Acceptability of aspirin for cancer preventive therapy: a survey and qualitative study exploring the views of the UK general population.

OBJECTIVES: Aspirin could be offered for colorectal cancer prevention for the UK general population. To ensure the views of the general population are considered in future guidance, we explored public perceptions of aspirin for preventive therapy. DESIGN: We conducted an online survey to investigate aspirin use, and awareness of aspirin for cancer prevention among the UK general population. We conducted semistructured interviews with a subsample of survey respondents to explore participants' acceptability towards aspirin for cancer preventive therapy. We analysed the interview data using reflexive thematic analysis and mapped the themes onto the Theoretical Domains Framework, and the Necessity and Concerns Framework. SETTING: Online survey and remote interviews. PARTICIPANTS: We recruited 400 UK respondents aged 50-70 years through a market research company to the survey. We purposefully sampled, recruited and interviewed 20 survey respondents. RESULTS: In the survey, 19.0% (76/400) of respondents were aware that aspirin can be used to prevent cancer. Among those who had previously taken aspirin, 1.9% (4/216) had taken it for cancer prevention. The interviews generated three themes: (1) perceived necessity of aspirin; (2) concerns about side effects; and (3) preferred information sources. Participants with a personal or family history of cancer were more likely to perceive aspirin as necessary for cancer prevention. Concerns about taking aspirin at higher doses and its side effects, such as gastrointestinal bleeding, were common. Many described wanting guidance and advice on aspirin to be communicated from sources perceived as trustworthy, such as healthcare professionals. CONCLUSIONS: Among the general population, those with a personal or family history of cancer may be more receptive towards taking aspirin for preventive therapy. Future policies and campaigns recommending aspirin may be of particular interest to these groups. Multiple considerations about the benefits and risks of aspirin highlight the need to support informed decisions on the medication.

Awareness of symptoms, anticipated barriers and delays to help-seeking among women at higher risk of breast cancer: A UK multicentre study.

Women with a family history of breast cancer have an increased lifetime risk of the disease. Delay in symptom presentation can lead to poorer outcomes. Low awareness of breast cancer symptoms and help-seeking barriers have been associated with delay in presentation in the general population. Symptom awareness and help-seeking barriers among women at increased risk of breast cancer are unknown. We conducted analysis of survey data which included women with moderate and high risk of breast cancer from 20 secondary and tertiary care clinics in England (n = 408). Women completed a validated survey assessing breast cancer symptom awareness, barriers to help-seeking and anticipated delay in help-seeking. Women recognised an average of 9.1/11 breast cancer symptoms (SD = 2.1). Nipple rash was the least recognised symptom (51.0%). Women educated to at least degree level had higher awareness than those with lower education (ß = 0.14, 95% CI 0.13, 0.99, p = 0.011). Women at lower socioeconomic status (SES) had lower awareness than those at higher SES (ß = -0.13, 95% CI -1.09, -0.07, p = 0.027). Women reported several anticipated help-seeking barriers (mean = 4.0/11, SD = 2.8). Waiting to see if a symptom will pass was the most commonly reported barrier to help-seeking (71.5%). Most women (376/408; 92.2%) reported that they would seek medical help within 2 weeks of discovering a breast cancer symptom. Interventions to increase awareness of non-lump breast cancer symptoms and reduce help-seeking barriers are needed, with considerations of appropriate reading levels and modalities for women with lower education and SES.

GPs' willingness to prescribe aspirin for cancer preventive therapy in Lynch syndrome: a factorial randomised trial investigating factors influencing decisions.

BACKGROUND: The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) 2020 guidelines recommends aspirin for colorectal cancer prevention for people with Lynch syndrome. Strategies to change practice should be informed by understanding the factors influencing prescribing. AIM: To investigate the optimal type and level of information to communicate with GPs to increase willingness to prescribe aspirin. DESIGN AND SETTING: GPs in England and Wales (n = 672) were recruited to participate in an online survey with a 23 factorial design. GPs were randomised to one of eight vignettes describing a hypothetical patient with Lynch syndrome recommended to take aspirin by a clinical geneticist. METHOD: Across the vignettes, the presence or absence of three types of information was manipulated: 1) existence of NICE guidance; 2) results from the CAPP2 trial; 3) information comparing risks/benefits of aspirin. The main effects and all interactions on the primary (willingness to prescribe) and secondary outcomes (comfort discussing aspirin) were estimated. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant main effects or interactions of the three information components on willingness to prescribe aspirin or comfort discussing harms and benefits. In total, 80.4% (540/672) of GPs were willing to prescribe, with 19.7% (132/672) unwilling. GPs with prior awareness of aspirin for preventive therapy were more comfortable discussing the medication than those unaware (P = 0.031). CONCLUSION: It is unlikely that providing information on clinical guidance, trial results, and information comparing benefits and harms will increase aspirin prescribing for Lynch syndrome in primary care. Alternative multilevel strategies to support informed prescribing may be warranted.

Barriers and facilitators to using aspirin for preventive therapy: a qualitative study exploring the views and experiences of people with Lynch syndrome and healthcare providers.

BACKGROUND: The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NG151) recommends considering daily aspirin for people with Lynch syndrome to reduce colorectal cancer risk. However, deciding whether to initiate aspirin could be a complex decision for patients and their healthcare providers, as both the potential benefits and harms need to be considered. METHODS: We conducted semi-structured interviews to explore the barriers and facilitators to using aspirin for preventive therapy. We recruited 15 people with Lynch syndrome, and 23 healthcare providers across multiple professions in primary, and specialist care (e.g. clinical genetics) in the United Kingdom. Interview schedules were informed by the Theoretical Domains Framework. RESULTS: There were three themes: 1) Considering potential harms and benefits; 2) Healthcare pathway; 3) Patients' level of interest in aspirin. All healthcare providers, across primary and specialist care, viewed general practitioners (GPs) as being responsible for prescribing and overseeing the use of aspirin. However, GPs were unfamiliar with aspirin for preventive therapy, and concerned about prescribing at higher doses (300-600 mg). To support decision-making, GPs wanted clarification from specialist clinicians on the evidence and dose to prescribe. Not all participants with Lynch syndrome received information on aspirin from their healthcare provider, and several were unsure who to discuss aspirin with. GPs were more inclined to prescribe aspirin for patients with expressed preferences for the medication, however several patients were uncertain and wanted further guidance. CONCLUSIONS: Coordinated and multilevel strategies are needed, addressing the needs of both GPs and people with Lynch syndrome, to ensure consistent implementation of national guidance on aspirin for preventive therapy.

Improving medical research in the United Kingdom.

Poor quality medical research causes serious harms by misleading healthcare professionals and policymakers, decreasing trust in science and medicine, and wasting public funds. Here we outline underlying problems including insufficient transparency, dysfunctional incentives, and reporting biases. We make the following recommendations to address these problems: Journals and funders should ensure authors fulfil their obligation to share detailed study protocols, analytical code, and (as far as possible) research data. Funders and journals should incentivise uptake of registered reports and establish funding pathways which integrate evaluation of funding proposals with initial peer review of registered reports. A mandatory national register of interests for all those who are involved in medical research in the UK should be established, with an expectation that individuals maintain the accuracy of their declarations and regularly update them. Funders and institutions should stop using metrics such as citations and journal's impact factor to assess research and researchers and instead evaluate based on quality, reproducibility, and societal value. Employers and non-academic training programmes for health professionals (clinicians hired for patient care, not to do research) should not select based on number of research publications. Promotions based on publication should be restricted to those hired to do research.

Aspirin use for cancer prevention: A systematic review of public, patient and healthcare provider attitudes and adherence behaviours.

We undertook a systematic review to synthesise the data on attitudes and behaviour towards the use of aspirin for cancer prevention, and healthcare providers' attitudes towards implementing aspirin in practice. Searches were carried out across 12 databases (e.g. MEDLINE, EMBASE). We used the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool to evaluate study quality, and conducted a narrative synthesis of the data. The review was pre-registered (PROSPERO: CRD42018093453). Thirty-eight studies were identified. Uptake and adherence data were all from trials. Trials recruited healthy participants, those at higher risk of cancer, and those with cancer. Four studies reported moderate to high (40.9-77.7%) uptake to an aspirin trial among people who were eligible. Most trials (18/22) reported high day-to-day adherence (≥80%). Three trials observed no association between gender and adherence. One trial found no association between adherence and colorectal cancer risk. Three studies reported moderate to high (43.6-76.0%) hypothetical willingness to use aspirin. Two studies found that a high proportion of healthcare providers (72.0-76.0%) perceived aspirin to be a suitable cancer prevention option. No qualitative studies were identified. The likelihood that eligible users of aspirin would participate in a trial evaluating the use of aspirin for preventive therapy was moderate to high. Among participants in a trial, day-to-day adherence was high. Further research is needed to identify uptake and adherence rates in routine care, the factors affecting aspirin use, and the barriers to implementing aspirin into clinical care.

Strategies to self-manage side-effects of adjuvant endocrine therapy among breast cancer survivors: an umbrella review of empirical evidence and clinical guidelines.

PURPOSE: Side-effects of adjuvant endocrine therapy (AET) are common in breast cancer survivors, and can affect adherence to treatment. We synthesised the evidence for strategies to self-manage these side-effects. METHODS: We searched for systematic reviews and clinical guidelines on self-management strategies for AET side-effects (arthralgia, fatigue, hot flashes, gastrointestinal discomfort, nausea, vulvovaginal symptoms, and sleep disturbance). We searched oncology organisation's websites and eight databases (Inception-November 2020). Screening, data extraction and quality assessment were completed independently in duplicate. PROSPERO: 2019CRD4201914001. RESULTS: We identified 33 systematic reviews and 18 clinical guidelines. 21% of reviews were high quality, and the average quality score for guidelines was 44%. Evidence for most strategies was absent or weak. There was consensus from a low-quality review and multiple guidelines to recommend moisturisers, gels and lubricants for vulvovaginal symptoms. Evidence was weak for physical activity for self-managing most symptoms, although two high-quality reviews indicated yoga and aerobic exercise could reduce fatigue. Primary research was often biased by weak and underpowered study designs. Eleven reviews did not report information on adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Most self-management strategies for breast cancer survivors experiencing side-effects from AET lack evidence. Primary research is needed using high-quality well-powered designs focusing on implementable strategies. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: Patients and clinicians should be aware that although the risk of harm is low for these self-management strategies, the likelihood of benefit is often unclear. Women should consider moisturisers, gels or lubricants for self-managing vulvovaginal symptoms, and yoga or aerobic exercise for alleviating fatigue.

Breast cancer worry in higher-risk women offered preventive therapy: a UK multicentre prospective study.

PURPOSE: Women's worry about developing breast cancer may influence their decision to use preventive therapy. However, the direction of this relationship has been questioned. We prospectively investigated the relationship between breast cancer worry and uptake of preventive therapy. The socio-demographic and clinical factors associated with high breast cancer worry were also investigated. METHODS: Women at increased risk of developing breast cancer were recruited from clinics across England (n = 408). Participants completed a survey on their breast cancer worry, socio-demographic and clinical factors. Uptake of tamoxifen was recorded at 3 months (n = 258 women, 63.2%). Both primary and sensitivity analyses were conducted using different classifications of low, medium and high worry. RESULTS: 39.5% of respondents reported medium breast cancer worry at baseline and 21.2% reported high worry. Ethnic minority women were more likely to report high worry than white women (OR = 3.02, 95%CI 1.02, 8.91, p = 0.046). Women educated below degree level were more likely to report high worry than those with higher education (OR = 2.29, 95%CI 1.28, 4.09, p = 0.005). No statistically significant association was observed between worry and uptake. In the primary analysis, fewer respondents with medium worry at baseline initiated tamoxifen (low worry = 15.5%, medium = 13.5%, high = 15.7%). In the sensitivity analysis, participants with medium worry reported the highest uptake of tamoxifen (19.7%). CONCLUSIONS: No association was observed between worry and uptake, although the relationship was affected by the categorisation of worry. Standardised reporting of the classification of worry is warranted to allow transparent comparisons across cohorts.

Reducing bias and improving transparency in medical research: a critical overview of the problems, progress and suggested next steps.

In recent years there has been increasing awareness of problems that have undermined trust in medical research. This review outlines some of the most important issues including research culture, reporting biases, and statistical and methodological issues. It examines measures that have been instituted to address these problems and explores the success and limitations of these measures. The paper concludes by proposing three achievable actions which could be implemented to deliver significantly improved transparency and mitigation of bias. These measures are as follows: (1) mandatory registration of interests by those involved in research; (2) that journals support the 'registered reports' publication format; and (3) that comprehensive study documentation for all publicly funded research be made available on a World Health Organization research repository. We suggest that achieving such measures requires a broad-based campaign which mobilises public opinion. We invite readers to feedback on the proposed actions and to join us in calling for their implementation.