Intention to have blood-based multi-cancer early detection (MCED) screening: a cross-sectional population-based survey in England.

BACKGROUND: Trials assessing the clinical utility of blood-based multi-cancer early detection (MCED) tests are underway. Understanding public attitudes towards MCED screening is essential if these tests are to be used. We aimed to quantify MCED screening intention and potential barriers and facilitators to uptake. METHODS: Adults aged 50-77 (n = 958) completed an online survey. The primary outcome was intention to have MCED screening if offered. Psychological variables including barriers and facilitators were assessed. We used logistic regressions to explore associations between socio-demographics and psychological factors and intention. RESULTS: 93.8% of participants said they would 'definitely' or 'probably' have MCED screening if offered. Intention was significantly associated with previous screening participation and general cancer attitudes but not with socio-demographic factors. Participants were more likely to be intenders if they had higher health motivation, and perceived greater benefits of blood tests. Participants were less likely to be intenders if they perceived greater disadvantages of blood tests, more practical barriers, were more worried about the outcome and more concerned about a positive result. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: MCED screening intention was high. The lack of socio-demographic variation suggests equitable interest in this type of screening; however, future research should consider how intention translates to uptake.

Acceptability of de-intensified screening for women at low risk of breast cancer: a randomised online experimental survey.

BACKGROUND: Risk-stratified approaches to breast screening show promise for increasing benefits and reducing harms. But the successful implementation of such an approach will rely on public acceptability. To date, research suggests that while increased screening for women at high risk will be acceptable, any de-intensification of screening for low-risk groups may be met with less enthusiasm. We report findings from a population-based survey of women in England, approaching the age of eligibility for breast screening, to compare the acceptability of current age-based screening with two hypothetical risk-adapted approaches for women at low risk of breast cancer. METHODS: An online survey of 1,579 women aged 40-49 with no personal experience of breast cancer or mammography. Participants were recruited via a market research panel, using target quotas for educational attainment and ethnic group, and were randomised to view information about (1) standard NHS age-based screening; (2) a later screening start age for low-risk women; or (3) a longer screening interval for low-risk women. Primary outcomes were cognitive, emotional, and global acceptability. ANOVAs and multiple regression were used to compare acceptability between groups and explore demographic and psychosocial factors associated with acceptability. RESULTS: All three screening approaches were judged to be acceptable on the single-item measure of global acceptability (mean score > 3 on a 5-point scale). Scores for all three measures of acceptability were significantly lower for the risk-adapted scenarios than for age-based screening. There were no differences between the two risk-adapted scenarios. In multivariable analysis, higher breast cancer knowledge was positively associated with cognitive and emotional acceptability of screening approach. Willingness to undergo personal risk assessment was not associated with experimental group. CONCLUSION: We found no difference in the acceptability of later start age vs. longer screening intervals for women at low risk of breast cancer in a large sample of women who were screening naïve. Although acceptability of both risk-adapted scenarios was lower than for standard age-based screening, overall acceptability was reasonable. The positive associations between knowledge and both cognitive and emotional acceptability suggests clear and reassuring communication about the rationale for de-intensified screening may enhance acceptability.

Short-term psychosocial outcomes of adding a non-contrast abdominal computed tomography (CT) scan to the thoracic CT within lung cancer screening.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate psychological, social, and financial outcomes amongst individuals undergoing a non-contrast abdominal computed tomography (CT) scan to screen for kidney cancer and other abdominal malignancies alongside the thoracic CT within lung cancer screening. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: The Yorkshire Kidney Screening Trial (YKST) is a feasibility study of adding a non-contrast abdominal CT scan to the thoracic CT within lung cancer screening. A total of 500 participants within the YKST, comprising all who had an abnormal CT scan and a random sample of one-third of those with a normal scan between 14/03/2022 and 24/08/2022 were sent a questionnaire at 3 and 6 months. Outcomes included the Psychological Consequences Questionnaire (PCQ), the short-form of the Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety Inventory, and the EuroQoL five Dimensions five Levels scale (EQ-5D-5L). Data were analysed using regression adjusting for participant age, sex, socioeconomic status, education, baseline quality of life (EQ-5D-5L), and ethnicity. RESULTS: A total of 380 (76%) participants returned questionnaires at 3 months and 328 (66%) at 6 months. There was no difference in any outcomes between participants with a normal scan and those with abnormal scans requiring no further action. Individuals requiring initial further investigations or referral had higher scores on the negative PCQ than those with normal scans at 3 months (standardised mean difference 0.28 sd, 95% confidence interval 0.01-0.54; P = 0.044). The difference was greater in those with anxiety or depression at baseline. No differences were seen at 6 months. CONCLUSION: Screening for kidney cancer and other abdominal malignancies using abdominal CT alongside the thoracic CT within lung cancer screening is unlikely to cause significant lasting psychosocial or financial harm to participants with incidental findings.

Experiences of Self-Sampling and Future Screening Preferences in Non-Attenders Who Returned an HPV Vaginal Self-Sample in the YouScreen Study: Findings From a Cross-Sectional Questionnaire.

BACKGROUND: We assessed experiences of human papillomavirus (HPV) vaginal self-sampling and future screening preferences in an ethnically and socio-economically diverse group of women overdue for cervical screening. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: A postal questionnaire was embedded in the YouScreen self-sampling trial in England: 32.5% (2712/8338) of kit completers returned the survey. Kit non-completers were encouraged to return a questionnaire, but no responses were received. Participants were ethnically diverse (40.3% came from ethnic minority backgrounds), and 59.1% came from the two most deprived quintiles. Differences in confidence in kit completion, trust in the test results and intention to attend a follow-up test if HPV-positive were evaluated using Pearson's χ2 analyses. Binary logistic regression models explored predictors of a future screening choice and preferences for urine versus vaginal self-sampling. RESULTS: Most kit-completers reported high confidence in self-sampling (82.6%) and high trust in the results (79.9%), but experiences varied by ethnicity and screening status. Most free-text comments were positive but some reported difficulties using the device, pain or discomfort. Most women would opt for self-sampling in the future (71.3% vs. 10.4% for a clinician-taken test) and it was more often preferred by ethnic minority groups, overdue screeners and never attenders. Urine self-tests were preferred to vaginal tests (41.9% vs. 15.4%), especially among women from Asian, Black or Other Ethnic backgrounds. CONCLUSIONS: Kit-completers were confident, found the test easy to complete, and trusted the self-sample results. However, experiences varied by ethnic group and some women highlighted difficulties with the kit. Most women would prefer self-sampling in the future, but it was not a universal preference, so offering a choice will be important. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: We did not have direct patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) in the questionnaire design. However, patients and public representatives did input into the design of the YouScreen trial and reviewed the wider study materials (e.g. participant information sheet). TRIAL REGISTRATION: This questionnaire study was embedded in the YouScreen trial. The protocol for the YouScreen trial is available at https://www.isrctn.com/ISRCTN12759467. The National Institute for Health Research 43 Clinical Research Network (NIHR CRN) Central Portfolio Management System (CPMS) ID is 4441934.

Acceptability of Four Intervention Components Supporting Medication Adherence in Women with Breast Cancer: a Process Evaluation of a Fractional Factorial Pilot Optimization Trial.

Adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET) reduces mortality in early-stage breast cancer, but adherence is low. We developed a multicomponent intervention to support AET adherence comprising: text messages, information leaflet, acceptance and commitment therapy (ACT), and side-effect website. Guided by the multiphase optimization strategy, the intervention components were tested in the ROSETA pilot optimization trial. Our mixed-methods process evaluation investigated component acceptability. The pilot optimization trial used a 24-1 fractional factorial design. Fifty-two women prescribed AET were randomized to one of eight experimental conditions, containing unique component combinations. An acceptability questionnaire was administered 4 months post-randomization, and semi-structured interviews with 20 participants further explored acceptability. Assessments were guided by four constructs of the theoretical framework of acceptability: affective attitude, burden, perceived effectiveness, and coherence. Quantitative and qualitative findings were triangulated to identify agreements/disagreements. There were high overall acceptability scores (median = 14-15/20, range = 11-20). There was agreement between the qualitative and quantitative findings when triangulated. Most participants "liked" or "strongly liked" all components and reported they required low effort to engage in. Between 50% (leaflet) and 65% (SMS) "agreed" or "strongly agreed," it was clear how each component would help adherence. Perceived effectiveness was mixed, with 35.0% (text messages) to 55.6% (ACT) of participants "agreeing" or "strongly agreeing" that each component would improve their adherence. Interview data provided suggestions for improvements. The four components were acceptable to women with breast cancer and will be refined. Mixed-methods and triangulation were useful methodological approaches and could be applied in other optimization trial process evaluations.

Future cancer risk after urgent suspected cancer referral in England when cancer is not found: a national cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Following referral for investigation of urgent suspected cancer within the English National Health Service referral system, 7% of referred individuals are diagnosed with cancer. This study aimed to investigate the risk of cancer occurrence within 1-5 years of finding no cancer following an urgent suspected cancer referral. METHODS: This national cohort study used urgent suspected cancer referral data for England from the Cancer Waiting Times dataset and linked it with cancer diagnosis data from the National Cancer Registration dataset. Data were extracted for the eight most commonly referred to urgent suspected cancer referral pathways (breast, gynaecological, head and neck, lower and upper gastrointestinal, lung, skin, and urological) for the period April 1, 2013, to March 31, 2014, with 5-year follow-up for individuals with no cancer diagnosis within 1 year of referral. The primary objective was to investigate the occurrence and type of subsequent cancer in years 1-5 following an urgent suspected cancer referral when no cancer was initially found, both overall and for each of the eight referral pathways. The numbers of subsequent cancers were compared with expected cancer incidence in years 1-5 following referral, using standardised incidence ratios (SIRs) based on matched age-gender distributions of expected cancer incidence in England for the same time period. The analysis was repeated, stratifying by referral group, and by calculating the absolute and expected rate of all cancers and of the same individual cancer as the initial referral. FINDINGS: Among 1·18 million referrals without a cancer diagnosis in years 0-1, there were 63 112 subsequent cancers diagnosed 1-5 years post-referral, giving an absolute rate of 1338 (95% CI 1327-1348) cancers per 100 000 referrals per year (1038 [1027-1050] in females, 1888 [1867-1909] in males), compared with an expected rate of 1054 (1045-1064) cancers per 100 000 referrals per year (SIR 1·27 [95% CI 1·26-1·28]). The absolute rate of any subsequent cancer diagnosis 1-5 years after referral was lowest following suspected breast cancer referral (746 [728-763] cancers per 100 000 referrals per year) and highest following suspected urological (2110 [2070-2150]) or lung cancer (1835 [1767-1906]) referral. For diagnosis of the same cancer as the initial referral pathway, the highest absolute rates were for the urological and lung pathways (1011 [984-1039] and 638 [598-680] cancers per 100 000 referrals per year, respectively). The highest relative risks of subsequent diagnosis of the same cancer as the initial referral pathway were for the head and neck pathway (SIR 3·49 [95% CI 3·22-3·78]) and lung pathway (3·00 [2·82-3·20]). INTERPRETATION: Cancer risk was higher than expected in the 5 years following an urgent suspected cancer referral. The potential for targeted interventions, such as proactive monitoring, safety-netting, and cancer awareness or risk reduction initiatives should be investigated. FUNDING: Cancer Research UK.

Predictors of the experience of a Cytosponge test: analysis of patient survey data from the BEST3 trial.

BACKGROUND: The Cytosponge is a cell-collection device, which, coupled with a test for trefoil factor 3 (TFF3), can be used to diagnose Barrett's oesophagus, a precursor condition to oesophageal adenocarcinoma. BEST3, a large pragmatic, randomised, controlled trial, investigated whether offering the Cytosponge-TFF3 test would increase detection of Barrett's. Overall, participants reported mostly positive experiences. This study reports the factors associated with the least positive experience. METHODS: Patient experience was assessed using the Inventory to Assess Patient Satisfaction (IAPS), a 22-item questionnaire, completed 7-14 days after the Cytosponge test. STUDY COHORT: All BEST3 participants who answered ≥ 15 items of the IAPS (N = 1458). STATISTICAL ANALYSIS: A mean IAPS score between 1 and 5 (5 indicates most negative experience) was calculated for each individual. 'Least positive' experience was defined according to the 90th percentile. 167 (11.4%) individuals with a mean IAPS score of ≥ 2.32 were included in the 'least positive' category and compared with the rest of the cohort. Eleven patient characteristics and one procedure-specific factor were assessed as potential predictors of the least positive experience. Multivariable logistic regression analysis using backwards selection was conducted to identify factors independently associated with the least positive experience and with failed swallow at first attempt, one of the strongest predictors of least positive experience. RESULTS: The majority of responders had a positive experience, with an overall median IAPS score of 1.7 (IQR 1.5-2.1). High (OR = 3.01, 95% CI 2.03-4.46, p < 0.001) or very high (OR = 4.56, 95% CI 2.71-7.66, p < 0.001) anxiety (relative to low/normal anxiety) and a failed swallow at the first attempt (OR = 3.37, 95% CI 2.14-5.30, p < 0.001) were highly significant predictors of the least positive patient experience in multivariable analyses. Additionally, sex (p = 0.036), height (p = 0.032), alcohol intake (p = 0.011) and education level (p = 0.036) were identified as statistically significant predictors. CONCLUSION: We have identified factors which predict patient experience. Identifying anxiety ahead of the procedure and discussing particular concerns with patients or giving them tips to help with swallowing the capsule might help improve their experience. Trial registration ISRCTN68382401.

Patterns of anxiety and distress over 12 months following participation in HPV primary screening.

OBJECTIVES: Many countries are now using primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing for cervical screening, testing for high-risk HPV and using cytology as triage. An HPV-positive result can have an adverse psychological impact, at least in the short term. In this paper, we explore the psychological impact of primary HPV screening over 12 months. METHODS: Women were surveyed soon after receiving their results (n=1133) and 6 (n=762) and 12 months (n=537) later. Primary outcomes were anxiety (Short-Form State Anxiety Inventory-6) and distress (General Health Questionnaire-12). Secondary outcomes included concern, worry about cervical cancer and reassurance. Mixed-effects regression models were used to explore differences at each time point and change over time across four groups according to their baseline result: control (HPV negative/HPV cleared/normal cytology and not tested for HPV); HPV positive with normal cytology; HPV positive with abnormal cytology; and HPV persistent (ie, second consecutive HPV-positive result). RESULTS: Women who were HPV positive with abnormal cytology had the highest anxiety scores at baseline (mean=42.2, SD: 15.0), but this had declined by 12 months (mean=37.0, SD: 11.7) and was closer to being within the 'normal' range (scores between 34 and 36 are considered 'normal'). This group also had the highest distress at baseline (mean=3.3, SD: 3.8, scores of 3+ indicate case-level distress), but the lowest distress at 12 months (mean=1.9, SD: 3.1). At 6 and 12 months, there were no between-group differences in anxiety or distress for any HPV-positive result group when compared with the control group. The control group were less concerned and more reassured about their result at 6 and 12 months than the HPV-positive with normal cytology group. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest the initial adverse impact of an HPV-positive screening result on anxiety and distress diminishes over time. Specific concerns about the result may be longer lasting and efforts should be made to address them.

Distinct Illness Representation Profiles Are Associated With Anxiety in Women Testing Positive for Human Papillomavirus.

BACKGROUND: Testing positive for human papillomavirus (HPV) at cervical cancer screening has been associated with heightened anxiety. To date, the cognitive determinants of heightened anxiety remain unclear, making it difficult to design effective interventions. PURPOSE: This study investigated latent illness representation profiles in women testing positive for HPV with no abnormal cells (normal cytology) and explored associations between these profiles and anxiety. METHODS: Women aged 24-66 (n = 646) who had tested HPV-positive with normal cytology at routine HPV primary screening in England completed a cross-sectional survey shortly after receiving their result. RESULTS: Latent profile analysis identified three distinct profiles of illness representations (termed "adaptive," "negative," and "negative somatic"), which differed significantly in their patterns of illness perceptions. Hierarchal linear regression revealed that these latent illness representation profiles accounted for 21.8% of the variance in anxiety, after adjusting for demographic and clinical characteristics. When compared with adaptive representations (Profile 1), women with negative representations (Profile 2) and negative somatic representations (Profile 3) had significantly higher anxiety, with clinically meaningful between-group differences (mean difference [MD] = 17.26, confidence interval [CI]: 14.29-20.22 and MD = 13.20, CI: 9.45-16.96 on the S-STAI-6, respectively). CONCLUSION: The latent illness representation profiles identified in this study provide support for the role of negative beliefs contributing to anxiety in women testing HPV-positive with normal cytology. Characteristics specific to subgroups of highly anxious women (Profiles 2 and 3) could be used by policymakers to target information in routine patient communications (e.g., test result letters) to reduce unnecessary burden. Future research should adopt longitudinal designs to understand the trajectory of illness representations from HPV diagnosis through to clearance versus persistence.

Do age-targeted messages increase cervical screening intentions in women aged 50-64 years with weak positive intentions? A randomised control trial in Great Britain.

Over 20% of women aged 50-64 in Britain have not attended cervical screening within the recommended 5-year interval. The aim of the present study was to investigate the impact of five messages, informed using strategies from the Behaviour Change Wheel, on strength of intention to attend cervical screening in women aged 50-64 with weak positive intentions to be screened when next invited. Women were randomised (2:2:1), into one of two intervention groups or a control group. The control group saw basic information about cervical screening. Intervention group 1 saw a social norms message and an outcome expectancy message. Intervention group 2 saw a risk reduction message and a response efficacy message. There was further randomisation within the two intervention groups (1:1) to test the effectiveness of message framing and age-targeted information. Lastly, both intervention groups were randomised (1:1) to see a message acknowledging the possible discomfort associated with screening and offering support, or the support message only. Data were included from 475 women, collected using an online survey in March 2022. Adjusting for baseline intention, social norms (p = .84), outcome expectancy (p = .51), risk reduction (p = .19), response efficacy (p = .23) and discomfort acknowledgement messages (p = .71) had no effect on intention strength. However, there was a significant increase in intention after reading multiple messages. These results suggest that although no single message has a significant impact on intentions, when combined, they may act together to increase intention strength. Further research will understand the impact of these messages when combined in information materials.

Health behaviour change among UK adults during the pandemic: findings from the COVID-19 cancer attitudes and behaviours study.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 related lockdowns may have affected engagement in health behaviours among the UK adult population. This prospective observational study assessed socio-demographic patterning in attempts to change and maintain a range of health behaviours and changes between two time points during the pandemic. METHODS: Adults aged 18 years and over (n = 4,978) were recruited using Dynata (an online market research platform) and the HealthWise Wales platform, supplemented through social media advertising. Online surveys were conducted in August/September 2020 when lockdown restrictions eased in the UK following the first major UK lockdown (survey phase 1) and in February/March 2021 during a further national lockdown (survey phase 2). Measures derived from the Cancer Awareness Measure included self-reported attempts to reduce alcohol consumption, increase fruit/vegetable consumption, increase physical activity, lose weight and reduce/stop smoking. Multivariable logistic regressions were used to assess individual health behaviour change attempts over time, adjusted for age, sex, ethnicity, employment and education. RESULTS: Around half of participants in survey phase 1 reported trying to increase physical activity (n = 2607, 52.4%), increase fruit/vegetables (n = 2445, 49.1%) and lose weight (n = 2413, 48.5%), with 19.0% (n = 948) trying to reduce alcohol consumption among people who drink. Among the 738 participants who smoked, 51.5% (n = 380) were trying to reduce and 27.4% (n = 202) to stop smoking completely. Most behaviour change attempts were more common among women, younger adults and minority ethnic group participants. Efforts to reduce smoking (aOR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.82-1.17) and stop smoking (aOR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.80-1.20) did not differ significantly in phase 2 compared to phase 1. Similarly, changes over time in attempts to improve other health behaviours were not statistically significant: physical activity (aOR: 1.07; 95% CI: 0.99-1.16); weight loss (aOR: 0.95; 95% CI: 0.90-1.00); fruit/vegetable intake (aOR: 0.98, 95% CI: 0.91-1.06) and alcohol use (aOR: 1.32, 95% CI: 0.92-1.91). CONCLUSION: A substantial proportion of participants reported attempts to change health behaviours in the initial survey phase. However, the lack of change observed over time indicated that overall motivation to engage in healthy behaviours was sustained among the UK adult population, from a period shortly after the first lockdown toward the end of the second prolonged lockdown.

Attendance at early recall and colposcopy in routine cervical screening with human papillomavirus testing.

Attendance at early recall and colposcopy is crucial to attaining the benefits of primary high-risk human papillomavirus (HR-HPV)-based screening. Within the English HPV pilot, we analysed deprivation- and age-related patterns of attendance at colposcopy and 12- and 24-month early recall of HR-HPV positive women screened in 2013 to 2015 (N = 36 466). We fitted logistic regression models for adjusted odds ratios (OR). Despite high overall attendance, area deprivation had a small but significant impact at both early recalls, for example, attendance at 24 months was 86.3% and 83.0% in less vs more deprived areas, respectively (ORadj : 0.76; 95% CI: 0.67-0.87). Older women (≥30 years) were more likely to attend early recall than younger women (<30 years), for example, attendance at 24 months was 86.1% vs 82.3%, respectively (ORadj : 1.32, 95% CI: 1.16-1.51). Most women attended colposcopy following a baseline referral, with 96.9% attendance among more deprived and 97.8% among less deprived areas (ORadj : 0.70; 95% CI: 0.55-0.88). Differences in colposcopy attendance by deprivation level at 12 and 24 months were of approximately the same magnitude. In conclusion, attendance at early recall and colposcopy was reassuringly high. Although there were statistically significant differences by deprivation and age group, these were small in absolute terms.

Exploring reasons for variations in anxiety after testing positive for human papillomavirus with normal cytology: a comparative qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: To explore reasons for variations in anxiety in women testing positive for human papillomavirus (HPV) with normal cytology at routine HPV primary cervical cancer screening. METHODS: In-depth interviews were conducted with 30 women who had tested HPV-positive with normal cytology, including 15 with low-to-normal anxiety and 15 with high anxiety. Data were analysed using Framework Analysis to compare themes between low and high anxiety groups. RESULTS: Several HPV-related themes were shared across anxiety groups, but only highly anxious women expressed fear and worry, fatalistic cognitions about cancer, fertility-related cognitions, adverse physiological responses and changes in health behaviour(s). In comparison to those with low anxiety, women with high anxiety more strongly voiced cognitions about the 12-month wait for follow-up screening, relationship infidelity, a lower internal locus of control and HPV-related symptom attributions. CONCLUSIONS: Receiving an HPV-positive with normal cytology result related to various emotional, cognitive, behavioural and physiological responses; some of which were specific to, or more pronounced in, women with high anxiety. If our observations are confirmed in hypothesis-driven quantitative studies, the identification of distinct themes relevant to women experiencing high anxiety can inform targeted patient communications and HPV primary screening implementation policy.

Intentions to participate in cervical and colorectal cancer screening during the COVID-19 pandemic: A mixed-methods study.

Worldwide, cancer screening faced significant disruption in 2020 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. If this has led to changes in public attitudes towards screening and reduced intention to participate, there is a risk of long-term adverse impact on cancer outcomes. In this study, we examined previous participation and future intentions to take part in cervical and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening following the first national lockdown in the UK. Overall, 7543 adults were recruited to a cross-sectional online survey in August-September 2020. Logistic regression analyses were used to identify correlates of strong screening intentions among 2319 participants eligible for cervical screening and 2502 eligible for home-based CRC screening. Qualitative interviews were conducted with a sub-sample of 30 participants. Verbatim transcripts were analysed thematically. Of those eligible, 74% of survey participants intended to attend cervical screening and 84% intended to complete home-based CRC screening when next invited. Thirty percent and 19% of the cervical and CRC samples respectively said they were less likely to attend a cancer screening appointment now than before the pandemic. Previous non-participation was the strongest predictor of low intentions for cervical (aOR 26.31, 95% CI: 17.61-39.30) and CRC (aOR 67.68, 95% CI: 33.91-135.06) screening. Interview participants expressed concerns about visiting healthcare settings but were keen to participate when screening programmes resumed. Intentions to participate in future screening were high and strongly associated with previous engagement in both programmes. As screening services recover, it will be important to monitor participation and to ensure people feel safe to attend.

Improving postal survey response using behavioural science: a nested randomised control trial.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews have identified effective strategies for increasing postal response rates to questionnaires; however, most studies have isolated single techniques, testing the effect of each one individually. Despite providing insight into explanatory mechanisms, this approach lacks ecological validity, given that multiple techniques are often combined in routine practice. METHODS: We used a two-armed parallel randomised controlled trial (n = 2702), nested within a cross-sectional health survey study, to evaluate whether using a pragmatic combination of behavioural science and evidenced-based techniques (e.g., personalisation, social norms messaging) in a study invitation letter increased response to the survey, when compared with a standard invitation letter. Participants and outcome assessors were blinded to group assignment. We tested this in a sample of women testing positive for human papillomavirus (HPV) at cervical cancer screening in England. RESULTS: Overall, 646 participants responded to the survey (response rate [RR] = 23.9%). Logistic regression revealed higher odds of response in the intervention arm (n = 357/1353, RR = 26.4%) compared with the control arm (n = 289/1349, RR = 21.4%), while adjusting for age, deprivation, clinical site, and clinical test result (aOR = 1.30, 95% CI: 1.09-1.55). CONCLUSION: Applying easy-to-implement behavioural science and evidence-based methods to routine invitation letters improved postal response to a health-related survey, whilst adjusting for demographic characteristics. Our findings provide support for the pragmatic adoption of combined techniques in routine research to increase response to postal surveys. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN15113095 . Registered 7 May 2019 - retrospectively registered.

Lung Screen Uptake Trial (LSUT): Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial Testing Targeted Invitation Materials.

Rationale: Low uptake of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening, particularly by current smokers of a low socioeconomic position, compromises effectiveness and equity.Objectives: To compare the effect of a targeted, low-burden, and stepped invitation strategy versus control on uptake of hospital-based Lung Health Check appointments offering LDCT screening.Methods: In a two-arm, blinded, between-subjects, randomized controlled trial, 2,012 participants were selected from 16 primary care practices using these criteria: 1) aged 60 to 75 years, 2) recorded as a current smoker within the last 7 years, and 3) no prespecified exclusion criteria contraindicating LDCT screening. Both groups received a stepped sequence of preinvitation, invitation, and reminder letters from their primary care practitioner offering prescheduled appointments. The key manipulation was the accompanying leaflet. The intervention group's leaflet targeted psychological barriers and provided low-burden information, mimicking the concept of the U.K. Ministry of Transport's annual vehicle test ("M.O.T. For Your Lungs").Measurements and Main Results: Uptake was 52.6%, with no difference between intervention (52.3%) and control (52.9%) groups in unadjusted (odds ratio [OR], 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82-1.16) or adjusted (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.82-1.17) analyses. Current smokers were less likely to attend (adjusted OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.56-0.86) than former smokers. Socioeconomic deprivation was significantly associated with lower uptake for the control group only (P < 0.01).Conclusions: The intervention did not improve uptake. Regardless of trial arm, uptake was considerably higher than previous clinical and real-world studies, particularly given that the samples were predominantly lower socioeconomic position smokers. Strategies common to both groups, including a Lung Health Check approach, could represent a minimum standard.Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02558101) and registered prospectively with the International Standard Registered Clinical/Social Study (N21774741).

"Whilst you are here " Acceptability of providing advice about screening and early detection of other cancers as part of the breast cancer screening programme.

OBJECTIVES: This research aimed to assess women's willingness to receive advice about cervical and bowel cancer screening participation and advice on cancer symptom awareness when attending breast cancer screening. METHODS: Women (n = 322) aged 60-64 years, living in the United Kingdom, who had previously taken part in breast cancer screening were recruited via a market research panel. They completed an online survey assessing willingness to receive advice, the potential impact of advice on breast screening participation, prospective acceptability and preferences for mode and timing of advice. RESULTS: Most women would be willing to receive information about cervical (86%) and bowel cancer screening (90%) and early symptoms of other cancers (92%) at a breast cancer screening appointment. Those who were not up to date with cervical cancer screening were less willing. Prospective acceptability was high for all three forms of advice and was associated with willingness to receive advice. Women would prefer to receive advice through a leaflet (41%) or discussion with the mammographer (30%) either before the appointment (27%), at the appointment (44%) or with their results (22%). CONCLUSIONS: While there is high willingness and high acceptability towards using breast cancer screening as a teachable moment for advice about prevention and early detection of other cancers, some women find it unacceptable and this may reduce their likelihood of attending a breast screening appointment. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This study focused on gaining women's insights into potential future initiatives to encourage screening and early diagnosis of cancer. Members of the public were also involved in piloting the questionnaire.

Anxiety and distress following receipt of results from routine HPV primary testing in cervical screening: The psychological impact of primary screening (PIPS) study.

We used a cross-sectional survey to examine short-term anxiety and distress in women receiving different results following routine human papillomavirus (HPV) primary testing at cervical screening. Participants were women aged 24-65 (n = 1,127) who had attended screening at one of five sites piloting HPV primary screening in England, including a control group with normal cytology who were not tested for HPV. Women completed a postal questionnaire ~2 weeks after receiving their screening result. Unadjusted mean anxiety scores ranged from 32.9 (standard deviation [SD] = 12.2) in HPV-negative women to 42.1 (SD = 14.9) in women who were HPV-positive with abnormal cytology. In adjusted analyses, anxiety was significantly higher in women testing HPV-positive with either normal cytology (mean difference [MD] = 3.5, CI: 0.6-6.4) or abnormal cytology (MD = 7.2, CI: 3.7-10.6), than the control group. Distress was slightly higher in women who tested HPV-positive with abnormal cytology (MD = 0.9, CI: 0.02-1.8), than the control group. We also found increased odds of very high anxiety in women who tested HPV-positive with normal or abnormal cytology compared to the control group. This pattern of results was only observed among women receiving their first HPV-positive result, not among women found to have persistent HPV at 12-month follow-up. Testing HPV-positive with normal cytology for the first time, is associated with elevated anxiety despite carrying very low immediate cervical cancer risk. However, receiving the same test result at 12-month early recall does not appear to be associated with higher anxiety, suggesting anxiety may normalise with repeated exposure and/or over time.

Psychological outcomes of low-dose CT lung cancer screening in a multisite demonstration screening pilot: the Lung Screen Uptake Trial (LSUT).

BACKGROUND: Previous studies of psychological burden in low-dose CT (LDCT) lung cancer screening trials may lack generalisability due to participation bias and control arms having elevated distress. METHODS: Current and former smokers (n=787, aged 60-75) within a real-world screening demonstration pilot completed measures of lung cancer worry at three time points (T0: appointment, T1: next day, T2: 3 months) and anxiety and depression at two time points (T0 and T2). A 'screening unaware' community sample (n=383) with the same age and smoking characteristics completed these measures once (T0). Mean scores were compared by sample type and LDCT result. RESULTS: Compared with the community sample (T0), mean scores were higher in the screening sample, and statistically significantly increased in adjusted analyses, for lung cancer worry at T0 and T2 (mean (M): 9.32; 95% CI 8.96 to 9.69 vs M: 11.34; 11.09 to 11.59 and M: 11.88; 11.49 to 12.27), for anxiety at T0 and T2 (M: 3.32; 2.94 to 3.70 vs M: 4.73; 4.42 to 5.04 and M: 5.78; 5.33 to 6.23) and depression at T2 (M: 3.85; 3.44 to 4.27 vs M: 4.15; 3.76 to 4.55). Scores were highest for those with indeterminate (eg, T2 anxiety M: 6.93; 5.65 to 8.21) and incidental findings (primary care follow-up M: 5.34; 4.67 to 6.02) and those ineligible for screening (M: 6.51; 5.25 to 7.77). Being female, younger, not in paid employment, not married/cohabiting with a partner and lower education predicted poorer psychological outcomes at T0, but not T2 after adjusting for baseline scores. Mean scores remained within 'normal' clinical ranges. CONCLUSION: Psychological distress was raised among high-risk individuals undergoing LDCT screening in a real-world setting, but overall differences were unlikely to be clinically meaningful. It will be critical to monitor the psychological impact of services longitudinally across diverse settings, including subgroups vulnerable to clinically elevated distress. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Lung Screen Uptake Trial was registered prospectively with the International Standard Registered Clinical/soCial sTudy (ISRCTN) (Number: ISRCTN21774741) on 23 September 2015 and the National Institutes of Health ClinicalTrials.gov database (NCT02558101) on 22 September 2015.

Increasing the perceived relevance of cervical screening in older women who do not plan to attend screening.

OBJECTIVES: Uptake of cervical screening among women aged 50-64 years is declining. Not feeling at risk because of current sexual behaviour is a reason some older women give for not being screened. We hypothesised that explaining the long interval between acquiring human papillomavirus (HPV) and developing cervical cancer would increase the relevance of screening in older women. METHODS: Women aged 50-64 years (n=597) who did not intend to go for screening were recruited through an online panel and randomised to one of three information conditions: cause only (basic information about HPV and cervical cancer), cause with basic timeline (also read a sentence describing the long interval between acquiring HPV and developing cervical cancer) and cause with explicit timeline (read the same as the timeline group alongside an explanation of what this means for older women). Perceived risk of cervical cancer, screening intention strength and understanding of HPV were assessed preinformation and postinformation exposure. RESULTS: Information condition was significantly associated with risk perceptions and intention strength postintervention (F(2,593)=6.26, p=0.002 and F(2,593)=4.98, p=0.007 respectively). Women in the cause with explicit timeline condition were more likely to increase their risk perceptions and intention strength compared with cause only (24% vs 9% and 25% vs 13% for risk perceptions and intention, respectively). In the cause with explicit timeline group, women with 4-10 lifetime partners had higher odds of increasing their perceived risk and intention strength postintervention compared with those with 0-1 partners (OR=2.27, 95% CI 1.01 to 5.12 and OR=3.20, 95% CI 1.34 to 7.67, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Providing a clear explanation that decouples women's perceived cervical cancer risk from their current sexual behaviour has the potential to increase perceived risk of cervical cancer and intentions to be screened among older women. Providing women with a clear cognitive representation of the aetiology of cervical cancer may be one approach to increasing screening uptake.