SummaryBackgroundUptake in the national colorectal cancer screening programme in England varies by socioeconomic status. We assessed four interventions aimed at reducing this gradient, with the intention of improving the health benefits of screening.MethodsAll people eligible for screening (men and women aged 60–74 years) across England were included in four cluster-randomised trials. Randomisation was based on day of invitation. Each trial compared the standard information with the standard information plus the following supplementary interventions: trial 1 (November, 2012), a supplementary leaflet summarising the gist of the key information; trial 2 (March, 2012), a supplementary narrative leaflet describing people's stories; trial 3 (June, 2013), general practice endorsement of the programme on the invitation letter; and trial 4 (July–August, 2013) an enhanced reminder letter with a banner that reiterated the screening offer. Socioeconomic status was defined by the Index of Multiple Deprivation score for each home address. The primary outcome was the socioeconomic status gradient in uptake across deprivation quintiles. This study is registered, number ISRCTN74121020.FindingsAs all four trials were embedded in the screening programme, loss to follow-up was minimal (less than 0·5%). Trials 1 (n=163 525) and 2 (n=150 417) showed no effects on the socioeconomic gradient of uptake or overall uptake. Trial 3 (n=265 434) showed no effect on the socioeconomic gradient but was associated with increased overall uptake (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1·07, 95% CI 1·04–1·10, p<0·0001). In trial 4 (n=168 480) a significant interaction was seen with socioeconomic status gradient (p=0·005), with a stronger effect in the most deprived quintile (adjusted OR 1·11, 95% CI 1·04–1·20, p=0·003) than in the least deprived (1·00, 0·94–1·06, p=0·98). Overall uptake was also increased (1·07, 1·03–1·11, p=0·001).InterpretationOf four evidence-based interventions, the enhanced reminder letter reduced the socioeconomic gradient in screening uptake, but further reducing inequalities in screening uptake through written materials alone will be challenging.FundingNational Institute for Health Research.

ObjectivesTo apply sociological theories to understand public trust in extended services provided by community pharmacists relative to those provided by general practitioners (GPs).DesignQualitative study involving focus groups with members of the public.SettingThe West of Scotland.Participants26 purposively sampled members of the public were involved in one of five focus groups. The groups were composed to represent known groups of users and non-users of community pharmacy, namely mothers with young children, seniors and men.ResultsTrust was seen as being crucial in healthcare settings. Focus group discussions revealed that participants were inclined to draw unfavourable comparisons between pharmacists and GPs. Importantly, participants' trust in GPs was greater than that in pharmacists. Participants considered pharmacists to be primarily involved in medicine supply, and awareness of the pharmacist's extended role was low. Participants were often reluctant to trust pharmacists to deliver unfamiliar services, particularly those perceived to be ‘high risk’. Numerous system-based factors were identified, which reinforce patient trust and confidence in GPs, including GP registration and appointment systems, GPs' expert/gatekeeper role and practice environments. Our data indicate that the nature and context of public interactions with GPs fostered familiarity with a specific GP or practice, which allowed interpersonal trust to develop. By contrast, participants' exposure to community pharmacists was limited. Additionally, a good understanding of the GPs' level of training and role promoted confidence.ConclusionCurrent UK initiatives, which aim to implement a range of pharmacist-led services, are undermined by lack of public trust. It seems improbable that the public will trust pharmacists to deliver unfamiliar services, which are perceived to be ‘high risk’, unless health systems change in a way that promotes trust in pharmacists. This may be achieved by increasing the quality and quantity of patient interactions with pharmacists and gaining GP support for extended pharmacy services.

BackgroundCancer has long inspired fear, but the effect of fear is not well understood; it seems both to facilitate and to deter early diagnosis behaviours. To elucidate fear's behavioural effects, we systematically reviewed and synthesised qualitative literature to explore what people fear about cancer.MethodsWe searched Medline, Embase, PsycInfo, Web of Science, AnthroSource, and Anthrobase for studies on cancer fear in breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening and analysed 102 studies from 26 countries using thematic synthesis.ResultsFears of cancer emanated from a core view of cancer as a vicious, unpredictable, and indestructible enemy, evoking fears about its proximity, the (lack of) strategies to keep it at bay, the personal and social implications of succumbing, and fear of dying from cancer.ConclusionsThis view of cancer as ‘an enemy’ reprises the media's ‘war on cancer’ theme and may affect the acceptance of cancer early detection and prevention messages, since cancer's characteristics influenced whether ‘fight’ or ‘flight’ was considered appropriate.

This study assessed adherence to medication after liver transplantation and consisted of 2 components: a retrospective audit involving the examination of the Scottish national database, and a preliminary study assessing psychological factors implicated in poor adherence. In order to first establish an idea of the extent of poor adherence within the Scottish liver transplant population, a retrospective audit was carried out on all patients (N ϭ 435) who received transplants before November 2003. Adherence was assessed by attendance at follow-up clinic appointments, blood immunosuppressant levels, and episodes of cellular rejection. It was found that attendance and immunosuppressant levels were often suboptimal and that nonadherence may have contributed to retransplantation and death. Cellular (acute) rejection after 6 months was associated with higher mortality. Explanations as to why liver transplant patients may not take their medication as recommended were then explored in detailed psychological assessments of 33 liver transplant recipients. The results indicated that low self-reported patient adherence was related to greater concerns regarding the potential adverse effects of medication, and a stronger belief that medicines in general are harmful. In addition, the greater the effect the transplantation had on patients' lives and the more it affected them emotionally, the less adherent the patients were likely to be. The results highlight potential areas that, if confirmed in a larger study, might be targeted in a psychological intervention to improve patient adherence and thereby transplantation outcomes.

BackgroundMeasuring patient experience is important for evaluating the quality of patient care, identifying aspects requiring improvement and optimising patient outcomes. Patient Reported Experience Measures (PREMs) should, ideally, be patient derived, however no such PREMs for gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy exist. This study explored the experiences of patients undergoing GI endoscopy and CT colonography (CTC) in order to: identify aspects of care important to them; determine whether the same themes are relevant across investigative modalities; develop the framework for a GI endoscopy PREM.MethodsPatients aged ≥18 years who had undergone oesophagogastroduodenoscopy (OGD), colonoscopy or CTC for symptoms or surveillance (but not within the national bowel cancer screening programme) in one hospital were invited to participate in semi-structured interviews. Recruitment continued until data saturation. Inductive thematic analysis was undertaken.Results35 patients were interviewed (15 OGD, 10 colonoscopy, 10 CTC). Most patients described their experience chronologically, and five ‘procedural stages’ were evident: before attending for the test; preparing for the test; at the hospital, before the test; during the test; after the test. Six themes were identified: anxiety; expectations; choice & control; communication & information; comfort; embarrassment & dignity. These were present for all three procedures but not all procedure stages. Some themes were inter-related (eg, expectations & anxiety; communication & anxiety).ConclusionWe identified six key themes encapsulating patient experience of GI procedures and these themes were evident for all procedures and across multiple procedure stages. These findings will be used to inform the development of the Newcastle ENDOPREM™.

ObjectiveEarlier diagnosis of cancer has become a policy priority. There is evidence that minority ethnic groups are more likely to delay help-seeking for cancer symptoms, but few studies have explored reasons for delay in these groups. The present study explored facilitators and barriers to help-seeking for breast and cervical cancer in an ethnically diverse sample of women.MethodsSemi-structured interviews were carried out with 54 healthy women from a range of ethnic backgrounds; Indian, Pakistani, Bangladeshi, Caribbean, African, Black British, Black other, White British and White other. Framework analysis was used to identify themes.ResultsAppraising a symptom as possibly due to cancer was an important facilitator of help-seeking, although for some the prospect of a cancer diagnosis was a deterrent. Women believed that earlier diagnosis improved the chance of survival, and this facilitated prompt help-seeking. A sympathetic GP facilitated help-seeking, and an unsympathetic GP was a deterrent. Some ethnic minority women described the use of alternative medicine and prayer as a first-line strategy that might delay help-seeking. Language barriers, racism and a tendency to ‘soldier on’ were also mentioned by these women.ConclusionsModels of delay in presentation for early cancer symptoms are likely to transfer across different ethnic groups. Encouraging open discussion about cancer among minority communities could help raise awareness about the importance of early detection and promote help-seeking as a priority response to a possible cancer symptom. © 2013 The Authors. Psycho-Oncology published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

BackgroundThe initial roll-out of the English Bowel (Colorectal) Cancer Screening programme, during 2006 and 2009, found uptake to be low (54%) and socially graded. The current analysis used data from 2010 to 2015 to test whether uptake is increasing and becoming less socially graded over time.MethodsPostcode-derived area-level uptake of 4.4 million first-time invitees, stratified by gender and the year of the first invitation (2010–2015), was generated using the National Bowel Cancer Screening System. Data were limited to people aged 60–64 years. Binomial regression tested for variations in uptake by the year of invitation, gender, region, area-based socio-economic deprivation and area-based ethnic diversity.ResultsOverall, the first-time colorectal cancer (CRC) screening uptake across 6 years was 52% (n = 2,285,996/4,423,734) with a decline between 2010 and 2015 (53%, 54%, 52%, 50%, 49%, 49% respectively). Uptake continued to be socially graded between the most and the least deprived area-level socio-economic deprivation quintiles (43% vs 57%), the most and the least area-based ethnic diversity quintiles (41% vs 56%) and men and women (47% vs 56%). Multivariate analysis demonstrated the effects of year, deprivation, ethnicity and gender on uptake. The effect of deprivation was more pronounced in the most deprived area quintile between men and women (40% vs 47%) than the least deprived area quintile (52% vs 62% respectively).ConclusionWe did not find evidence of change in uptake patterns in CRC screening since its initial launch 10 years ago. The programme is unlikely to realise its full public health benefits and is en route to widening inequalities in CRC outcomes.

Early indications of uptake are encouraging. Future efforts should focus on increasing public awareness of the programme and reducing socioeconomic inequalities.