Breast screening: a subject for debate.

The National Health Service Breast Screening Programme was instituted in 1988 following the recommendations of the Forrest report in 1986. From the beginning it has been controversial. Is breast cancer screening efficacious? Can the efficacy produced in trials be reproduced nationwide in the UK? Do the benefits of screening outweigh the adverse effects? Answers to all these questions are not yet available but in the light of current evidence, breast screening does appear to offer a realistic opportunity to reduce the mortality from a disease which constitutes a major public health problem in the UK. The role of the general practitioner and the primary care team is considered in the light of the experience gained in the first phase of the screening programme.     

The psychological impact of mammographic screening. A systematic review

Concerns have been raised regarding the possible negative psychological impact of the cancer screening programmes offered in the UK. This review aims to assess the extent of and factors associated with the adverse psychological consequences of mammographic screening. Fifty-four papers from 13 countries were identified, a majority of which were published after 1990, coinciding more or less with the onset of routine mammographic screening. The results report that mammographic screening does not appear to create anxiety in women who are given a clear result after a mammogram and are subsequently placed on routine recall. However, women who have further investigations following their routine mammogram experience significant anxiety in the short term, and possibly in the long term. The nature and extent of the further investigation that women are exposed to during mammographic screening determines the intensity of the psychological impact. Factors associated with the adverse psychological impact of mammographic screening included: social demographic factors of younger age, lower education, living in urban areas, manual occupation, and one or no children; cancer screening factors of dissatisfaction with information and communication during screening process, waiting time between recall letter and recall appointment, pain experienced during the mammographic screening procedures, and previous false positive result; and cancer worry factors including fear of cancer and greater perceived risk of breast cancer. Difficulties in measuring the psychological impact of screening are discussed, and methods of alleviating the negative psychological outcomes are suggested.     

What influences men's decision to have a prostate-specific antigen test? A qualitative study

BACKGROUND: Current UK policy recommends informed decision making for prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing. The process by which men decide to be tested warrants further investigation. OBJECTIVE: To determine the important influences on men's decision to have a PSA test. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews with 20 men who had raised the issue of testing for prostate cancer with their GP and undergone the PSA test. RESULTS: Men wanted to be tested primarily because they believed in the benefits of early diagnosis. Triggers for consulting the GP were the personal experiences of friends with prostate cancer, a desire to be proactive about health, media reports, a family history or ongoing urinary symptoms. Before consulting the GP, men's awareness was largely based on personal accounts and media stories and did not include much familiarity with the potential limitations of testing. Many had decided they wanted to be tested by the time they consulted their GP and this decision remained largely unaffected by the consultation. Men varied in the value they placed on receiving information about the benefits and limitations of PSA testing from their GP. CONCLUSIONS: Men who consult their GP about testing are often already committed to having the test. When information about the benefits and limitations of PSA testing is provided, at that stage it may be too late for it to play a part in their decision. Making balanced information available to men in the community may be a more effective way to promote informed decision making and to facilitate more useful discussions with the GP.     

Effect on attendance at breast cancer screening of adding a self administered questionnaire to the usual invitation to breast screening in southern England

STUDY OBJECTIVE: The primary aim of the research described in this paper was to ascertain whether inclusion of a self administered questionnaire with the usual invitation to routine breast screening affected screening uptake. Secondary aims included establishing appropriate questionnaire distribution and collection methods within the framework of the National Health Service Breast Screening Programme and optimisation of questionnaire design. DESIGN: Randomised study. SETTING: Oxfordshire and West of London Breast Screening Units. PARTICIPANTS/METHODS: 6400 women invited for routine screening mammography were individually randomised to receive either the usual breast screening invitation alone, or to receive the usual invitation accompanied by a self administered questionnaire, to be returned at the time of screening. Participants were then followed up and attendance rates at screening were compared between groups. MAIN RESULTS: Screening attendance rates were similar in women who did and did not receive a questionnaire (71% in each group). Of those who were sent a questionnaire and attended for screening, 77% returned a completed questionnaire. Screening uptake was not affected by the way in which the questionnaire was returned or by whether or not personal details and signed permission for follow up were requested. CONCLUSIONS: The inclusion of a self administered questionnaire accompanying the invitation to breast screening did not adversely affect screening uptake. A high proportion of women completed the questionnaire.

 

     

Improving the quality of communication in organised cervical cancer screening programmes

OBJECTIVE: To provide health professionals involved in cervical cancer screening with an insight into the complex issues relating to communication about screening and to provide a framework for a more effective communication strategy. METHODS: This paper has been compiled by a multidisciplinary pan-European group of health professionals and cancer advocates from several European screening programmes. European surveys on screening communication, literature reviews and group discussion were used for this purpose. RESULTS: Information on cervical screening must be accessible, relevant, comprehensible, comprehensive, client-centred, phase-specific and multilevel. An effective communication strategy should consider health professionals' screening knowledge and their communication skills, consumers' health literacy skills and the communication needs of specific sub-groups in the target population. Co-operation between screening professionals, advocacy groups and journalists should be promoted. CONCLUSION: To communicate effectively and appropriately is a complex task which can be influenced by a number of factors. Screening workers need better information themselves and must take into account the needs and characteristics of the target population. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: This document should provide a useful tool to help screening professionals in designing and developing good quality and effective communication strategies.     

Patients' experiences and reported barriers to colonoscopy in the screening context--a systematic review of the literature

Objective

A systematic review of the literature was conducted to characterise patients’ own experience of colonoscopy in the screening context.

Methods

A search strategy was applied in MEDLINE, EMBASE and PSYCHinfo (1996-2009). Thematic analysis and narrative summary techniques were used.

Results

Fifty-six studies met eligibility criteria and were included in the analysis. Seven studies examined patients’ views after having colonoscopy. Forty-seven studies addressed patient-reported barriers to an anticipated primary colonoscopy. Most patients perceived the laxative bowel preparation to be the most burdensome part of colonoscopy. Other reported difficulties included anxiety, anticipation of pain, feelings of embarrassment and vulnerability. Inadequate knowledge and fear of finding cancer were identified as obstacles to the uptake of screening colonoscopy. Physician endorsement, having a family history, knowing someone with cancer, and perceived accuracy of the test were incentives to having a colonoscopy. Two studies focused on colonoscopy after faecal occult blood screening. Similar procedural, personal, and practical concerns were reported.

Conclusions

Bowel preparation, lack of awareness of the importance of screening, and feelings of vulnerability in women are all significant barriers to screening colonoscopy.

Practice implications

Patient reported obstacles and barriers to screening colonoscopy needs to be addressed to improve adherence.