Barriers to uptake among high-risk individuals declining participation in lung cancer screening: a mixed methods analysis of the UK Lung Cancer Screening (UKLS) trial

Noor Ali, Kate J Lifford, Ben Carter, Fiona McRonald, Ghasem Yadegarfar, David R Baldwin, David Weller, David M Hansell, Stephen W Duffy, John K Field, Kate Brain, Noor Ali, Kate J Lifford, Ben Carter, Fiona McRonald, Ghasem Yadegarfar, David R Baldwin, David Weller, David M Hansell, Stephen W Duffy, John K Field, Kate Brain

Abstract

Objective: The current study aimed to identify the barriers to participation among high-risk individuals in the UK Lung Cancer Screening (UKLS) pilot trial.

Setting: The UKLS pilot trial is a randomised controlled trial of low-dose CT (LDCT) screening that has recruited high-risk people using a population approach in the Cambridge and Liverpool areas.

Participants: High-risk individuals aged 50-75 years were invited to participate in UKLS. Individuals were excluded if a LDCT scan was performed within the last year, if they were unable to provide consent, or if LDCT screening was unable to be carried out due to coexisting comorbidities.

Outcome measures: Statistical associations between individual characteristics and UKLS uptake were examined using multivariable regression modelling. In those who completed a non-participation questionnaire (NPQ), thematic analysis of free-text data was undertaken to identify reasons for not taking part, with subsequent exploratory linkage of key themes to risk factors for non-uptake.

Results: Comparative data were available from 4061 high-risk individuals who consented to participate in the trial and 2756 who declined participation. Of those declining participation, 748 (27.1%) completed a NPQ. Factors associated with non-uptake included: female gender (OR=0.64, p<0.001), older age (OR=0.73, p<0.001), current smoking (OR=0.70, p<0.001), lower socioeconomic group (OR=0.56, p<0.001) and higher affective risk perception (OR=0.52, p<0.001). Among non-participants who provided a reason, two main themes emerged reflecting practical and emotional barriers. Smokers were more likely to report emotional barriers to participation.

Conclusions: A profile of risk factors for non-participation in lung screening has emerged, with underlying reasons largely relating to practical and emotional barriers. Strategies for engaging high-risk, hard-to-reach groups are critical for the equitable uptake of a potential future lung cancer screening programme.

Trial registration number: The UKLS trial was registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Register under the reference 78513845.

Keywords: Barriers; High-risk; Lung cancer; Screening; UKLS.

Published by the BMJ Publishing Group Limited. For permission to use (where not already granted under a licence) please go to http://group.bmj.com/group/rights-licensing/permissions.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Consort diagram showing response rate and recruitment of high-risk individuals in the UKLS trial (NPQ, non-participation questionnaire; UKLS, UK Lung Cancer Screening).

References

    1. Cancer Research UK . Lung cancer statistics 2014 [25 March 2014].
    1. Baldwin DR, Duffy SW, Wald NJ et al. . UK Lung Screen (UKLS) nodule management protocol: modelling of a single screen randomised controlled trial of low-dose CT screening for lung cancer. Thorax 2011;66:308–13. 10.1136/thx.2010.152066
    1. Reeves AP, Kostis WJ. Computer-aided diagnosis for lung cancer. Radiol Clin North Am 2000;38:497–509. 10.1016/S0033-8389(05)70180-9
    1. Takemura T, Sakai E, Kusumoto M et al. . Utility of helical CT for the secondary mass screening of lung cancer. Nihon Igaku Hoshasen Gakkai Zasshi 1992;52:1322–4.
    1. Matsumoto M, Horikoshi H, Moteki T et al. . A pilot study with lung-cancer screening CT (LSCT) at the secondary screening for lung cancer detection. Nihon Igaku Hoshasen Gakkai Zasshi 1995;55:172–9.
    1. Aberle DR, Berg CD, Black WC et al. . The National Lung Screening Trial: overview and study design. Radiology 2011;258:243–53. 10.1148/radiol.10091808
    1. McRonald FE, Yadegarfar G, Baldwin DR et al. . The UK Lung Screen (UKLS): demographic profile of first 88,897 approaches provides recommendations for population screening. Cancer Prev Res (Phila) 2014;7:362–71. 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-13-0206
    1. Szczepura A, Price C, Gumber A. Breast and bowel cancer screening uptake patterns over 15 years for UK south Asian ethnic minority populations, corrected for differences in socio-demographic characteristics. BMC Public Health 2008;8:346 10.1186/1471-2458-8-346
    1. Webb R, Richardson J, Esmail A et al. . Uptake for cervical screening by ethnicity and place-of-birth: a population-based cross-sectional study. J Public Health (Oxf) 2004;26:293–6. 10.1093/pubmed/fdh128
    1. van den Bergh KA, Essink-Bot ML, van Klaveren RJ et al. . Informed participation in a randomised controlled trial of computed tomography screening for lung cancer. Eur Respir J 2009;34:711–20. 10.1183/09031936.00098908
    1. Silvestri GA, Nietert PJ, Zoller J et al. . Attitudes towards screening for lung cancer among smokers and their non-smoking counterparts. Thorax 2007;62:126–30. 10.1136/thx.2005.056036
    1. Patel D, Akporobaro A, Chinyanganya N et al. . Attitudes to participation in a lung cancer screening trial: a qualitative study. Thorax 2012;67:418–25. 10.1136/thoraxjnl-2011-200055
    1. Bunge EM, van den Bergh KA, Essink-Bot ML et al. . High affective risk perception is associated with more lung cancer-specific distress in CT screening for lung cancer. Lung Cancer 2008;62:385–90. 10.1016/j.lungcan.2008.03.029
    1. Hahn EJ, Rayens MK, Hopenhayn C et al. . Perceived risk and interest in screening for lung cancer among current and former smokers. Res Nurs Health 2006;29:359–70. 10.1002/nur.20132
    1. Schnoll RA, Bradley P, Miller SM et al. . Psychological issues related to the use of spiral CT for lung cancer early detection. Lung Cancer 2003;39:315–25. 10.1016/S0169-5002(02)00501-9
    1. Hay JL, Buckley TR, Ostroff JS. The role of cancer worry in cancer screening: a theoretical and empirical review of the literature. Psychooncology 2005;14:517–34. 10.1002/pon.864
    1. Trask PC, Paterson AG, Wang C et al. . Cancer-specific worry interference in women attending a breast and ovarian cancer risk evaluation program: impact on emotional distress and health functioning. Psychooncology 2001;10:349–60. 10.1002/pon.510
    1. Cassidy A, Myles JP, van Tongeren M et al. . The LLP risk model: an individual risk prediction model for lung cancer. Br J Cancer 2008;98:270–6. 10.1038/sj.bjc.6604158
    1. Department for Communities and Local Government. The English Indices of Deprivation 2010. England, 2011.
    1. Lerman C, Daly M, Sands C et al. . Mammography adherence and psychological distress among women at risk for breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1993;85:1074–80. 10.1093/jnci/85.13.1074
    1. Watson M, Lloyd S, Davidson J et al. . The impact of genetic counselling on risk perception and mental health in women with a family history of breast cancer. Br J Cancer 1999;79:868–74. 10.1038/sj.bjc.6690139
    1. Marks D, Yardley L. Research methods for clinical and health psychology. London: SAGE, 2004.
    1. Cancer Research UK . Lung cancer: UK incidence statistics 2013 [13 March 2014]. .
    1. McGregor SE, Hilsden RJ, Li FX et al. . Low uptake of colorectal cancer screening 3 yr after release of national recommendations for screening. Am J Gastroenterol 2007;102:1727–35. 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2007.01217.x
    1. Weissfeld JL, Schoen RE, Pinsky PF et al. . Flexible sigmoidoscopy in the PLCO cancer screening trial: results from the baseline screening examination of a randomized trial. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005;97:989–97. 10.1093/jnci/dji175
    1. Alexander F, Weller D. Evaluation of the UK Colorectal Cancer Screening Pilot Final Report. Edinburgh, UK: 2003.
    1. Ritvo P, Myers R, Paszat L et al. . Gender differences in attitudes impeding colorectal cancer screening. BMC Public Health 2013;13:500 10.1186/1471-2458-13-500
    1. Stewart SH, Taylor S, Baker JM. Gender differences in dimensions of anxiety sensitivity. J Anxiety Disord 1997;11:179–200. 10.1016/S0887-6185(97)00005-4
    1. Breen N, Wagener DK, Brown ML et al. . Progress in cancer screening over a decade: results of cancer screening from the 1987, 1992, and 1998 National Health Interview Surveys. J Natl Cancer Inst 2001;93:1704–13. 10.1093/jnci/93.22.1704
    1. Wardle J, Sutton S, Williamson S et al. . Psychosocial influences on older adults’ interest in participating in bowel cancer screening. Prev Med 2000;31:323–34. 10.1006/pmed.2000.0725
    1. Espinosa de Los Monteros K, Gallo LC. The relevance of fatalism in the study of Latinas’ cancer screening behavior: a systematic review of the literature. Int J Behav Med 2011;18:310–18. 10.1007/s12529-010-9119-4
    1. Huisman M, Kunst AE, Mackenbach JP. Educational inequalities in smoking among men and women aged 16 years and older in 11 European countries. Tob Control 2005;14:106–13. 10.1136/tc.2004.008573
    1. Mackenbach JP, Huisman M, Andersen O et al. . Inequalities in lung cancer mortality by the educational level in 10 European populations. Eur J Cancer 2004;40:126–35. 10.1016/j.ejca.2003.10.018
    1. Waller J, Bartoszek M, Marlow L et al. . Barriers to cervical cancer screening attendance in England: a population-based survey. J Med Screen 2009;16:199–204. 10.1258/jms.2009.009073
    1. Department for Communities and Local Government. English Indices of Deprivation 2010 [15th July 2014].
    1. Blake L. Integrating quantitative and qualitative methods in family research. Fam Syst Med 1989;7:411–27. 10.1037/h0089788
    1. Green J, Thorogood N. Qualitative methods for health research. Sage, 2013.
    1. Kuper A, Lingard L, Levinson W. Critically appraising qualitative research. BMJ 2008;337:a1035 10.1136/bmj.a1035
    1. Nisbett R, Wilson T. Telling more than we can know: verbal responses on mental processes. Psychol Rev 1977;84:231–59. 10.1037/0033-295X.84.3.231
    1. Vartiainen E, Seppala T, Lillsunde P et al. . Validation of self reported smoking by serum cotinine measurement in a community-based study. J Epidemiol Community Health 2002;56:167–70. 10.1136/jech.56.3.167
    1. Studts JL, Ghate SR, Gill JL et al. . Validity of self-reported smoking status among participants in a lung cancer screening trial. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2006;15:1825–8. 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-06-0393
    1. Stolberg HO, Norman G, Trop I. Randomized controlled trials. AJR Am J Roentgenol 2004;183:1539–44. 10.2214/ajr.183.6.01831539

Source: PubMed

Sponsors en medewerkers

Medische omstandigheden

Geneesmiddelinterventies

3
Abonneren