Psychosocial factors that distinguish between men and women who have suicidal thoughts and attempt suicide: findings from a national probability sample of adults.

BACKGROUND: Previous research has highlighted the importance of understanding which psychosocial factors distinguish between those with suicide thoughts compared to those who attempt suicide. This study aims to investigate these distinguishing factors further within an ideation-to-action framework and to explore sex differences in suicide risk. METHODS: Participants (n = 7546, aged 16+) were from the cross-sectional Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey (APMS; 2014) of England. Face-to-face and self-completion questionnaires assessed lifetime suicidal ideation, lifetime suicide attempts, demographic characteristics, life experiences, social support, health and mental illness. Multinomial logistic regression examined factors differentiating between those with suicidal ideation only and suicide attempt histories (with or without suicidal ideation) in men and women. RESULTS: Overall men were less likely to report suicidal thoughts and attempts, compared to females. More factors differentiated between suicidal thoughts and attempts in women compared to in men; these included hospital admission for mental illness, below degree level qualifications, being single and childhood adversity. In men, factors which significantly differentiated between suicidal thoughts and attempts included self-report of professional diagnosis of mental illness and childhood adversity. Higher levels of social support were associated with being in the suicidal thoughts group v. in the attempts group in men. CONCLUSION: This study identified some key differences between men and women in factors associated with suicide attempts compared to suicidal thoughts. The findings support the use of the ideation-to-action framework to investigate sex differences in suicidal behaviour. Future research should examine the extent to which these factors are associated with suicide risk over time.

Increased Breast and Colorectal Cancer Risk in Type 2 Diabetes: Awareness Among Adults With and Without Diabetes and Information Provision on Diabetes Websites.

BACKGROUND: People with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) have a higher risk of developing breast and bowel cancers but are less likely to participate in cancer screening. PURPOSE: Two interlinked studies examined public awareness of the fact that T2DM increases breast and bowel cancer risk, and provision of this information on diabetes websites. METHODS: Study-1: phase-1 surveyed awareness of T2DM-increased cancer risk in a nationally-representative British sample aged 50-74 (N = 1,458) and compared respondents with and without T2DM (n = 125 vs. n = 1,305); phase-2 surveyed an additional exclusively T2DM sample (N = 319). Study-2: High-ranking diabetes websites (N = 25) were reviewed to determine the rate of inclusion of cancer risk and cancer screening information in evident sections about diabetes-related health conditions. RESULTS: A low proportion of respondents were aware that T2DM increases risk of breast (13.7%) and bowel (27.6%) cancers, compared to much higher awareness of other diabetes-related conditions such as sight loss (82.2%) and foot problems (81.8%). Respondents with T2DM were significantly more likely than those without T2DM to be aware of all the surveyed diabetes-related health conditions (e.g., sight loss, OR: 3.14, 95%CI: 1.61-6.15; foot problems, OR: 2.58, 95%CI: 1.38-4.81), except breast (OR: 0.82, 95%CI: 0.46-1.45) and bowel (OR: 0.95, 95%CI: 0.63-1.45) cancer, for which awareness was equally low among people with and without T2DM. Few diabetes websites with a section on diabetes-related health conditions included cancer in this section (n = 4/19), and fewer still included cancer screening among any noted cancer-protective behaviors (n = 2/4). CONCLUSIONS: There is low public awareness that T2DM increases the risk of developing breast and bowel cancers, even among people with T2DM, which may be partly due to limited information provision regarding T2DM-increased cancer risk from diabetes care providers and organizations.

People with type 2 diabetes (T2D) have a higher risk of developing breast and bowel cancers. Despite this, they are less likely to participate in cancer screening, which can improve survival from cancer. We addressed two questions. Are people aware that T2D increases the risk of breast and bowel cancer? Are people being told about this by diabetes care providers and organizations? We surveyed a large representative sample of the British public (aged 50­74). We also reviewed key information about diabetes-related health problems provided on 25 top-ranking diabetes websites. There were three main findings. (1) Relatively few people knew that T2D increases the risk of breast and bowel cancer. In contrast, many people knew that T2D increases the risk of other conditions like sight loss, foot problems, and heart disease. (2) Awareness of higher cancer risk was equally low among people with T2D and those without. In contrast, knowledge of other diabetes-related conditions (e.g., sight loss, foot problems) was higher among people with T2D than those without. (3) Few websites included cancer in their key information about diabetes-related health problems. In contrast, nearly all the diabetes websites listed the more well-known risks of sight loss, foot problems, and heart disease.

Effects of COVID-19-related worry and rumination on mental health and loneliness during the pandemic: longitudinal analyses of adults in the UK COVID-19 mental health & wellbeing study.

BACKGROUND: The lasting effects of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic are likely to be significant. AIMS: This study tracked worry and rumination levels during the pandemic and investigated whether periods with higher COVID-related worry and rumination were associated with more negative mental health and loneliness. METHODS: A quota survey design and a sampling frame that permitted recruitment of a national sample were employed. Findings for waves 1 (March 2020) to 6 (November 2020) are reported (N = 1943). RESULTS: Covid-related worry and rumination levels were highest at the beginning of the first lockdown, then declined but increased when the UK returned to lockdown. Worry levels were higher than rumination levels throughout. High levels of COVID-related worry and rumination were associated with a five- and ten-fold increase in clinically meaningful rates of depression and anxiety (respectively) together with lower well-being and higher loneliness. The effects of COVID-related worry on depression and anxiety levels were most marked and clinically meaningful in individuals living with a pre-existing mental health condition. CONCLUSIONS: Psychological interventions should include components that specifically target COVID-related worry and rumination. Individuals with pre-existing mental health conditions should be prioritised as we emerge from the current pandemic and in any future public health crises.

Understanding patient barriers and facilitators to uptake of lung screening using low dose computed tomography: a mixed methods scoping review of the current literature.

BACKGROUND: Targeted lung cancer screening is effective in reducing mortality by upwards of twenty percent. However, screening is not universally available and uptake is variable and socially patterned. Understanding screening behaviour is integral to designing a service that serves its population and promotes equitable uptake. We sought to review the literature to identify barriers and facilitators to screening to inform the development of a pilot lung screening study in Scotland. METHODS: We used Arksey and O'Malley's scoping review methodology and PRISMA-ScR framework to identify relevant literature to meet the study aims. Qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods primary studies published between January 2000 and May 2021 were identified and reviewed by two reviewers for inclusion, using a list of search terms developed by the study team and adapted for chosen databases. RESULTS: Twenty-one articles met the final inclusion criteria. Articles were published between 2003 and 2021 and came from high income countries. Following data extraction and synthesis, findings were organised into four categories: Awareness of lung screening, Enthusiasm for lung screening, Barriers to lung screening, and Facilitators or ways of promoting uptake of lung screening. Awareness of lung screening was low while enthusiasm was high. Barriers to screening included fear of a cancer diagnosis, low perceived risk of lung cancer as well as practical barriers of cost, travel and time off work. Being health conscious, provider endorsement and seeking reassurance were all identified as facilitators of screening participation. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding patient reported barriers and facilitators to lung screening can help inform the implementation of future lung screening pilots and national lung screening programmes.

Acceptability of a standalone written leaflet for the National Health Service for England Targeted Lung Health Check Programme: A concurrent, think-aloud study.

BACKGROUND: Many countries are introducing low-dose computed tomography screening programmes for people at high risk of lung cancer. Effective communication strategies that convey risks and benefits, including unfamiliar concepts and outcome probabilities based on population risk, are critical to achieving informed choice and mitigating inequalities in uptake. METHODS: This study investigated the acceptability of an aspect of NHS England's communication strategy in the form of a leaflet that was used to invite and inform eligible adults about the Targeted Lung Health Check (TLHC) programme. Acceptability was assessed in terms of how individuals engaged with, comprehended and responded to the leaflet. Semi-structured, 'think aloud' interviews were conducted remotely with 40 UK screening-naïve current and former smokers (aged 55-73). The verbatim transcripts were analysed thematically using a coding framework based on the Dual Process Theory of cognition. RESULTS: The leaflet helped participants understand the principles and procedures of screening and fostered cautiously favourable intentions. Three themes captured the main results of the data analysis: (1) Response-participants experienced anxiety about screening results and further investigations, but the involvement of specialist healthcare professionals was reassuring; (2) Engagement-participants were rapidly drawn to information about lung cancer prevalence, and benefits of screening, but deliberated slowly about early diagnosis, risks of screening and less familiar symptoms of lung cancer; (3) Comprehension-participants understood the main principles of the TLHC programme, but some were confused by its rationale and eligibility criteria. Radiation risks, abnormal screening results and numerical probabilities of screening outcomes were hard to understand. CONCLUSION: The TLHC information leaflet appeared to be acceptable to the target population. There is scope to improve aspects of comprehension and engagement in ways that would support informed choice as a distributed process in lung cancer screening. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The insight and perspectives of patient representatives directly informed and improved the design and conduct of this study.

Optimizing the implementation of lung cancer screening in Scotland: Focus group participant perspectives in the LUNGSCOT study.

INTRODUCTION: Targeted lung cancer screening is effective in reducing lung cancer and all-cause mortality according to major trials in the United Kingdom and Europe. However, the best ways of implementing screening in local communities requires an understanding of the population the programme will serve. We undertook a study to explore the views of those potentially eligible for, and to identify potential barriers and facilitators to taking part in, lung screening, to inform the development of a feasibility study. METHODS: Men and women aged 45-70, living in urban and rural Scotland, and either self-reported people who smoke or who recently quit, were invited to take part in the study via research agency Taylor McKenzie. Eleven men and 14 women took part in three virtual focus groups exploring their views on lung screening. Focus group transcripts were transcribed and analysed using thematic analysis, assisted by QSR NVivo. FINDINGS: Three overarching themes were identified: (1) Knowledge, awareness and acceptability of lung screening, (2) Barriers and facilitators to screening and (3) Promoting screening and implementation ideas. Participants were largely supportive of lung screening in principle and described the importance of the early detection of cancer. Emotional and psychological concerns as well as system-level and practical issues were discussed as posing barriers and facilitators to lung screening. CONCLUSIONS: Understanding the views of people potentially eligible for a lung health check can usefully inform the development of a further study to test the feasibility and acceptability of lung screening in Scotland. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: The LUNGSCOT study has convened a patient advisory group to advise on all aspects of study development and implementation. Patient representatives commented on the focus group study design, study materials and ethics application, and two representatives read the focus group transcripts.

Mental health and well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic: longitudinal analyses of adults in the UK COVID-19 Mental Health & Wellbeing study.

BACKGROUND: The effects of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on the population's mental health and well-being are likely to be profound and long lasting. AIMS: To investigate the trajectory of mental health and well-being during the first 6 weeks of lockdown in adults in the UK. METHOD: A quota survey design and a sampling frame that permitted recruitment of a national sample was employed. Findings for waves 1 (31 March to 9 April 2020), 2 (10 April to 27 April 2020) and 3 (28 April to 11 May 2020) are reported here. A range of mental health factors was assessed: pre-existing mental health problems, suicide attempts and self-harm, suicidal ideation, depression, anxiety, defeat, entrapment, mental well-being and loneliness. RESULTS: A total of 3077 adults in the UK completed the survey at wave 1. Suicidal ideation increased over time. Symptoms of anxiety, and levels of defeat and entrapment decreased across waves whereas levels of depressive symptoms did not change significantly. Positive well-being also increased. Levels of loneliness did not change significantly over waves. Subgroup analyses showed that women, young people (18-29 years), those from more socially disadvantaged backgrounds and those with pre-existing mental health problems have worse mental health outcomes during the pandemic across most factors. CONCLUSIONS: The mental health and well-being of the UK adult population appears to have been affected in the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic. The increasing rates of suicidal thoughts across waves, especially among young adults, are concerning.

Understanding patient factors to increase uptake of cancer screening: a review.

Early detection of cancer through organized screening is a central component of population-level strategies to reduce cancer mortality. For screening programs to be effective, it is important that those invited to screening participate. However, uptake rates are suboptimal in many populations and vary between screening programs, indicating a complex combination of patient factors that require elucidation to develop evidence-based strategies to increase participation. In this review, the authors summarize individual-level (sociodemographic and psychosocial) factors associated with cancer screening uptake and evidence for the effectiveness of behavioral interventions to increase uptake. The authors reflect on current trends and future directions for behavioral cancer screening research to overcome challenges and address unmet needs in reducing cancer mortality.

Depressive symptoms, neuroticism, and participation in breast and cervical cancer screening: Cross-sectional and prospective evidence from UK Biobank.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the cross-sectional and prospective associations between depressive symptoms, neuroticism, and participation in breast and cervical screening in the UK. METHODS: Women in the UK Biobank cohort with complete data who were eligible for breast cancer screening (aged 50-70 years, N = 143 461) and/or cervical screening (<65 years, N = 141 753) at baseline recruitment (2006-2010) and those with follow-up data (2014-2019) were identified (N = 11 050 and N = 9780 for breast and cervical screening). Depressive symptoms and neuroticism were self-reported at baseline (range 0-12 with higher scores reflecting greater severity). Primary outcomes were reporting being up to date with breast and cervical screening. For prospective analyses, patterns of screening participation from baseline to follow-up were identified. Logistic regression was used to analyse associations, adjusted for potential confounding factors. RESULTS: More severe depressive symptoms were associated with reduced likelihood of breast (OR = 0.960, 95% CI: 0.950,0.970) and cervical (OR = 0.958, 95% CI: 0.950,0.966) screening participation, in cross-sectional analyses. Higher neuroticism scores were associated with reduced cervical screening participation, but the opposite was found for breast cancer screening. Examination of individual neuroticism items revealed that anxiety and worry were associated with increased breast screening. At follow-up, higher baseline depressive symptoms were related to decreased cervical screening (OR = 0.955, 95% CI: 0.913,0.999), but not with breast screening. CONCLUSIONS: More severe depressive symptoms may be a barrier for breast and cervical screening and could be an indicator for more proactive strategies to improve uptake.

Preference for Deliberation and Perceived Usefulness of Standard- and Narrative-Style Leaflet Designs: Implications for Equitable Cancer-Screening Communication.

BACKGROUND: In the UK, cancer-screening invitations are mailed with information styled in a standard, didactic way to allow for informed choice. Information processing theory suggests this "standard style" could be more appealing to people who prefer deliberative thinking. People less likely to engage in deliberative thinking may be disenfranchised by the design of current standard-style information. PURPOSE: To examine the distribution of preference for deliberative thinking across demographic groups (Study 1) and explore associations between preference for deliberative thinking and perceived usefulness of standard- and narrative-style screening information (Study 2). METHODS: In Study 1, adults aged 45-59 (n = 4,241) were mailed a questionnaire via primary care assessing preference for deliberative thinking and demographic characteristics. In Study 2, a separate cohort of adults aged 45-59 (n = 2,058) were mailed standard- and narrative-style leaflets and a questionnaire assessing demographic characteristics, preference for deliberative thinking, and perceived leaflet usefulness. Data were analyzed using multiple regression. RESULTS: In Study 1 (n = 1,783) and Study 2 (n = 650), having lower socioeconomic status, being a women, and being of nonwhite ethnicity was associated with lower preference for deliberative thinking. In Study 2, the standard-style leaflet was perceived as less useful among participants with lower preference for deliberative thinking, while perceived usefulness of the narrative-style leaflet did not differ by preference for deliberative thinking. CONCLUSIONS: Information leaflets using a standard style may disadvantage women and those experiencing greater socioeconomic deprivation. More work is required to identify design styles that have a greater appeal for people with low preference for deliberative thinking.

Comparing uptake across breast, cervical and bowel screening at an individual level: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: We investigated demographic and clinical predictors of lower participation in bowel screening relative to breast and cervical screening. METHODS: Data linkage study of routinely collected clinical data from 430,591 women registered with general practices in the Greater Glasgow & Clyde Health Board. Participation in the screening programmes was measured by attendance at breast or cervical screening or the return of a bowel screening kit. RESULTS: 72.6% of 159,993 women invited attended breast screening, 80.7% of 309,899 women invited attended cervical screening and 61.7% of 180,408 women invited completed bowel screening. Of the 68,324 women invited to participate in all three screening programmes during the study period, 52.1% participated in all three while 7.2% participated in none. Women who participated in breast (OR = 3.34 (3.21, 3.47), p < 0.001) or cervical (OR = 3.48 (3.32, 3.65), p < 0.001) were more likely to participate in bowel screening. CONCLUSION: Participation in bowel screening was lower than breast or cervical for this population although the same demographic factors were associated with uptake, namely lower social deprivation, increasing age, low levels of comorbidity and prior non-malignant neoplasms. As women who complete breast and cervical are more likely to also complete bowel screening, interventions at these procedures to encourage bowel screening participation should be explored.

Depression and anxiety among people living with and beyond cancer: a growing clinical and research priority.

BACKGROUND: A cancer diagnosis can have a substantial impact on mental health and wellbeing. Depression and anxiety may hinder cancer treatment and recovery, as well as quality of life and survival. We argue that more research is needed to prevent and treat co-morbid depression and anxiety among people with cancer and that it requires greater clinical priority. For background and to support our argument, we synthesise existing systematic reviews relating to cancer and common mental disorders, focusing on depression and anxiety. We searched several electronic databases for relevant reviews on cancer, depression and anxiety from 2012 to 2019. Several areas are covered: factors that may contribute to the development of common mental disorders among people with cancer; the prevalence of depression and anxiety; and potential care and treatment options. We also make several recommendations for future research. Numerous individual, psychological, social and contextual factors potentially contribute to the development of depression and anxiety among people with cancer, as well as characteristics related to the cancer and treatment received. Compared to the general population, the prevalence of depression and anxiety is often found to be higher among people with cancer, but estimates vary due to several factors, such as the treatment setting, type of cancer and time since diagnosis. Overall, there are a lack of high-quality studies into the mental health of people with cancer following treatment and among long-term survivors, particularly for the less prevalent cancer types and younger people. Studies that focus on prevention are minimal and research covering low- and middle-income populations is limited. CONCLUSION: Research is urgently needed into the possible impacts of long-term and late effects of cancer treatment on mental health and how these may be prevented, as increasing numbers of people live with and beyond cancer.

Lung cancer symptom appraisal among people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: A qualitative interview study.

OBJECTIVE: The incidence of lung cancer is four times higher in people with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) compared with the general population. Promotion of a shorter time from symptom onset to presentation is one potential strategy for earlier lung cancer diagnosis, but distinguishing respiratory symptoms can be difficult. We investigated how the experience of COPD influences symptom appraisal and help seeking for potential lung cancer symptoms. METHODS: We conducted qualitative interviews with men (n = 17) and women (n = 23) aged 40 to 83 years with COPD. Topic guides drew on the integrated symptom-response framework and covered symptom experience, interpretation, action, recognition, help seeking, evaluation, and reevaluation. We used the framework method to analyse the data. RESULTS: Participants said that they attributed chest symptoms to their COPD; no other cause was considered. Participants said that family/friends noticed changes in their symptoms and encouraged help seeking. Others felt isolated by their COPD because they could not get out, were fatigued, or were embarrassed. Participants visited health professionals frequently, but increased risk of lung cancer was not discussed. CONCLUSIONS: Our study provides insight into different levels of influence on symptom appraisal and targets for intervention. Greater awareness of increased lung cancer risk and support to act on symptom changes is essential and could be achieved through a concerted information campaign. Health professionals working with people with COPD could also optimise appointments to support symptom appraisal of potential lung cancer symptoms.

The impact of supplementary narrative-based information on colorectal cancer screening beliefs and intention.

BACKGROUND: The potential benefits of colorectal cancer screening are limited by low uptake. This study tested whether providing narrative accounts of the colorectal cancer (CRC) screening experience positively affected beliefs about CRC screening and intention to be screened. METHODS: 4125 adults aged 45-59.5 years, from three general practices in England, were randomised to be sent the standard information on CRC screening or the standard information plus a narrative-based leaflet describing CRC screening experiences. Both groups were asked to complete and return a questionnaire on beliefs about CRC screening after reading the study materials. Between-group differences on responses were assessed with t-tests. A mediation analysis then addressed the mediating role of CRC screening beliefs on the group and intention relationship. RESULTS: Relative to the standard information group (n = 590), the standard information plus narrative leaflet group (n = 631) showed higher perceived vulnerability to CRC, higher perceived test response efficacy, a stronger belief that the screening test would provide peace of mind and less disgust with the test procedure. There were no between group differences on perceived self-efficacy or the understanding that the screening test should be done in the absence of symptoms. Respondents who received the additional narrative leaflet reported significantly higher CRC screening intentions than respondents who received the standard information only. Controlling for the CRC screening beliefs reduced the effect of group on intention to non-significance. CONCLUSIONS: An additional narrative leaflet had a positive impact on beliefs about CRC screening which led to stronger screening intentions.

Supplementing factual information with patient narratives in the cancer screening context: a qualitative study of acceptability and preferences.

OBJECTIVE: To explore people's responses to narrative information in the context of colorectal cancer screening. DESIGN: Nineteen in-depth interviews were conducted with men and women (aged 45-59). Participants were given two types of colorectal screening information to read: factual and narrative. Participants gave their views on both types of information. Data were analysed using Framework Analysis. RESULTS: The most frequent responses to the narrative information were that they were reassuring, made colorectal screening more vivid, participants could relate to the people in the stories and they liked the range of narratives presented. Despite the narrative information being seen as more persuasive by some, this was not regarded as manipulative or negative. Both types of information were seen as equally credible. Participants felt a combination of facts and narratives would be useful when considering an offer of colorectal cancer screening. CONCLUSION: Overall, participants were positive about the addition of narrative information to the currently provided factual information about colorectal cancer screening. Supplementing existing factual information with narrative information may provide participants with a more complete understanding of participation in colorectal cancer screening when considering an offer to be screened.

Explaining the income and suicidality relationship: income rank is more strongly associated with suicidal thoughts and attempts than income.

PURPOSE: Low income is an established risk factor for suicidal thoughts and attempts. This study aims to explore income within a social rank perspective, proposing that the relationship between income and suicidality is accounted for by the rank of that income within comparison groups. METHODS: Participants (N = 5779) took part in the Adult Psychiatric Morbidity Survey across England. An income rank variable was created by ranking each individual's income within four comparison groups (sex by education, education by region, sex by region, and sex by education by region). Along with absolute income and demographic covariates, these variables were tested for associations with suicidal thoughts and attempts, both across the lifetime and in the past year. RESULTS: Absolute income was associated with suicidal thoughts and attempts, both across the lifetime and in the past year. However, when income rank within the four comparison groups was regressed on lifetime suicidal thoughts and attempts, only income rank remained significant and therefore accounted for this relationship. A similar result was found for suicidal thoughts within the past year although the pattern was less clear for suicide attempts in the past year. CONCLUSIONS: Social position, rather than absolute income, may be more important in understanding suicidal thoughts and attempts. This suggests that it may be psychosocial rather than material factors that explain the relationship between income and suicidal outcomes.

Optimising recruitment to a lung cancer screening trial: A comparison of general practitioner and community-based recruitment.

OBJECTIVES: Pre-trial focus groups of the Early detection of Cancer of the Lung Scotland (ECLS) trial indicated that those at high risk of lung cancer are more likely to engage with community-based recruitment methods. The current study aimed to understand if general practitioner (GP) and community-based recruitment might attract different groups of people, and to quantitatively explore the demographic and psychosocial differences between people responding to GP or community-based recruitment. DESIGN: Secondary data analysis of ECLS trial baseline data. METHODS: Adults (n = 11,164) aged 50 to 75 years completed a baseline questionnaire as part of their participation in the ECLS trial. The questionnaire assessed smoking behaviour, health state, health anxiety and illness perception. Alongside demographic characteristics, how participants were made aware of the study/participant recruitment method (GP recruitment/community recruitment) was also obtained via trial records. RESULTS: The likelihood of being recruited via community-based methods increased as deprivation level decreased. Those recruited via the community had higher levels of perceived personal control of developing lung cancer and were more likely to understand their own risk of developing lung cancer, compared to those who were recruited to the trial via their GP. Health state and health anxiety did not predict recruitment methods in multivariable analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Community and opportunistic screening invitations were associated with uptake in people from less-deprived backgrounds, and therefore might not be the optimal method to reach those at high risk of lung cancer and living in more deprived areas.

To what extent are psychological variables considered in the study of risk and protective factors for suicidal thoughts and behaviours in individuals with cancer? A systematic review of 70 years of research.

Psychological variables substantially shape the risk of suicidal thoughts and behaviours (STBs). However, it is unclear to what extent they are considered in individuals with cancer. We synthesized the quantitative research landscape concerning psychological risk/protective factors of STBs in the (psycho-) oncological context. This pre-registered review (PROSPERO-ID CRD42022331484) systematically searched the databases PubMed/Medline, CINAHL, PsycInfo, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science (as well as the grey literature and preprints). Risk of bias (RoB) was estimated using the ROBINS-I tool. Of 11,159 retrieved records, 319 studies were eligible for inclusion. Of those, 163 (51.1%) had investigated psychological factors (affective: n = 155; social: n = 65; cognitive: n = 63; personality/individual differences: n = 37; life events: n = 6), in a combined 3,561,741 participants. The most common STBs were suicidal ideation (n = 107) or death wishes (n = 20) rather than behaviour (suicide deaths: n = 26; attempts: n = 14). Most studies had a serious RoB. Thus, a large body of research investigated STBs in cancer patients/survivors, but it rarely aligned with the theoretical or clinical developments in suicide research. We propose a conceptual model of STBs in cancer delineating moderation and mediation effects to advance the integration of the fields, and to inform future research and practice.

Type and Severity of Mental Illness and Participation in Colorectal Cancer Screening.

INTRODUCTION: The effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening programs depends on the participation rate. This study examined the association between type and severity of mental illness and colorectal cancer screening participation. METHODS: Between 2012 and 2017, a total of 46,919 individuals were invited to sigmoidoscopy screening in Norway, and 70,019 were invited to fecal immunochemical testing. In 2022, logistic regression was used to evaluate the association between the use of antipsychotics, anxiolytics, hypnotics, and antidepressants in the year preceding the screening invitation and screening participation, adjusted for demographic and socioeconomic factors. Defined daily doses of individual drugs were used to assess dose‒response relationships. RESULTS: Overall, 19.2% (24.8% of women, 13.4% of men) of all invitees used at least 1 psychotropic medication. Nonparticipation in the 2 arms combined was associated with the use of anxiolytics (60.7% in users vs 43.2% in nonusers; OR=1.53; 95% CI=1.45, 1.62) and antipsychotics (64.3% vs 43.8%; OR=1.41; 95% CI=1.30, 1.53) and increased with higher doses for both drugs. Hypnotics and antidepressants were only weakly associated with nonparticipation in higher doses. Participation rates were 57.3%, 52.3%, 42.9%, and 35.4% in those prescribed 0, 1, 2, and 3-4 classes of psychotropic medications, respectively. The associations between the use of psychotropic medications and nonparticipation were similar for the 2 screening tests. CONCLUSIONS: These findings show significant disparities in colorectal cancer screening participation for individuals with mental illness, independent of the screening method. Moreover, screening participation varied depending on the type and severity of mental illness. Targeted interventions are warranted to ensure that people with mental illness are supported to access the benefits of colorectal cancer screening.