Evaluation of the validity and screening performance of a revised single-item fear of cancer recurrence screening measure (FCR-1r).

OBJECTIVE: Fear of cancer recurrence (FCR) is highly prevalent among cancer survivors, but irregularly identified in practice. Single-item FCR measures suitable for integration into broader psychosocial screening are needed. This study evaluated the validity of a revised version of the original FCR-1 (FCR-1r) and screening performance alongside the Edmonton Symptom Assessment System - Revised (ESAS-r) anxiety item. METHODS: The FCR-1r was adapted from the FCR-1 and modelled on the ESAS-r. Associations between FCR-1r and FCR Inventory-Short Form (FCRI-SF) scores determined concurrent validity. Relationships of FCR-1r scores with variables related (e.g., anxiety, intrusive thoughts) and unrelated (e.g., employment/marital status) to FCR determined convergent and divergent validity respectively. A Receiver-Operating Characteristic analysis examined screening performance and cut-offs for the FCR-1r and ESAS-r anxiety item. RESULTS: 107 participants were recruited in two studies (Study 1, July-October 2021, n = 54; Study 2: November 2021-May 2022, n = 53). The FCR-1r demonstrated concurrent validity against the FCRI-SF (r = 0.83, p < 0.0001) and convergent validity versus the Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7 (r = 0.63, p < 0.0001) and Impact of Event Scale-Revised Intrusion subscale (r = 0.55, p < 0.0001). It did not correlate with unrelated variables (e.g., employment/marital status), indicating divergent validity. An FCR-1r cut-off ≥5/10 had 95% sensitivity and 77% specificity for detecting clinical FCR (area under the curve (AUC) = 0.91, 95% CI 0.85-0.97, p < 0.0001); ESAS-r anxiety cut-off ≥4 had 91% sensitivity and 82% specificity (AUC = 0.87, 95% CI 0.77-0.98, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The FCR-1r is a valid and accurate tool for FCR screening. Further evaluation of the screening performance of the FCR-1r versus the ESAS-r anxiety item in routine care is needed.

Feasibility and preliminary efficacy of iConquerFear: a self-guided digital intervention for fear of cancer recurrence.

PURPOSE: Approximately 50% of cancer survivors experience moderate-severe fear of cancer recurrence (FCR). Self-guided digital interventions have potential to address the high level of FCR-related unmet needs at scale, but existing digital interventions have demonstrated variable engagement and efficacy. This study aimed to evaluate the feasibility and preliminary efficacy of iConquerFear, a five-module self-guided digital FCR intervention. METHODS: Eligible curatively treated breast cancer survivors were recruited. Participants reporting clinically significant FCR (≥ 13 on the Fear of Cancer Recurrence Inventory-Short Form; FCRI-SF) were given access to iConquerFear. Feasibility was indicated by > 50% of eligible participants enrolling in iConquerFear and recording moderate (≥ 120 min) or greater usage. Preliminary efficacy was evaluated via changes in self-reported FCR severity, anxiety, depression, intrusions and metacognitions from baseline to immediately and 3 months post-intervention. RESULTS: Fifty-four (83%) of 65 eligible participants enrolled in iConquerFear; six subsequently withdrew. Thirty-nine (83%) participants recorded moderate (n = 24; 120-599 min) or high (n = 15; ≥ 600 min) usage. Engagement levels increased with participant age (p = 0.043), but were lower in participants with higher baseline FCR (p = 0.028). Qualitative feedback indicated engagement was sometimes limited by difficulties with navigation and relating to featured survivors. Participants reported significantly improved FCR (mean reduction (95%CI): baseline to post-intervention - 3.44 (- 5.18, - 1.71), baseline to 3-month follow-up - 4.52 (- 6.25, - 2.78), p = < 0.001). CONCLUSION: iConquerFear is a feasible and potentially efficacious intervention for reducing FCR in breast cancer survivors. Easier navigation and more relatable examples may enhance engagement. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: iConquerFear may help address moderate but burdensome FCR levels in cancer survivors.

No longer recommended for cervical screening: How women aged 18-24 feel about the renewed National Cervical Screening Program.

BACKGROUND: Since December 2017, the Australian National Cervical Screening Program no longer recommends screening for women under 25 years of age. AIM: To explore the attitudes of women under 25 years toward the changes. METHODS: In December 2019, women aged 18-24, residing in Australia, were recruited via the social media platform Instagram and Facebook. Descriptive analysis, t-tests, χ2 tests and multivariable regressions were used to analyse the data. RESULTS: Five hundred and twelve women completed a cross-sectional web-based survey. Women who were older (22-24: 3.1 vs 18-21: 2.8, P < 0.001), sexually active (3.1 vs 2.7, P = 0.003), vaccinated against human papillomavirus (mean = 3.2 vs 2.7, P = 0.005) or who had screened previously (mean = 3.5 vs 2.8, P < 0.001) had significantly greater knowledge about the current cervical screening practices. Older women (odds ratio (OR) = 0.85, 95% CI 0.80-0.95) or those who had screened previously (OR = 0.51, 95% CI 0.31-0.83) were less positive about the delayed start age of screening and five-yearly screening (OR = 0.54, 95% CI 0.35-0.85). A significant association was determined between being sexually active (χ2 (4) = 32.71, P < 0.001) and women who had screened previously (χ2 (4) = 34.43, P < 0.001), with a greater intention to screen in the future. Regarding health information, 64.6% of women had never heard of the 'National Cervical Screening Program' website and 38.9% of the sample (n = 199/512) reported they had 'rarely' noticed any health information regarding cervical screening in the past 12 months. CONCLUSION: Further work is required to rectify women's knowledge of cervical screening to ensure women under 25 are aware of the screening guidelines and reduce the potential for over-testing and overtreatment in this age group.