional screening will be obtained for both groups. Key potential harms such as increased anxiety will be obtained via self-report questionnaires, with embedded qualitative process analysis. A decision-analytic model-based cost-effectiveness analysis will identify the key uncertainties underpinning the relative cost-effectiveness of embedding BC-Predict into NHSBSP. DISCUSSION: We will assess the feasibility of integrating BC-Predict into the NHSBSP, and identify the main uncertainties for a definitive evaluation of the clinical and cost-effectiveness of BC-Predict. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Retrospectively registered with clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04359420).

Attending community-based lung cancer screening influences smoking behaviour in deprived populations.

OBJECTIVES: The impact of lung cancer screening on smoking is unclear, especially in deprived populations who are underrepresented in screening trials. The aim of this observational cohort study was to investigate whether a community-based lung cancer screening programme influenced smoking behaviour and smoking attitude in socio-economically deprived populations. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Ever-smokers, age 55-74, registered at participating General Practices were invited to a community-based Lung Health Check (LHC). This included an assessment of respiratory symptoms, lung cancer risk (PLCOm2012), spirometry and signposting to stop smoking services. Those at high risk (PLCOM2012≥1.51%) were offered annual low-dose CT screening over two rounds. Self-reported smoking status and behaviour were recorded at the LHC and again 12 months later, when attitudes to smoking were also assessed. RESULTS: 919 participants (51% women) were included in the analysis (77% of attendees); median deprivation rank in the lowest decile for England. At baseline 50.3% were current smokers. One-year quit rate was 10.2%, quitting was associated with increased baseline symptoms (adjOR 2.62, 95% CI 1.07-6.41; p = 0.035) but not demographics or screening results. 55% attributed quitting to the LHC. In current smokers, 44% reported the LHC had made them consider stopping, 29% it made them try to stop and 25% made them smoke less whilst only 1.7% and 0.7% said it made them worry less about smoking or think it acceptable to smoke. CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest a community-based lung cancer screening programme in deprived areas positively impacts smoking behaviour, with no evidence of a 'licence to smoke' in those screened.

Beyond "planning": A meta-analysis of implementation intentions to support smoking cessation.

OBJECTIVE: Implementation intentions support behavior change by encouraging people to link critical situations with appropriate responses. Overall effectiveness for smoking cessation is unknown. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of implementation intentions for smoking cessation. METHOD: Using PRISMA guidelines, 6 electronic databases were searched (updated February 2018) using key terms. Data were pooled for smoking cessation (categorical variable; yes/no) and entered into random effects models. Analyses assessed: (a) effectiveness as a single intervention, and (b) effectiveness when included as one of multiple intervention components. RESULTS: Twelve studies were identified. Implementation intentions were effective for smoking cessation at follow up, OR = 1.70, CI [1.32, 2.20], p < .001, average 10.7% quit rate for intervention participants (4.9% in controls). Implementation intentions as a single intervention were effective for smoking cessation, OR = 5.69, 95% CI [1.39, 23.25], p = .02 (average quit rate 14.3% in intervention participants vs. 3.6% in controls) and as part of multicomponent interventions, OR = 1.67, 95% CI [1.29, 1.66], p < .001 (average quit rate 8.2% in intervention participants vs. 5.8% in controls). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation intentions are effective at helping smokers quit although the review reported substantial heterogeneity across the limited number of included studies. The present review sets the agenda for future research in this area including longer term objectively verified abstinence and identification of potential moderators of effectiveness including population characteristics. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).