Changes in diet and physical activity following a community-wide pilot intervention to tackle childhood obesity in a deprived inner-London ward.

BACKGROUND: Local authorities in England have an important role in shaping healthy local environments contributing to childhood obesity. This study examined changes in diet and physical activity in primary school children following a three-year, complex, community-based intervention in Golborne ward, the second most deprived ward in London. METHODS: The Go-Golborne intervention aimed to shape the local environment across multiple settings with the engagement of a large number of local government and community stakeholders in a joint approach. Activities focused on six co-created themes to make changes to local environments and reduce sugary snacks and beverage consumption, increase fruit and vegetable intake, promote healthy snacks, increase active play and travel, and reduce screen time. We analysed changes in self-reported diet and physical activity, collected annually between 2016 and 2019, from 1,650 children aged 6-11 years through six local schools, who all received the intervention. We used multilevel, linear and logistic random-slope regression models adjusted for time on study, baseline age, gender, ethnicity, deprivation quintile, school, and baseline weight status. RESULTS: After three years of follow-up, there were reductions in sugar-sweetened beverage consumption (adjusted beta -0·43 occasions/day, 95% CI -0·55 to -0·32), fruit and vegetable consumption (adjusted beta -0.22 portions, 95% CI -0.44 to 0.001) and car travel to and from school (adjusted OR 0·19, 95% CI 0·06 to 0·66), while screen time increased (high versus moderate/low: OR 2·30, 95% CI 1·36 to 3·90). For other behavioural outcomes, there was no statistically significant evidence of changes. CONCLUSION: Local authorities have substantial powers to make positive changes to the obesogenic environment but programmes remain under-evaluated. Results from the ambitious Go-Golborne intervention demonstrated mixed results in health behaviours following programme implementation. These results underline the importance of a coordinated and comprehensive policy response to support changes in wider environmental and social conditions as well as appropriate and holistic evaluations of initiatives to inform local actions on obesogenic environments.

Associations of social media use with smoking and e-cigarettes: a national longitudinal study.

BACKGROUND: Social media use is high among children and young people and might influence health behaviours. We examined social media use and use of tobacco and e-cigarettes in the UK. METHODS: We used data from participants aged 10-25 years from the UK Household Longitudinal Study (January 2015-January 2022). Participants were asked: "On a normal weekday, that is Monday to Friday, how many hours do you spend chatting or interacting with friends through a social website or app like that?". Specific social media platforms were not specified. Responses were none, less than 1 h, 1-3 h, 4-6 h, 7 h or more. Outcomes were current tobacco smoking and e-cigarette use. Generalised Estimating Equation (GEE) logistic regression models investigated associations of social media use with tobacco and e-cigarette use, and fixed effects analyses investigated changes in social media use with uptake of both products. Models included possible confounders such as age, sex, household income, ethnicity (White vs non-White) and use of tobacco or e-cigarettes by others within the home. All participants gave written informed consent. FINDINGS: The analytic sample included 10 808 participants with 27 962 observations (mean age 15·7 years [SD 3·8], 5080 [47%] male, 5728 [53%] female, and 7868 [73%] White). Current tobacco smoking was reported at one or more timepoints by 929 (8·6%) participants, and current e-cigarette use by 270 (2·5%) participants. In adjusted GEE models, all levels of social media use were associated with greater odds of current smoking than no use. This association was particularly apparent at higher levels of use adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 3·11, 95% CI 2·41-4·03 for ≥7 h use vs no use), with similar associations for e-cigarettes (aOR 3·04, 2·11-4·40 for ≥7 h use vs no use). Fixed effects analyses also found increased use of social media to be associated with increased uptake of both products (eg, changing to using social media for ≥7 h/day was associated with >2 times the odds of taking up tobacco smoking [aOR 2·33, 1·28-4·24]). INTERPRETATION: These analyses suggest an association between social media use and e-cigarette and tobacco use. Potential pathways include promotion of these products on social media. Further research with details on specific platforms would be useful as well as with longer follow-up time. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK.

Patterns of cigarette and e-cigarette use among UK adolescents: a latent class analysis of the Millennium Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Patterning of cigarette and e-cigarette use among young people remains poorly characterized. We aimed to describe these patterns in the UK Millennium Cohort Study at age 14 and 17 years. METHODS: Data on cigarette and e-cigarette use come from 9731 adolescents. Latent class analysis assigned participants to membership of classes of product use and multinomial logistic regression analyses assessed differences in the likelihood of belonging to classes by sociodemographic (age, gender, ethnicity, household income, maternal education and country of residence) and smoking-related social factors (caregiver tobacco use, caregiver e-cigarette use and peer smoking). RESULTS: We identified four classes of use: 45.8% of adolescents 'continued to abstain' from cigarettes or e-cigarettes; 21.3% 'experimented' (used once or in the past but not currently) with cigarettes and/or e-cigarettes by age 17 but were not current users; 19.0% were 'late adopters', characterized by low levels of use at age 14 but high levels of experimentation and current use at age 17; and 13.9% were 'early adopters', characterized by high levels of experimentation and current use at ages 14 and 17. At age 17, 70.4% of 'early adopters' smoked cigarettes regularly plus an additional 27.3% experimented with cigarettes. Corresponding percentages for e-cigarettes were 37.9% and 58.9%. Tobacco and e-cigarette use by caregivers, and cigarette use by peers, were associated with being both 'late adopters' and 'early adopters'. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately one in seven adolescents in the UK are 'early adopters' of nicotine products. This highlights the need to develop and implement effective policies to prevent nicotine use uptake.

Changing awareness and sources of tobacco and e-cigarettes among children and adolescents in Great Britain.

INTRODUCTION: It is illegal in the UK to sell tobacco or nicotine e-cigarettes to people under the age of 18 years, as is displaying tobacco cigarettes at the point of sale. This paper examined changes in exposure to display of these products in shops and sources of these products among children and adolescent users over time METHODS: Data from representative repeated online cross-sectional surveys of youth in Great Britain (11-18 years) were used (2018-2022; n=12 445). Outcome measures included noticing product displays and sources of e-cigarettes and tobacco cigarettes. Logistic regressions examined the associations of these outcome variables over time and with sociodemographic variables. RESULTS: Of 12 040 participants with complete data, 10.1% used some form of nicotine product (4.2% cigarettes, 2.9% e-cigarettes, 3.0% both) at least occasionally. The likelihood of noticing tobacco cigarettes on display fell over time for both supermarkets (2018: 67.1% to 2022: 58.5%) and small shops (2018: 81.3% to 2022: 66.3%), but the likelihood of noticing e-cigarettes in supermarkets rose (2018: 57.4% to 2022: 66.5%). Sources of tobacco cigarettes did not differ over time, but e-cigarette users were more likely to get their e-cigarettes from small shops in 2022 (51.2%) vs 2019 (34.2%) (OR 2.02, 95% CI 1.24, 3.29). CONCLUSION: This study provides evidence that current policies to limit awareness of and access to both tobacco and e-cigarettes among adolescents in the UK may not be effective. UK policies on the advertising, promotion and sale of both tobacco and e-cigarettes need to be reinforced to deter use among children and adolescents.

Multistate transition modelling of e-cigarette use and cigarette smoking among youth in the UK.

INTRODUCTION: E-cigarette use remains a controversial topic, with questions over how people transition between e-cigarette use and cigarette smoking. This paper examined transitions into and out of nicotine product use in a representative sample of UK youth. METHODS: We used Markov multistate transition probability models on data from 10 229 participants (10-25 years old) in the UK Household Longitudinal Study (2015-2021). We used four product use states ('never', 'non-current use', 'e-cigarette only' and 'smoking and dual use') and estimated likelihood of transitions according to sociodemographic characteristics. RESULTS: Among participants who had never used nicotine products, most were still non-users a year later (92.9% probability; 95% CI 92.6%, 93.2%); a small proportion transitioned to using e-cigarettes only (4.0%; 95% CI 3.7%, 4.2%) and cigarettes (2.2%; 95% CI 2.0%, 2.4%). Those aged 14-17 years were the most likely to start using a nicotine product. E-cigarette use was less persistent overtime than cigarette smoking, with a 59.1% probability (95% CI 56.9%, 61.0%) of e-cigarette users still using after 1 year compared with 73.8% (95% CI 72.1%, 75.4%) for cigarette smoking. However, there was a 14% probability (95% CI 12.8%, 16.2%) that e-cigarette users went onto smoke cigarettes after 1 year, rising to 25% (95% CI 23%, 27%) after 3 years. CONCLUSION: This study found that although overall nicotine product use was relatively rare, participants were more likely to experiment with e-cigarette use than cigarette smoking. This was mostly not persistent over time; however, approximately one in seven transitioned to cigarette smoking. Regulators should aim to deter all nicotine product use among children.

Risk factors for adolescent smoking uptake: Analysis of prospective data from the UK Millennium Cohort Study.

INTRODUCTION: Most people who smoke initiate smoking in adolescence. Risk factors for smoking are changing over time as demographics shift, and technologies such as social media create new avenues for the tobacco industry to recruit smokers. We assessed risk factors associated with smoking uptake and regular smoking among a representative cohort of UK adolescents. METHODS: Data come from 8944 children followed prospectively as part of the UK Millennium Cohort Study. Smoking uptake was assessed as adolescents who had never smoked tobacco at the age of 14 years, but reported smoking ≥1 cigarette per week by the age of 17 years (regular smoking). We used logistic regression to assess associations between smoking uptake and selected sociodemographic factors including household income, caregiver smoking, peer smoking, and social media use. Weighted percentages and Office for National Statistics Data were used to estimate numbers of regular smokers and new smokers in the UK. RESULTS: Among the whole sample, 10.6% of adolescents were regular smokers at the age of 17 years. Of these, 52% initiated smoking between the ages of 14 and 17 years. Uptake was more common if caregivers smoked (13.6% vs 5.0%, p<0.001) or friends smoked (12.6% vs 4.3%, p<0.001), and among those reporting >5 hours/day of social media use (9.8% vs 4.1%, p=0.006). Applying these percentages to population data, an estimated 160000 adolescents in the UK were regular smokers by the age of 17 years, of whom more than 100000 initiated smoking between the ages of 14 and 17 years. CONCLUSIONS: This analysis of smoking uptake and regular smoking highlight that smoking behavior remains highly transmissible within families and peer groups, reinforcing inequalities. Social media are highlighted as a potential vector.

Early perceptions and behavioural responses during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional survey of UK adults.

OBJECTIVE: To examine risk perceptions and behavioural responses of the UK adult population during the early phase of the COVID-19 epidemic in the UK. DESIGN: A cross-sectional survey. SETTING: Conducted with a nationally representative sample of UK adults within 48 hours of the UK Government advising the public to stop non-essential contact with others and all unnecessary travel. PARTICIPANTS: 2108 adults living in the UK aged 18 years and over. Response rate was 84.3% (2108/2500). Data collected between 17 March and 18 March 2020. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Descriptive statistics for all survey questions, including number of respondents and weighted percentages. Robust Poisson regression used to identify sociodemographic variation in: (1) adoption of social distancing measures, (2) ability to work from home, and (3) ability and (4) willingness to self-isolate. RESULTS: Overall, 1992 (94.2%) respondents reported at least one preventive measure: 85.8% washed their hands with soap more frequently; 56.5% avoided crowded areas and 54.5% avoided social events. Adoption of social distancing measures was higher in those aged over 70 years compared with younger adults aged 18-34 years (adjusted relative risk/aRR: 1.2; 95% CI: 1.1 to 1.5). Those with lowest household income were three times less likely to be able to work from home (aRR: 0.33; 95% CI: 0.24 to 0.45) and less likely to be able to self-isolate (aRR: 0.92; 95% CI: 0.88 to 0.96). Ability to self-isolate was also lower in black and minority ethnic groups (aRR: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.79 to 1.0). Willingness to self-isolate was high across all respondents. CONCLUSIONS: Ability to adopt and comply with certain non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) is lower in the most economically disadvantaged in society. Governments must implement appropriate social and economic policies to mitigate this. By incorporating these differences in NPIs among socioeconomic subpopulations into mathematical models of COVID-19 transmission dynamics, our modelling of epidemic outcomes and response to COVID-19 can be improved.

Availability, accessibility and delivery to patients of the 28 orphan medicines approved by the European Medicine Agency for hereditary metabolic diseases in the MetabERN network.

BACKGROUND: The European Medicine Agency granted marketing approval to 164 orphan medicinal products for rare diseases, among which 28 products intended for the treatment of hereditary metabolic diseases. Taking advantage of its privileged connection with 69 healthcare centres of excellence in this field, MetabERN, the European Reference Network for hereditary metabolic diseases, performed a survey asking health care providers from 18 European countries whether these products are available on the market, reimbursed and therefore accessible for prescription, and actually delivered in their centre. RESULTS: Responses received from 52 centres (75%) concerned the design of treatment plans, the access to marketed products, and the barriers to delivery. Treatment options are always discussed with patients, who are often involved in their treatment plan. Most products (26/28) are available in most countries (15/18). Among the 15 broadly accessible products (88.5% of the centres), 9 are delivered to most patients (mean 70.1%), and the others to only few (16.5%). Among the 10 less accessible products (40.2% of the centres), 6 are delivered to many patients (66.7%), and 4 are rarely used (6.3%). Information was missing for 3 products. Delay between prescription and delivery is on average one month. Beside the lack of availability or accessibility, the most frequent reasons for not prescribing a treatment are patients' clinical status, characteristic, and personal choice. CONCLUSIONS: Data collected from health care providers in the MetabERN network indicate that two-third of the orphan medicines approved by EMA for the treatment of hereditary metabolic diseases are accessible to treating patients, although often less than one-half of the patients with the relevant conditions actually received the approved product to treat their disease. Thus, in spite of the remarkable achievement of many products, patients concerned by EMA-approved orphan medicinal products have persistent unmet needs, which deserve consideration. The enormous investments made by the companies to develop products, and the high financial burden for the Member States to purchase these products emphasize the importance of a scrupulous appreciation of treatment value involving all stakeholders at early stage of development, before marketing authorization, and during follow up.

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.

Interest in lifestyle advice at lung cancer screening: Determinants and preferences.

BACKGROUND: Lung cancer screening could be a 'teachable moment' for behaviour change. Little is known about how advice about smoking cessation, or other behavioural cancer risk factors, would be received in this setting. METHODS: Using a population-based survey of 459 English adults (current smokers and recent quitters aged 50-75) we assessed willingness to receive lifestyle advice (about smoking, diet, weight, physical activity, alcohol consumption) at lung screening. Additional items assessed whether advice should be provided following abnormal screening results, the potential impact of advice on screening uptake, and preferred timing of advice. RESULTS: Overall, 64% (n = 292) of participants were willing to receive lifestyle advice at lung screening. A greater proportion of participants were willing to receive advice in a scenario where results required further investigation (83%; p < 0.01). However, 14% indicated the provision of lifestyle advice would make them less willing to attend lung screening. Non-White ethnicity and greater cancer risk factor awareness were associated with willingness to receive advice (p < 0.05). Half of smokers (51%) were willing to receive cessation advice. There was also interest in advice about diet (47%), weight (43%), physical activity (32%), and alcohol consumption (17%) among people not meeting current recommendations for these behaviours. There was a preference for advice to be delivered at the screening appointment (38%, n = 108) over other time-points. CONCLUSIONS: Lung screening may offer an opportunity to provide advice about behavioural cancer risk factors. Future work should consider how to deliver effective interventions in this setting to support behaviour change, without affecting screening uptake.

Acceptability of receiving lifestyle advice at cervical, breast and bowel cancer screening.

Cancer screening could be an opportunity to deliver cancer prevention advice, but it is not known how such information would be received. We explored willingness to receive lifestyle advice in the context of the English National Health Service cervical, breast, and bowel (FS; flexible sigmoidoscopy) screening programmes. A population-based survey was conducted in 2016 to collect nationally representative data on willingness to receive lifestyle advice across cervical (n = 768), breast (n = 420) and FS (n = 308) screening programmes. Additional items assessed the impact of lifestyle advice on screening attendance, preference for receiving advice in the event of an abnormal screening result, and timing of advice. Most respondents were willing to receive lifestyle advice around the time of cancer screening (cervical 78.9%, breast 79.4%, FS 81.8%), and if their results were abnormal (cervical 86.3%, breast 83.0%, FS 85.1%). A small proportion indicated it may discourage future attendance (cervical 4.9%, breast 7.0%, FS 8.8%). Most preferred information to be delivered at the screening appointment (cervical 69.8%, breast 72.6%, FS 70.7%). There were no associations between sociodemographic characteristics and willingness to receive lifestyle advice at breast screening. For those intending to attend cervical screening, non-White ethnicity and higher education were associated with increased willingness to receive lifestyle advice. Women were more likely to be willing to receive advice at FS screening than men. Providing lifestyle advice at cancer screening is likely to be acceptable to the general population. The optimal approach for delivery needs careful consideration to minimise potential negative effects on screening attendance.

Lifestyle changes associated with participation in colorectal cancer screening: Prospective data from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing.

OBJECTIVES: Population-based cancer screening has been described as a teachable moment for behaviour change. This research examined the effect of faecal occult blood testing (FOBT) participation on smoking, alcohol consumption, fruit and vegetable consumption and physical activity. SETTING: Data were from screening-naïve men within the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing, receiving their first FOBT invitation (n = 774). Four waves of data were included in analyses (wave 4, 2008/2009 - wave 7, 2014/2015). Baseline data were from the wave prior to FOBT invitation, and follow-up data were from the next consecutive wave (two years later). METHODS: The effects of FOBT participation, time and group-by-time interactions on health behaviours were investigated using generalised estimating equations. Almost two-thirds of the sample (62.5%; n = 484) had participated in FOBT. RESULTS: Screening participants were less likely to smoke (odds ratio (OR): 0.45, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.29-0.68) and more likely to meet fruit and vegetable consumption guidelines (OR: 1.70, 95% CI: 1.14-2.55). Smoking decreased over time (OR: 0.74, 95% CI: 0.62-0.89), but adherence to alcohol guidelines also decreased (OR: 0.71, 95% CI: 0.53-0.91). A group-by-time interaction was found for vigorous physical activity; the odds of taking part in vigorous physical activity increased for FOBT participants, but decreased for non-participants (OR: 1.40, 95% CI: 1.01-1.95). CONCLUSIONS: This research provides tentative support for FOBT as a teachable moment for increasing vigorous physical activity. However, overall, there was limited evidence for spontaneous improvement in multiple health behaviours following participation.

Cancer worries and uptake of breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening: A population-based survey in England.

OBJECTIVE: Some degree of general worry about cancer may facilitate screening participation, but specific worries about the potential consequences (e.g. treatment, death) may act as deterrents. No studies have examined these associations in the same sample. We assessed associations between general versus specific cancer worries and cancer screening participation. METHODS: In 2016, a population-based cross-sectional survey of adults living in England was carried out. This paper reports analyses of a subsample (n = 1694). Measures included (i) frequency of general cancer worry, (ii) specific worries about the emotional and physical consequences of a cancer diagnosis, and (iii) specific worries about the social consequences of a cancer diagnosis. Logistic regression analyses examined their association with self-reported screening uptake among participants eligible for cervical (n = 671), breast (n = 323), and colorectal (n = 368) cancer screening. RESULTS: Frequency of general cancer worry was not associated with screening participation. Specific worry about the emotional and physical consequences increased the odds of participants reporting regular uptake of colorectal screening (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.04-1.90). Specific worry about the social consequences of diagnosis was negatively associated with regular attendance for cervical and breast screening in unadjusted analyses only. In adjusted models, the associations were no longer statistically significant for cervical (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.65-1.03) or breast (OR 0.69, 95% CI 0.45-1.04) screening. CONCLUSIONS: Specific worries about cancer may be differentially associated with participation across screening programmes. Further research is needed, as interventions to optimise informed participation may be improved if the specific worries associated with low participation in each programme are understood.

Determinants of willingness to receive healthy lifestyle advice in the context of cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: Providing lifestyle advice at cancer screening may help reduce the cancer burden attributable to health-related behaviour. We examined determinants of willingness to receive advice about several behavioural cancer risk factors. METHODS: A population-based sample of English adults eligible for cancer screening (n = 1221) completed items on willingness to receive lifestyle advice. Sociodemographic, psychological (risk perceptions, cancer risk factor awareness) and behavioural factors were used to predict interest in advice about diet, weight, physical activity, smoking and alcohol consumption. RESULTS: Two thirds (62-67%) reported interest in advice about diet, weight, and physical activity; 17% were willing to receive advice about smoking, and 32% about alcohol consumption. Willingness to receive advice was higher in those not adhering to guidelines for weight, physical activity, smoking and alcohol consumption (all p < 0.01). Non-White ethnicity was associated with interest in advice about diet, physical activity and smoking (all p < 0.01). Willingness to receive advice about diet, weight, physical activity and alcohol consumption increased with greater recognition of cancer risk factors (all p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS: Willingness to receive lifestyle advice at cancer screening was high, suggesting this context may provide an opportunity to support behaviour change. Increasing awareness of cancer risk factors may facilitate interest in lifestyle advice.

Smokers' interest in a lung cancer screening programme: a national survey in England.

BACKGROUND: Following the recommendation of lung cancer screening in the US, screening committees in several European countries are reviewing the evidence for implementing national programmes. However, inadequate participation from high-risk groups poses a potential barrier to its effectiveness. The present study examined interest in a national lung cancer screening programme and modifiable attitudinal factors that may affect participation by smokers. METHODS: A population-based survey of English adults (n = 1464; aged 50-70 years) investigated screening intentions in different invitation scenarios, beliefs about lung cancer, early detection and treatment, worry about lung cancer risk, and stigma. Data on smoking status and perceived chances of quitting were also collected, but eligibility for lung screening in the event of a national programme was unknown. RESULTS: Intentions to be screened were high in all three invitation scenarios for both current (≥ 89%) and former (≥ 94%) smokers. However, smokers were less likely to agree that early-stage survival is good (43% vs. 53%; OR: 0.64, 0.46-0.88) or be willing to have surgery for an early stage, screen-detected cancer (84% vs. 94%; OR: 0.38, 0.21-0.68), compared with former smokers. Willingness to have surgery was positively associated with screening intentions; with absolute differences of 25% and 29%. Worry about lung cancer risk was also most common among smokers (48%), and one fifth of respondents thought screening smokers was a waste of NHS money. CONCLUSIONS: A national lung cancer screening programme would be well-received in principle. To improve smokers' participation, care should be taken to communicate the survival benefits of early-stage diagnosis, address concerns about surgery, and minimise anxiety and stigma related to lung cancer risk.

What is it about a cancer diagnosis that would worry people? A population-based survey of adults in England.

BACKGROUND: Surveys indicate quite high prevalence of cancer worry in the general population, but little is known about what it is about cancer that worries people. A better understanding of the origins of cancer worry may help elucidate previously found inconsistencies in its behavioural effect on cancer prevention, screening uptake, and help-seeking for symptoms. In this study, we explore the prevalence and population distribution of general cancer worry and worries about specific aspects of cancer previously identified. METHODS: A population-based survey of 2048 English adults (18-70 years, April-May 2016), using face-to-face interviews to assess demographic characteristics, general cancer worry and twelve sources of cancer worry (adapted from an existing scale), including the emotional, physical, and social consequences of a diagnosis. RESULTS: In general, a third of respondents (37%) never worried about cancer, 57% worried occasionally/sometimes, and 6% often/very often. In terms of specific worries, two thirds would be 'quite a bit' or 'extremely' worried about the threat to life and emotional upset a diagnosis would cause. Half would worry about surgery, radiotherapy, chemotherapy, and loss of control over life. Worries about the social consequences were less commonly anticipated: just under half would worry about financial problems or their social roles, and a quarter would be worried about effects on identity, important relationships, gender role, and sexuality. Women and younger people reported more frequent worry about getting cancer, and would be more worried about the emotional, physical, and social consequences of a cancer diagnosis (p < .001). Those from ethnic minority backgrounds reported less frequent worry about getting cancer than their white counterparts, but would be equally worried about the emotional and physical impact of a cancer diagnosis, and worried more about the social consequences of a cancer diagnosis (p < .05). CONCLUSIONS: The majority of English adults worry at least occasionally about getting cancer, and would be most worried about the emotional and physical impact of a cancer diagnosis. Distinguishing between the various worries that cancer can evoke may help inform efforts to allay undue worries in those who are deterred by them from engaging with cancer prevention and early detection.