Implementation of long-term non-participant reminders for flexible sigmoidoscopy screening.

The clinical effectiveness of screening is highly dependent on uptake. Previous randomised controlled trials suggest that non-participant reminders, which highlight the opportunity to re-book an appointment, can improve participation. The present analysis examines the impact of implementing these reminders within the English Flexible Sigmoidoscopy (FS) Screening Programme, which offers once-only FS screening to adults aged 55-59 years. We assessed the screening status of 26,339 individuals invited for once-only FS screening in England. A total of 10,952 (41.6%) had attended screening, and were subsequently ineligible. The remaining 15,387 had not attended screening, and were selected to receive a reminder, 1-2 years after their invitation. Descriptive statistics were used to assess the increase in uptake and the adenoma detection rate (ADR) of those who self-referred, six months after the delivery of the final reminder. Pearson's Chi-Square was used to compare the ADR between those who attended when invited and those who self-referred. Of the 15,387 adults eligible to receive a reminder, 13,626 (88.6%) were sent a reminder as intended (1,761 were not sent a reminder, due to endoscopy capacity). Of these, 8.0% (n = 1,086) booked and attended an appointment, which equated to a 4.1% increase in uptake from 41.6% at baseline, to 45.7% at follow-up. The ADR was significantly higher for those who self-referred, compared with those who attended when invited (13.3% and 9.5%, respectively; X 2 = 16.138, p = 0.000059). The implementation of non-participant reminders led to a moderate increase in uptake. Implementing non-participant reminders could help mitigate the negative effects of COVID-19 on uptake.

Offering male endoscopists as decoy option to nudge disinclined women to have colorectal cancer screening.

Previous studies have shown that a large proportion of women invited for bowel cancer screening prefer endoscopists of the same gender. We tested whether women who are initially disinclined to undergo flexible sigmoidoscopy screening would be more willing to have the test with a female practitioner if they were also offered a decoy appointment with a male practitioner. We conducted two online experiments with women aged 35-54, living in England, who did not intend to undergo flexible sigmoidoscopy screening. In both experiments, women were randomised to two conditions: (1) control (appointment with a female endoscopist) and (2) decoy (two appointments to choose from, one with a male endoscopist and one with a female endoscopist). Experiment 1 (N = 302) verified the conditions for the decoy using a conventional intention scale, while experiment 2 (N = 300) tested how the presence of the decoy influences the likelihood of women choosing the appointment with the female practitioner in a discrete choice task. While experiment 1 showed that the presence of the decoy increased intentions to attend the appointment with the female practitioner (p = 0.02), experiment 2 confirmed that women were more likely to choose the appointment with the female endoscopist if they were also offered the decoy (p < 0.001). In both experiments, the presence of the decoy decreased perceived difficulty of the screening decision and cognitive effort required to make the decision. Offering disinclined women a male practitioner increased intention to have the test with an endoscopist of the same gender. This suggests that male screening practitioners can be used as decoy options to increase the likelihood that women choose female practitioners and facilitate the screening decision.

Inequalities in cancer screening participation: examining differences in perceived benefits and barriers.

OBJECTIVE: Inequalities exist in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening uptake, with people from lower socioeconomic status backgrounds less likely to participate. Identifying the facilitators and barriers to screening uptake is important to addressing screening disparities. We pooled data from 2 trials to examine educational differences in psychological constructs related to guaiac fecal occult blood testing. METHODS: Patients (n = 8576) registered at 7 general practices in England, within 15 years of the eligible age range for screening (45-59.5 years), were invited to complete a questionnaire. Measures included perceived barriers (emotional and practical) and benefits of screening, screening intentions, and participant characteristics including education. RESULTS: After data pooling, 2181 responses were included. People with high school education or no formal education reported higher emotional and practical barriers and were less likely to definitely intend to participate in screening, compared with university graduates in analyses controlling for study arm and participant characteristics. The belief that one would worry more about CRC after screening and concerns about tempting fate were strongly negatively associated with education. In a model including education and participant characteristics, respondents with low emotional barriers, low practical barriers, and high perceived benefits were more likely to definitely intend to take part in screening. CONCLUSIONS: In this analysis of adults approaching the CRC screening age, there was a consistent effect of education on perceived barriers toward guaiac fecal occult blood testing, which could affect screening decision making. Interventions should target specific barriers to reduce educational disparities in screening uptake and avoid exacerbating inequalities in CRC mortality.

Predictors of repeat participation in the NHS bowel cancer screening programme.

OBJECTIVES: Most types of population-based cancer screening require repeat participation to be effective. This study investigated predictors of repeat participation in the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP). METHODS: The BCSP in England offers biennial colorectal cancer screening using a guaiac fecal occult blood test (gFOBt) from age 60-74 years. This analysis included 62,081 individuals aged 60-64 years at the time of the first invitation (R1). The main outcome was repeat participation at their second (R2) or third (R3) invitation. Behavioural measures derived from screening records included late return of the gFOBt kit, compliance with follow-up investigations and previous screening participation. Other potential predictors of repeat participation included results of individual test kit analysis (normal, weak positive, strong positive, spoilt) and the definitive result of the gFOBt screening episode (normal or abnormal). Age, sex and socioeconomic deprivation were also recorded. RESULTS: Overall repeat uptake was 86.6% in R2 and 88.6% in R3. Late return of the test kit was consistently associated with lower uptake (R2: 82.3% vs 88.6%, P<0.001; R3: 84.5% vs 90.5%, P<0.001). A definitive abnormal gFOBt result in the previous screening episode was a negative predictor of repeat uptake (R2: 61.4% vs 86.8%, P<0.001; R3: 65.7% vs 88.8%, P<0.001). Weak positive (R2: 76.9% vs 86.8%, P<0.001; R3: 81.7% vs 88.8%, P<0.05) and spoilt test kits (R2: 79.0% vs 86.6%, NS; R3: 84.2% vs 92.2%, P<0.05) were associated with lower repeat uptake, but were not consistently independent predictors in all invitation rounds or subgroups. Among those with a definitive abnormal gFOBt result, noncompliance with follow-up in a previous screening episode was also associated with lower repeat uptake (R2: 24.3% vs 67.1%, P<0.001; R3: 43.2% vs 69.9%, P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Behavioural markers and test results from previous screening episodes have been implicated in subsequent gFOBt uptake.

Reasons for non-uptake and subsequent participation in the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Screening for bowel cancer using the guaiac faecal occult blood test offered by the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) is taken up by 54% of the eligible population. Uptake ranges from 35% in the most to 61% in the least deprived areas. This study explores reasons for non-uptake of bowel cancer screening, and examines reasons for subsequent uptake among participants who had initially not taken part in screening. METHODS: Focus groups with a socio-economically diverse sample of participants were used to explore participants' experience of invitation to and non-uptake of bowel cancer screening. RESULTS: Participants described sampling faeces and storing faecal samples as broaching a cultural taboo, and causing shame. Completion of the test kit within the home rather than a formal health setting was considered unsettling and reduced perceived importance. Not knowing screening results was reported to be preferable to the implications of a positive screening result. Feeling well was associated with low perceived relevance of screening. Talking about bowel cancer screening with family and peers emerged as the key to subsequent participation in screening. CONCLUSIONS: Initiatives to normalise discussion about bowel cancer screening, to link the BCSP to general practice, and to simplify the test itself may lead to increased uptake across all social groups.

Evaluating patients' preferences for type of bowel preparation prior to screening CT colonography: convenience and comfort versus sensitivity and specificity.

AIMS: To explore the relative value patients place on comfort and convenience versus test sensitivity and specificity in the context of computed tomographic colonography (CTC) screening. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twenty semi-structured interviews were carried out with patients attending hospital for radiological tests unrelated to CTC. Preferences for CTC with different types of bowel preparation for CTC screening were examined and interviews were analysed thematically. The discussion guide included separate sections on CTC, bowel preparation methods (non-, reduced- and full-laxative), and sensitivity and specificity. Patients were given information on each topic in turn and asked about their views and preferences during each section. RESULTS: Following information about the test, patients' attitudes towards CTC were positive. Following information on bowel preparation, full-laxative purgation was anticipated to cause more adverse physical and lifestyle effects than using reduced- or non-laxative preparation. However, stated preferences were approximately equally divided, largely due to patients anticipating that non-laxative preparations would reduce test accuracy (because the bowel was not thoroughly cleansed). Following information on sensitivity and specificity (which supported patients' expectations), the predominant stated preference was for full-laxative preparation. CONCLUSIONS: Patients are likely to value test sensitivity and specificity over a more comfortable and convenient preparation. Future research should test this hypothesis on a larger sample.

An interview study analysing patients' experiences and perceptions of non-laxative or full-laxative preparation with faecal tagging prior to CT colonography.

AIM: To compare patients' experiences of either non- or full-laxative bowel preparation with additional faecal tagging and subsequent computed tomographic (CT) colonography using in-depth interviews to elicit detailed responses. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Patients who received CT colonography after non- (n = 9) or full-laxative (n = 9) preparation participated in a semi-structured telephone interview at least 2 days after the investigation. Full-laxative preparation consisted of magnesium citrate and sodium picosulphate administered at home (or polyethylene glycol, if contraindicated), followed by hospital-based faecal tagging with iohexol. Non-laxative preparation was home-based barium sulphate for faecal tagging. Interviews were transcribed and thematically analysed to identify recurrent themes on patients' perceptions and experiences. RESULTS: Experiences of full-laxative preparation were usually negative and characterized by pre-test diarrhoea that caused significant interference with daily routine. Post-test flatus was common. Non-laxative preparation was well-tolerated; patients reported no or minimal changes to bowel habit and rapid return to daily routine. Patients reported worry and uncertainty about the purpose of faecal tagging. For iohexol, this also added burden from waiting before testing. CONCLUSION: Patients' responses supported previous findings that non-laxative preparation is more acceptable than full-laxative preparation but both can be improved. Faecal tagging used in combination with laxative preparation is poorly understood, adding burden and worry. Home-based non-laxative preparation is also poorly understood and patients require better information on the purpose and mechanism in order to give fully informed consent. This may also optimize adherence to instructions. Allowing home-based self-administration of all types of preparation would prevent waiting before testing.

Communication about colorectal cancer screening in Britain: public preferences for an expert recommendation.

BACKGROUND: Informed decision-making approaches to cancer screening emphasise the importance of decisions being determined by individuals' own values and preferences. However, advice from a trusted source may also contribute to autonomous decision-making. This study examined preferences regarding a recommendation from the NHS and information provision in the context of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. METHODS: In face-to-face interviews, a population-based sample of adults across Britain (n=1964; age 50-80 years) indicated their preference between: (1) a strong recommendation to participate in CRC screening, (2) a recommendation alongside advice to make an individual decision, and (3) no recommendation but advice to make an individual decision. Other measures included trust in the NHS and preferences for information on benefits and risks. RESULTS: Most respondents (84%) preferred a recommendation (47% strong recommendation, 37% recommendation plus individual decision-making advice), but the majority also wanted full information on risks (77%) and benefits (78%). Men were more in favour of a recommendation than women (86% vs 81%). Trust in the NHS was high overall, but the minority who expressed low trust were less likely to want a recommendation. CONCLUSION: Most British adults want full information on risks and benefits of screening but they also want a recommendation from an authoritative source. An 'expert' view may be an important part of autonomous health decision-making.

Socioeconomic variation in uptake of colonoscopy following a positive faecal occult blood test result: a retrospective analysis of the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme.

BACKGROUND: Bowel cancer is a serious health burden and its early diagnosis improves survival. The Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) in England screens with the Faecal Occult Blood test (FOBt), followed by colonoscopy for individuals with a positive test result. Socioeconomic inequalities have been demonstrated for FOBt uptake, but it is not known whether they persist at the next stage of the screening pathway. The aim of this study was to assess the association between colonoscopy uptake and area socioeconomic deprivation, controlling for individual age and sex, and area ethnic diversity, population density, poor self-assessed health, and region. METHODS: Logistic regression analysis of colonoscopy uptake using BCSP data for England between 2006 and 2009 for 24 180 adults aged between 60 and 69 years. RESULTS: Overall colonoscopy uptake was 88.4%. Statistically significant variation in uptake is found between quintiles of area deprivation (ranging from 86.4 to 89.5%), as well as age and sex groups (87.9-89.1%), quintiles of poor self-assessed health (87.5-89.5%), non-white ethnicity (84.6-90.6%) and population density (87.9-89.3%), and geographical regions (86.4-90%). CONCLUSION: Colonoscopy uptake is high. The variation in uptake by socioeconomic deprivation is small, as is variation by subgroups of age and sex, poor self-assessed health, ethnic diversity, population density, and region.

The impact of media coverage of the Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Trial on English colorectal screening uptake.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of media coverage of the UK Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Trial on colorectal screening uptake in England. SETTING: In April 2010, publication of the UK Flexible Sigmoidoscopy (FS) Trial results generated considerable media interest in both FS and colorectal cancer (CRC) generally. METHODS: We used routinely collected data from the south of England (excluding London) to analyse return of faecal occult blood test (FOBt) kits within 28 days of the invitation (early uptake) among 60-69 year olds, before (T1, n = 31,229), around the time of (T2, n = 39,571), and one month after (T3, n = 33,430) the FS publicity. RESULTS: FOBt uptake over the whole period was 58.2%, with 38.4% of the kits returned within 28 days (early uptake). Across the three time periods, early uptake was 35.8% at T1, 39.4% at T2, and 39.7% at T3. Multivariate regression controlling for age, gender and socioeconomic status confirmed that uptake was higher if people received the FOBt kit around the time of the media coverage (T2: odds ratio [OR] = 1.17, 95% CI = 1.13-1.20), or one month after (T3: OR = 1.18, 95% CI = 1.15-1.22) than before (T1). Sub-group analyses demonstrated that the impact was stronger among previous non-responders than among first-time invitees or previous responders (P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Media coverage of the FS Trial appeared to have a small but positive impact on FOBt screening uptake, especially among people who had previously abstained from screening.

Psychosocial determinants of socioeconomic inequalities in cancer screening participation: a conceptual framework.

Cancer screening participation shows a strong, graded association with socioeconomic status (SES) not only in countries such as the United States, where insurance status can be a barrier for lower income groups, but also in the United Kingdom, where the National Health Service provides all health care to residents, including screening, for free. Traditionally, the literature on socioeconomic inequalities has focused on upstream factors, but more proximal (downstream) influences on screening participation also need to be examined, particularly those that address the graded nature of the association rather than focusing specifically on underserved groups. This review offers a framework that links some of the components and corollaries of SES (life stress, educational opportunities, illness experience) to known psychosocial determinants of screening uptake (beliefs about the value of early detection, fatalistic beliefs about cancer, self-efficacy). The aim is to explain why individuals from lower SES backgrounds perceive cancer screening tests as more threatening, more difficult to accomplish, and less beneficial. A better understanding of the mechanisms through which lower SES causes negative attitudes toward screening could facilitate the development of intervention strategies to reduce screening inequalities.

Inequalities in colorectal cancer screening participation in the first round of the national screening programme in England.

BACKGROUND: Introduction of organised, population-based, colorectal cancer screening in the United Kingdom using the faecal occult blood test (FOBT) has the potential to reduce overall colorectal cancer mortality. However, socio-economic variation in screening participation could exacerbate existing inequalities in mortality. METHODS: This study examined FOBT uptake rates in London, England in relation to area-level socio-economic deprivation over the first 30 months of the programme during which 401 197 individuals were sent an FOBT kit. Uptake was defined as return of a completed test kit within 3 months. Area-level deprivation in each postcode sector was indexed with the Townsend Material Deprivation Index. Analyses controlled for area-level household mobility, ethnic diversity and poor health, each of which was associated with lower return rates. RESULTS: The results showed a strong socio-economic gradient in FOBT uptake, which declined from 49% in the least deprived quintile of postcodes to 38% in the middle quintile and 32% in the most deprived quintile. Variation in socio-economic deprivation between sectors accounted for 62% of the variance in return rates, with little attenuation as a result of controlling for ethnic diversity, household mobility or health status. CONCLUSION: These results highlight the need to understand the causes of socio-economic gradients in screening participation and address barriers that could otherwise increase disparities in colorectal cancer survival.

Patient experiences of colonoscopy, barium enema and CT colonography: a qualitative study.

Previous studies of patient experience with bowel screening tests, in particular CT colonography (CTC), have superimposed global rating scales and not explored individual experience in detail. To redress this, we performed qualitative interviews in order to characterize patient expectations and experiences in depth. Following ethical permission, 16 patients undergoing CTC, 18 undergoing colonoscopy and 15 undergoing barium enema agreed to a semi-structured interview by a health psychologist. Interviews were recorded, responses transcribed and themes extracted with the aim of assimilating individual experiences to facilitate subsequent development and interpretation of quantitative surveys of overall satisfaction with each diagnostic test. Transcript analysis identified three principal themes: physical sensations, social interactions and information provision. Physical sensations differed for each test but were surprisingly well tolerated overall. Social interactions with staff were perceived as very important in colouring the whole experience, particularly in controlling the feelings of embarrassment, which was critical for all procedures. Information provision was also an important determinant of experience. Verbal feedback was most common during colonoscopy and invariably reassuring. However, patients undergoing CTC received little visual or verbal feedback and were often confused regarding the test outcome. Barium enema had no specific advantage over other tests. Qualitative interviews provided important perspectives on patient experience. Our data demonstrated that models describing the quality of medical encounters are applicable to single diagnostic episodes. Staff interactions and information provision were particularly important. We found advantages specific to both CTC and colonoscopy but none for barium enema. CTC could benefit greatly from improved information provision following examination.