"Whilst you are here…" Acceptability of providing advice about screening and early detection of other cancers as part of the breast cancer screening programme

Suzanne E Scott, Betul Rauf, Jo Waller, Suzanne E Scott, Betul Rauf, Jo Waller

Abstract

Objectives: This research aimed to assess women's willingness to receive advice about cervical and bowel cancer screening participation and advice on cancer symptom awareness when attending breast cancer screening.

Methods: Women (n = 322) aged 60-64 years, living in the United Kingdom, who had previously taken part in breast cancer screening were recruited via a market research panel. They completed an online survey assessing willingness to receive advice, the potential impact of advice on breast screening participation, prospective acceptability and preferences for mode and timing of advice.

Results: Most women would be willing to receive information about cervical (86%) and bowel cancer screening (90%) and early symptoms of other cancers (92%) at a breast cancer screening appointment. Those who were not up to date with cervical cancer screening were less willing. Prospective acceptability was high for all three forms of advice and was associated with willingness to receive advice. Women would prefer to receive advice through a leaflet (41%) or discussion with the mammographer (30%) either before the appointment (27%), at the appointment (44%) or with their results (22%).

Conclusions: While there is high willingness and high acceptability towards using breast cancer screening as a teachable moment for advice about prevention and early detection of other cancers, some women find it unacceptable and this may reduce their likelihood of attending a breast screening appointment.

Patient or public contribution: This study focused on gaining women's insights into potential future initiatives to encourage screening and early diagnosis of cancer. Members of the public were also involved in piloting the questionnaire.

Keywords: acceptability; early diagnosis; intervention; teachable moment.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.

© 2021 The Authors. Health Expectations published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Preferred mode of advice
Figure 2
Figure 2
Preferred timing of advice

References

    1. Cancer Research UK. Breast cancer survival statistics. 2019. Accessed March 2021.
    1. Office for National Statistics. Cancer Survival in England – adults diagnosed. 2019. Accessed March 2021.
    1. Carneiro SR, Fagundes MA, do Rosário P, Neves L, Souza G, Pinheiro M. Five‐year survival and associated factors in women treated for cervical cancer at a reference hospital in the Brazilian Amazon. PLoS One. 2017;12(11):0187579.
    1. American Cancer Society. Survival rates for colorectal cancer. 2020. Accessed March 2021.
    1. Bergström R, Sparén P, Adami HO. Trends in cancer of the cervix uteri in Sweden following cytological screening. Br J Cancer. 1999;81(1):159‐166.
    1. National Cancer Intelligence Network. Routes to diagnosis. 2015. Accessed March 2021.
    1. Richards M. Report of the independent review of adult screening programmes in England. 2019. Accessed March 2021.
    1. Public Health England. Cervical screening: Standards report 2018 to 2019. HE annual reports. 2020. Accessed March 2021.
    1. Public Health England. Screening KPI data summary factsheets. 2020. Accessed March 2021.
    1. Rebolj M, Parmar D, Maroni R, Blyuss O, Duffy SW. Concurrent participation in screening for cervical, breast, and bowel cancer in England. J Med Screen. 2020;27(1):9‐17.
    1. Reti S. Improving outpatient department efficiency: a randomized controlled trial comparing hospital and general‐practice telephone reminders. NZ Med J. 2003;116(1175):U458.
    1. Duffy SW, Myles JP, Maroni R, Mohammad A. Rapid review of evaluation of interventions to improve participation in cancer screening services. J Med Screen. 2017;24(3):127‐145.
    1. McBride CM, Emmons KM, Lipkus IM. Understanding the potential of teachable moments: the case of smoking cessation. Health Educ Res. 2003;18(2):156‐170.
    1. Armstrong BJ, Kalmuss D, Franks M, Hecker G, Bell D. Creating teachable moments: a clinic‐based intervention to improve young men's sexual health. Am J Mens Health. 2010;4(2):135‐144.
    1. Nastasi BK, Varjas K, Schensul SL, Silva KT, Schensul JJ, Ratnayake P. The Participatory Intervention Model: a framework for conceptualizing and promoting intervention acceptability. School Psychol Q. 2000;15(2):207‐232.
    1. Sekhon M, Cartwright M, Francis JJ. Acceptability of health care interventions: a theoretical framework and proposed research agenda. Br J Health Psychol. 2018;23(3):519‐531.
    1. Stevens C, Vrinten C, Smith SG, Waller J, Beeken RJ. Acceptability of receiving lifestyle advice at cervical, breast and bowel cancer screening. Prev Med. 2019;120:19‐25.
    1. Stevens C, Smith SG, Quaife SL, Vrinten C, Waller J, Beeken RJ. Interest in lifestyle advice at lung cancer screening: determinants and preferences. Lung Cancer. 2019;128:1‐5.
    1. Kotzur M, McCowan C, Macdonald S, et al. Why colorectal screening fails to achieve the uptake rates of breast and cervical cancer screening: a comparative qualitative study. BMJ Qual Saf. 2019;29:482‐490.
    1. Ministry of Housing, Communities & Local Government. National Statistics English indices of deprivation 2019. 2019. Accessed March 2021.
    1. Dodd RH, Forster AS, Sellars S, Patnick J, Ramirez AJ, Forbes L. Promoting early presentation of breast cancer in older women: sustained effect of an intervention to promote breast cancer awareness in routine clinical practice. BMC Health Serv Res. 2017;5;17(1):386.
    1. Anderson AS, Chong HY, Craigie AM, et al. A novel approach to increasing community capacity for weight management a volunteer‐delivered programme (ActWELL) initiated within breast screening clinics: a randomised controlled trial. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2021;18(1):34.
    1. Oscarsson MG, Wijma BE, Benzein EG. ‘I do not need to… I do not want to… I do not give it priority…’–why women choose not to attend cervical cancer screening. Health Expect. 2008;11(1):26‐34.
    1. Consedine NS, Ladwig I, Reddig MK, Broadbent EA. The many faeces of colorectal cancer screening embarrassment: preliminary psychometric development and links to screening outcome. Br J Health Psychol. 2011;16(3):559‐579.
    1. Marlow LAV, Ryan M, Waller J. Increasing the perceived relevance of cervical screening in older women who do not plan to attend screening. Sex Transm Infect. 2020;96(1):20‐25.
    1. Freeman M, Waller J, Sasieni P, Lim AW, Marlow LA. Acceptability of non‐speculum clinician sampling for cervical screening in older women: a qualitative study. J Med Screen. 2018;25(4):205‐210.
    1. Hart JT. The inverse care law. Lancet. 1971;27;1(7696):405‐412.
    1. Bansal N, Bhopal RS, Steiner MFC, Brewster DH. Major ethnic group differences in breast cancer screening uptake in Scotland are not extinguished by adjustment for indices of geographical residence, area deprivation, long‐term illness and education. Br J Cancer. 2021;106(8):1361‐1366.
    1. Stevens C, Vrinten C, Smith SG, Waller J, Beeken RJ. Determinants of willingness to receive healthy lifestyle advice in the context of cancer screening. Br J Cancer. 2018;119:251‐257. 10.1038/s41416-018-0160-4
    1. Bertaut A, Coudert J, Bengrine L, Dancourt V, Binquet C, Douvier S. Does mammogram attendance influence participation in cervical and colorectal cancer screening? A prospective study among 1856 French women. PLoS One. 2018;13:e0198939.

Source: PubMed

스폰서 및 공동 작업자

건강 상태

약물 개입

3
구독하다