The role of general practitioners in the work guidance of cancer patients: views of general practitioners and occupational physicians.

PURPOSE: To explore views of general practitioners (GPs) and occupational physicians (OPs) on the role of GPs in work guidance of cancer patients. METHODS: Between 2016 and 2019, two focus groups with GPs (N = 17) and two focus groups with OPs (N = 10) were conducted. Focus group discussions were audiotaped and transcribed verbatim. Transcripts were analysed by data-driven analysis. RESULTS: GPs generally indicated that they inquire about patients' occupations but do not structurally document these. GPs described offering support and advice to patients regarding their work, while other GPs stated they do not interfere with their patients' work or return to work (RTW) process. In general, GPs stated that they do not aspire a professional role in the work guidance of patients, due to lack of expertise and not having sufficient knowledge in work regulations and legislation. In contrast, OPs anticipated a proactive role from GPs concerning work guidance in cancer patients, and they expected GPs to refer cancer patients to the OP, when required. Moreover, they emphasised the importance of communication between GPs and OPs about patients' work-related problems to achieve common goals. CONCLUSIONS: GPs can contribute to cancer patients' RTW process by supporting patients, giving advice and providing referral to other health professionals. Better cooperation between GPs and OPs may improve work guidance in cancer patients. IMPLICATIONS FOR CANCER SURVIVORS: When cancer patients with work-related issues get appropriate advice and support from GPs and referred in time to OPs, the RTW process and staying at work of cancer patients may be positively affected.

Reasons for No Colonoscopy After an Unfavorable Screening Result in Dutch Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Nationwide Questionnaire.

PURPOSE: We aimed to assess participant-reported factors associated with non-follow-up with colonoscopy in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. METHODS: In May 2019, we distributed a nationwide cross-sectional questionnaire (n = 4,009) to participants in the Dutch CRC screening program who received a positive fecal immunochemical test (FIT). Among respondents who reported no colonoscopy, we assessed the presence of a contraindication, and those without were compared with those who reported colonoscopy by logistic regression analysis. RESULTS: Of 2,225 respondents (56% response rate), 730 (33%) reported no colonoscopy. A contraindication was reported by 55% (n = 404). Decisional difficulties (odds ratio [OR] = 0.29; 95% CI, 0.18-0.47), lacking the opportunity to discuss the FIT outcome (OR = 0.45; 95% CI, 0.28-0.72), and a low estimated risk of CRC (OR = 0.45; 95% CI, 0.26-0.76) were negatively associated with follow-up. Knowledge items negatively associated with follow-up included having an alternative explanation for the positive FIT (OR = 0.3; 95% CI, 0.21-0.43), having trust in the ability to self-detect CRC (OR = 0.42; 95% CI, 0.27-0.65), and thinking that polyp removal is ineffective (OR = 0.59; 95% CI, 0.43-0.82). The belief that the family physician would support colonoscopy showed the strongest positive association with follow-up (OR = 2.84; 95% CI, 2.01-4.02) CONCLUSIONS: Because decisional difficulties and certain convictions regarding CRC and screening are associated with non-follow-up, personalized screening counseling might be an intervention worth exploring as a means of improving follow-up in the Dutch CRC screening program. Involving family physicians might also prove beneficial.

What can We Learn From High-Performing Screening Programs to Increase Bowel Cancer Screening Participation in Australia?

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most diagnosed cancer in men and women and second most common cause of cancer death in Australia; Australia's CRC incidence and mortality are among the world's highest. The Australian National Bowel Cancer Screening Program began in 2006; however, only 33% of those approached for the first time by the Program between 2018 and 2019 returned the kit. Of the 5.7 million kits sent during this period, only 44% were returned. Our aim was to identify practices and features of national bowel cancer screening programs in countries with similar programs but higher screening participation, to identify potential interventions for optimising Australian CRC screening participation. METHODS: We searched published and grey literature for CRC screening programs reporting at least 50% screening participation using postal invitation and free return of iFOBT home kits. Interviews were conducted with cancer registry staff and academic researchers, focused on participant and practitioner engagement in screening. RESULTS: National programs in Netherlands, Scotland, Denmark, and Finland reported over 50% screening participation rates for all invitation rounds. Shared characteristics include small populations within small geographic areas relative to Australia; relatively high literacy; a one-sample iFOBT kit; national registration systems for population cancer screening research; and screening program research including randomised trials of program features. CONCLUSIONS: Apart from the one-sample kit, we identified no single solution to persistent Australian low uptake of screening. Research including randomised trials within the program promises to increase participation. IMPACT: This screening program comparison suggests that within-program intervention trials will lead to increased Australian screening participation.

Decision-making in screening positive participants who follow up with colonoscopy in the Dutch colorectal cancer screening programme: A mixed-method study.

OBJECTIVE: To explore worry and decision-making processes used by faecal immunochemical test (FIT)-positive participants in the Dutch national screening programme for colorectal cancer. METHODS: A mixed-methods study consisting of 22 semi-structured interviews in FIT-positive participants who underwent the recommended colonoscopy within 4-6 months after the FIT result, followed by a widespread questionnaire in a larger target population (N = 1495). RESULTS: In the interviews, we recognised two different decision-making processes. The first is an affective heuristic decision process where the decision to participate is made instantly and is paired with high-risk perception, worry and (severe) emotional turmoil. The second is a more time-consuming analytical decision process in which participants describe discussing options with others. In the questionnaire, high levels of cancer worry (CWS > 9) were reported by 34% of respondents. Decisional difficulties were reported by 15% of respondents, and 34% of respondents reported discussing the positive FIT result with their GP. Individuals with high levels of cancer worry contacted their GP less often than those with low levels. CONCLUSIONS: The Dutch two-step screening programme may result in high levels of cancer worry in a non-cancer population. More research is needed to monitor worry and its role in decision-making in cancer screening, as well as ways to facilitate decision-making for participants.

Motives for non-adherence to colonoscopy advice after a positive colorectal cancer screening test result: a qualitative study.

SETTING: Participants with a positive faecal immunochemical test (FIT) in screening programs for colorectal cancer (CRC) have a high risk for colorectal cancer and advanced adenomas. They are therefore recommended follow-up by colonoscopy. However, more than ten percent of positively screened persons do not adhere to this advice. OBJECTIVE: To investigate FIT-positive individuals' motives for non-adherence to colonoscopy advice in the Dutch CRC screening program. SUBJECTS: Non-adherent FIT-positive participants of the Dutch CRC screening program. DESIGN: We conducted semi structured in-depth interviews with 17 persons who did not undergo colonoscopy within 6 months after a positive FIT. Interviews were undertaken face-to-face and data were analysed thematically with open coding and constant comparison. RESULTS: All participants had multifactorial motives for non-adherence. A preference for more personalised care was described with the following themes: aversion against the design of the screening program, expectations of personalised care, emotions associated with experiences of impersonal care and a desire for counselling where options other than colonoscopy could be discussed. Furthermore, intrinsic motives were: having a perception of low risk for CRC (described by all participants), aversion and fear of colonoscopy, distrust, reluctant attitude to the treatment of cancer and cancer fatalism. Extrinsic motives were: having other health issues or priorities, practical barriers, advice from a general practitioner (GP) and financial reasons. CONCLUSION: Personalised screening counselling might have helped to improve the interviewees' experiences with the screening program as well as their knowledge on CRC and CRC screening. Future studies should explore whether personalised screening counselling also has potential to increase adherence rates. Key points Participants with a positive FIT in two-step colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programs are at high risk for colorectal cancer and advanced adenomas. Non-adherence after an unfavourable screening result happens in all CRC programs worldwide with the consequence that many of the participants do not undergo colonoscopy for the definitive assessment of the presence of colorectal cancer. Little qualitative research has been done to study the reasons why individuals participate in the first step of the screening but not in the second step. We found a preference for more personalised care, which was not reported in previous literature on this subject. Furthermore, intrinsic factors, such as a low risk perception and distrust, and extrinsic factors, such as the presence of other health issues and GP advice, may also play a role in non-adherence. A person-centred approach in the form of a screening counselling session may be beneficial for this group of CRC screening participants.

GPs' perspectives on colorectal cancer screening and their potential influence on FIT-positive patients: an exploratory qualitative study from a Dutch context.

BACKGROUND: In the Dutch colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programme, individuals receive a faecal immunochemical test (FIT) to do at home. After a positive FIT result, a follow-up colonoscopy is recommended to identify CRC or advanced adenomas (AA). GPs may influence their patients' decisions on adherence to follow-up by colonoscopy. AIM: To explore GPs' perspectives on the CRC screening programme and their potential influence on FIT-positive patients to follow up with the recommended colonoscopy. DESIGN & SETTING: Semi-structured interviews among GPs in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. METHOD: GPs were approached using purposive sampling. Analysis was performed on 11 interviews using open coding and constant comparison. RESULTS: All interviewed GPs would recommend FIT-positive patients without obvious contraindications to adhere to a follow-up colonoscopy. If patients were likely to be distressed by a positive FIT result, most GPs described using reassurance strategies emphasising a low cancer probability. Most GPs stressed the probability of false-positive FIT results. Some described taking a positive screening result in CRC screening less seriously than one in breast cancer screening. Most GPs underestimated CRC and AA probabilities after a positive FIT result. When told the actual probabilities, some stated that this knowledge might change the way they would inform patients. CONCLUSION: These results imply that some of the interviewed GPs have too low a perception of the risk associated with a positive FIT result, which might influence their patients' decision-making. Simply informing GPs about the actual rates of CRC and AA found in the screening programme might improve this risk perception.