Barriers to colonoscopy in UK colorectal cancer screening programmes: Qualitative interviews with ethnic minority groups.

OBJECTIVE: People from ethnic minority backgrounds are less likely to attend colonoscopy, following faecal immunochemical test screening, and are more likely to be diagnosed with colorectal cancer at an advanced stage as a result. The aim of this research was to explore the barriers and facilitators to attending colonoscopy, perceived by ethnic minority groups living in the United Kingdom. METHODS: Semi-structured online and telephone interviews were conducted with thirty men and women of Black-African (n = 5), Black-Caribbean (n = 5), South Asian (n = 10) and White British (n = 10) descent. Participants were eligible for screening, but had not necessarily been invited for colonoscopy. All interviews were conducted in the participant's first language and were assessed using Framework-analysis, in line with a conceptual framework developed from previous interviews with healthcare professionals. RESULTS: Five thematic groups of barriers and facilitators were developed: 'Locus of control', 'Cultural attitudes and beliefs', 'Individual beliefs, knowledge and personal experiences with colonoscopy and cancer', 'Reliance on family and friends' and 'Health concerns'. Differences were observed, between ethnic groups, for: 'Locus of control', 'Cultural attitudes and beliefs' and 'Reliance on family and friends'. Black and South Asian participants frequently described the decision to attend colonoscopy as lying with 'God' (Muslims, specifically), 'the doctor', or 'family' (Locus of control). Black and South Asian participants also reported relying on friends and family for 'language, transport and emotional support' (Reliance on family and friends). Black-African participants, specifically, described cancer as 'socially taboo' (Cultural attitudes and beliefs). CONCLUSIONS: The results highlight several targets for culturally-tailored interventions to make colonoscopy more equitable.

The role of partner support for health behaviours in people living with and beyond cancer: A qualitative study.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to qualitatively explore how partner support for health behaviours is perceived, received, and utilised in people living with and beyond cancer (LWBC). METHODS: Semi-structured audio interviews were conducted with 24 participants, 15 men and nine women, living with and beyond breast, prostate, and colorectal cancer. Inductive and deductive Thematic Analysis was used to analyse the data. RESULTS: Three key themes with six subthemes were identified relating to partner support for health behaviours: (1) Interdependence (Reciprocity, Overt Control, Influence & Motivation) (2) Concordance (Shared Attitudes & Health Beliefs, Shared Health Behaviour) and (3) Communal Coping (Communal Orientation towards Health and Decision Making, Co-operative Action in Health Behaviour). CONCLUSIONS: Partner support plays a unique and significant role in the health behaviours of people LWBC. Partners play a collaborative role in managing health and facilitating health behaviours, while the high level of concordance in couples may represent a potential barrier to change via the reinforcement of maladaptive health beliefs and behaviours. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Overall, findings demonstrate that partners should be considered and included where possible when designing future behaviour change interventions for people LWBC.

Exploring the perceived impact of social support on the health behaviours of people living with and beyond cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study.

PURPOSE: Social support facilitated healthy behaviours in people living with and beyond cancer (LWBC) before the COVID-19 pandemic. Little is known about how social support impacted their health behaviours during the pandemic when social restrictions were imposed. The aim of this study was to qualitatively explore how social support was perceived to impact the health behaviours of people LWBC during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted via telephone with 24 adults living with and beyond breast, prostate and colorectal cancer. Inductive and deductive framework analysis was used to analyse the data. RESULTS: Five themes developed. These were (1) Companionship and accountability as motivators for physical activity, (2) Social influences on alcohol consumption, (3) Instrumental support in food practices, (4) Informational support as important for behaviour change and (5) Validation of health behaviours from immediate social networks. CONCLUSION: This study described how companionship, social influence, instrumental support, informational support and validation were perceived to impact the health behaviours of people LWBC during the COVID-19 pandemic. Interventions for people LWBC could recommend co-participation in exercise with friends and family; promote the formation of collaborative implementation intentions with family to reduce alcohol consumption; and encourage supportive communication between partners about health behaviours. These interventions would be useful during pandemics and at other times. Government policies to help support clinically extremely vulnerable groups of people LWBC during pandemics should focus on providing access to healthier foods.

Comparing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of text-message reminders and telephone patient navigation to improve the uptake of faecal immunochemical test screening among non-responders in London: a randomised controlled trial protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Participation in bowel cancer screening is lower in regions where there is high ethnic diversity and/or socioeconomic deprivation. Interventions, such as text message reminders and patient navigation (PN), have the potential to increase participation in these areas. As such, there is interest in the comparative effectiveness of these interventions to increase bowel cancer screening participation, as well as their relative cost-effectiveness. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study will use a three-arm randomised controlled trial design to compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of text message reminders and PN to increase the uptake of bowel cancer screening in London. Participants will be individuals who have not returned a completed faecal immunochemical test kit within 13 weeks of receiving a routine invitation from the London bowel cancer screening hub. Participants will be randomised (in a 1:1:1 ratio) to receive either (1) usual care (ie, 'no intervention'), (2) a text message reminder at 13 weeks, followed by repeated text message reminders at 15, 17 and 19 weeks (in the event of non-response) or (3) a text message reminder at 13 weeks, followed by PN telephone calls at 15, 17 and 19 weeks in the event of non-response. The primary endpoint will be participation in bowel cancer screening, defined as 'the return of a completed kit by week 24'. Statistical analysis will use multivariate logistic regression and will incorporate pairwise comparisons of all three groups, adjusted for multiple testing. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approvals to conduct the research have been obtained from University College London's Joint Research Office (Ref: 150666), the Screening Research, Innovation and Development Advisory Committee ('RIDAC', Ref: 2223 014 BCSP Kerrison), the Health Research Authority (Ref: 22/WM/0212) and the Confidentiality Advisory Group (Ref: 22/CAG/0140). Results will be conveyed to stakeholders, notably those managing the screening programme and published in peer-reviewed journals/presented at academic conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN17245519.

Patient experience and satisfaction with symptomatic faecal immunochemical testing: an explanatory sequential mixed-methods evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Recent evidence suggests that faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) can rule out colorectal cancer (CRC) in symptomatic adults. To date, there has been little research exploring experiences of FIT for this population. AIM: To explore patient experience and satisfaction with FIT in an 'early adopter' site in England. DESIGN: Explanatory sequential mixed-methods approach combining mailed quantitative surveys with semi-structured telephone interviews. METHOD: Multivariate logistic regression was used to analyse quantitative data. Thematic analysis was used to assess qualitative transcripts. RESULTS: The survey had 260 responders, and it found that satisfaction with FIT was high (88.7%). Compared with test satisfaction, the proportion of responders satisfied with their GP consultation and how they received their results was lower (74.4% and 76.2%, respectively). Multivariate analysis showed that increased area-level deprivation and not receiving an explanation of the purpose of the test were associated with lower satisfaction with the GP consultation (both P-values <0.05), while increased area-level deprivation and not receiving results from the GP were associated with lower satisfaction with receiving results (both P-values <0.05). Interviews with responders (n = 20) helped explain the quantitative results. They revealed that 'not knowing the purpose of the test' caused 'anxiety' and 'confusion', which led to dissatisfaction. 'Not receiving results from GP' was considered 'unacceptable', as this left patients with a 'niggling doubt' and lack of diagnosis or assurance that they did not have cancer. CONCLUSION: Patient satisfaction with symptomatic FIT is high. Efforts to improve satisfaction should focus on ensuring that patients understand the purpose of the test and always receive their test results.