BackgroundWe investigated demographic and clinical predictors of lower participation in bowel screening relative to breast and cervical screening.MethodsData linkage study of routinely collected clinical data from 430,591 women registered with general practices in the Greater Glasgow & Clyde Health Board. Participation in the screening programmes was measured by attendance at breast or cervical screening or the return of a bowel screening kit.Results72.6% of 159,993 women invited attended breast screening, 80.7% of 309,899 women invited attended cervical screening and 61.7% of 180,408 women invited completed bowel screening. Of the 68,324 women invited to participate in all three screening programmes during the study period, 52.1% participated in all three while 7.2% participated in none. Women who participated in breast (OR = 3.34 (3.21, 3.47), p < 0.001) or cervical (OR = 3.48 (3.32, 3.65), p < 0.001) were more likely to participate in bowel screening.ConclusionParticipation in bowel screening was lower than breast or cervical for this population although the same demographic factors were associated with uptake, namely lower social deprivation, increasing age, low levels of comorbidity and prior non-malignant neoplasms. As women who complete breast and cervical are more likely to also complete bowel screening, interventions at these procedures to encourage bowel screening participation should be explored.

BackgroundIn Scotland, the uptake of clinic-based breast (72%) and cervical (77%) screening is higher than home-based colorectal screening (~60%). To inform new approaches to increase uptake of colorectal screening, we compared the perceptions of colorectal screening among women with different screening histories.MethodsWe purposively sampled women with different screening histories to invite to semistructured interviews: (1) participated in all; (2) participated in breast and cervical but not colorectal (‘colorectal-specific non-participants’); (3) participated in none. To identify the sample we linked the data for all women eligible for all three screening programmes in Glasgow, Scotland (aged 51–64 years; n=68 324). Interviews covered perceptions of cancer, screening and screening decisions. Framework method was used for analysis.ResultsOf the 2924 women invited, 86 expressed an interest, and 59 were interviewed. The three groups’ perceptions differed, with the colorectal-specific non-participants expressing that: (1) treatment for colorectal cancer is more severe than for breast or cervical cancer; (2) colorectal symptoms are easier to self-detect than breast or cervical symptoms; (3) they worried about completing the test incorrectly; and (4) the colorectal test could be more easily delayed or forgotten than breast or cervical screening.ConclusionOur comparative approach suggested targets for future interventions to increase colorectal screening uptake including: (1) reducing fear of colorectal cancer treatments; (2) increasing awareness that screening is for the asymptomatic; (3) increasing confidence to self-complete the test; and (4) providing a suggested deadline and/or additional reminders.

ObjectivesThis pilot study aimed to evaluate the acceptability of a codesigned, culturally tailored, faith-based online intervention to increase uptake of breast, colorectal and cervical screening in Scottish Muslim women. The intervention was codesigned with Scottish Muslim women (n=10) and underpinned by the reframe, reprioritise and reform model and the behaviour change wheel.SettingThe study was conducted online, using Zoom, due to the COVID-19 pandemic.ParticipantsParticipants (n=18) taking part in the intervention and subsequently in its evaluation, were Muslim women residing in Scotland, recruited through purposive and snowball sampling from a mosque and community organisations. Participants were aged between 25 years and 54 years and of Asian and Arab ethnicity.DesignThe study’s codesigned intervention included (1) a peer-led discussion of barriers to screening, (2) a health education session led by a healthcare provider, (3) videos of Muslim women’s experiences of cancer or screening, and (4) a religious perspective on cancer screening delivered by a female religious scholar (alimah). The intervention was delivered twice online in March 2021, followed 1 week later by two focus groups, consisting of the same participants, respectively, to discuss participants’ experiences of the intervention. Focus group transcripts were analysed thematically.ResultsParticipants accepted the content and delivery of the intervention and were positive about their experience of the intervention. Participants reported their knowledge of screening had increased and shared positive views towards cancer screening. They valued the multidimensional delivery of the intervention, appreciated the faith-based perspective, and in particular liked the personal stories and input from a healthcare provider.ConclusionParticipatory and community-centred approaches can play an important role in tackling health inequalities in cancer and its screening. Despite limitations, the intervention showed potential and was positively received by participants. Feasibility testing is needed to investigate effectiveness on a larger scale in a full trial.

No abstract

ObjectiveColorectal screening using faecal immunochemical tests (FITs) can save lives if the people invited participate. In Scotland, most people intend to complete a FIT but this is not reflected in uptake rates. Planning interventions can bridge this intention-behaviour gap. To develop a tool supporting people willing to do colorectal screening with planning to complete a FIT, this study aimed to identify frequently experienced barriers and solutions to these barriers.DesignThis is a cross-sectional study.SettingParticipants were recruited through the Scottish Bowel Screening Programme to complete a mailed questionnaire.ParticipantsThe study included 2387 participants who had completed a FIT (mean age 65 years, 40% female) and 359 participants who had not completed a FIT but were inclined to do so (mean age 63 years, 39% female).Outcome measuresThe questionnaire assessed frequency of endorsement of colorectal screening barriers and solutions.ResultsParticipants who had not completed a FIT endorsed significantly more barriers than those who had completed a FIT, when demographic, health and behavioural covariates were held constant (F(1,2053)=13.40, p<0.001, partial η2=0.01). Participants who completed a FIT endorsed significantly more solutions than those who did not (U=301 585.50, z=−3.21, p<0.001, r=0.06). This difference became insignificant when covariates were controlled. Participants agreed on the most common barriers and solutions regardless of screening history. Barriers included procrastination, forgetting, fear of the test result, screening anxiety, disgust and low self-efficacy. Solutions included hand-washing, doing the FIT in private, reading the FIT instructions, benefit of early detection, feelings of responsibility, high self-efficacy and seeing oneself as a person who looks after one’s health.ConclusionThis survey identified six barriers and seven solutions as key content to include in the development of a planning tool for colorectal screening using the FIT. Participatory research is required to codesign an engaging and accessible planning tool.

IntroductionScreening can reduce deaths from colorectal cancer (CRC). Despite high levels of public enthusiasm, participation rates in population CRC screening programmes internationally remain persistently below target levels. Simple behavioural interventions such as completion goals and planning tools may support participation among those inclined to be screened but who fail to act on their intentions. This study aims to evaluate the impact of: (a) a suggested deadline for return of the test; (b) a planning tool and (c) the combination of a deadline and planning tool on return of faecal immunochemical tests (FITs) for CRC screening.Methods and analysisA randomised controlled trial of 40 000 adults invited to participate in the Scottish Bowel Screening Programme will assess the individual and combined impact of the interventions. Trial delivery will be integrated into the existing CRC screening process. The Scottish Bowel Screening Programme mails FITs to people aged 50–74 with brief instructions for completion and return. Participants will be randomised to one of eight groups: (1) no intervention; (2) suggested deadline (1 week); (3) suggested deadline (2 weeks); (4) suggested deadline (4 weeks); (5) planning tool; (6) planning tool plus suggested deadline (1 week); (7) planning tool plus suggested deadline (2 weeks); (8) planning tool plus suggested deadline (4 weeks). The primary outcome is return of the correctly completed FIT at 3 months. To understand the cognitive and behavioural mechanisms and to explore the acceptability of both interventions, we will survey (n=2000) and interview (n=40) a subgroup of trial participants.Ethics and disseminationThe study has been approved by the National Health Service South Central—Hampshire B Research Ethics Committee (ref. 19/SC/0369). The findings will be disseminated through conference presentations and publication in peer-reviewed journals. Participants can request a summary of the results.Trial registration numberclinicaltrials.govNCT05408169

Objectives Uptake of vaccination against COVID-19 is key to controlling the pandemic. However, a significant proportion of people report that they do not intend to have a vaccine, often because of concerns they have about vaccine side effects or safety. This study will assess the impact of theory-based messages on COVID-19 vaccination intention, drawing on the Necessity-Concerns framework to address previously reported beliefs and concerns about COVID-19 vaccination, and assess whether hypothesised variables (illness coherence, perceived necessity and concerns) mediate change in vaccination intention. Trial design Prospective, parallel two-arm, individually randomised (1:1) trial. Participants Adults aged over 18 years, living in Scotland and not vaccinated for COVID-19. A quota sampling approach will be used with the aim of achieving a nationally representative sample on gender, region and ethnic group, with oversampling of individuals with no educational qualifications or with only school-level qualifications. Intervention and comparator Intervention: Brief exposure to online text and image-based messages addressing necessity beliefs and concerns about COVID-19 vaccination. Comparator: Brief exposure to online text and image-based messages containing general information about COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccination. Main outcomes Primary outcome: Self-reported intention to receive a vaccine for COVID-19 if invited, immediately post-intervention. Secondary outcomes: Self-reported COVID-19 illness coherence, perceived necessity of a COVID-19 vaccine and concerns about a COVID-19 vaccine, immediately post-intervention. Randomisation Quasi-randomisation performed automatically by online survey software, by creating a variable derived from the number of seconds in the minute that the participant initiates the survey. Participants starting the survey at 0-14 or 30-44 seconds in the minute are allocated to the intervention and 15-29 or 45-59 seconds to the comparator. Blinding (masking) Participants will not be blinded to group assignment but will not be informed of the purpose of the study until they have completed the follow-up survey. Investigators will be blinded to allocation as all procedures will be undertaken digitally and remotely without any investigator contact with participants. Numbers to be randomised (sample size) A total of 1,094 will be randomised 1:1 into two groups with 547 individuals in each. Trial Status Protocol version number 1.0, 26th February 2021. Recruitment status: Not yet recruiting, set to start April 2021 and end April 2021. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04813770, 24th March 2021. Full protocol The full protocol is attached as an additional file, accessible from the Trials website (Additional file 1). In the interest in expediting dissemination of this material, the familiar formatting has been eliminated; this Letter serves as a summary of the key elements of the full protocol.

In order of presentation at the conference