Socioeconomic inequalities in colorectal cancer screening uptake: Does time perspective play a role?

Whitaker, Katriina L.; Good, Anna; Miles, Anne; Robb, Kathryn A.; Wardle, Jane; Wagner, Christian von

doi:10.1037/a0023941

Cited by 105 publications

(60 citation statements)

References 67 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These were shown to be strongly associated with intention, but only weakly with action, which is better predicted by factors related to life difficulties 163. Qualitative research findings indicate that several cognitive factors, including fatalistic beliefs about CRC164 and individuals' evaluation of the relative weight of short-term inconveniences and long-term benefits (consideration of future consequences (CFC)),165 are associated with SES and mediate the negative impact of social deprivation on attendance. Interventions taking CFC into account, by emphasising short-term benefits, could, for example, promote equality in screening participation 166…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Optimising colorectal cancer screening acceptance: a review

Senore¹,

Inadomi

Segnan

et al. 2015

Gut

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study aims to review available evidence concerning effective interventions to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening acceptance. We performed a literature search of randomised trials designed to increase individuals' use of CRC screening on PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects. Small (≤ 100 subjects per arm) studies and those reporting results of interventions implemented before publication of the large faecal occult blood test trials were excluded. Interventions were categorised following the Continuum of Cancer Care and the PRECEDE-PROCEED models and studies were grouped by screening model (opportunistic vs organised). Multifactor interventions targeting multiple levels of care and considering factors outside the individual clinician control, represent the most effective strategy to enhance CRC screening acceptance. Removing financial barriers, implementing methods allowing a systematic contact of the whole target population, using personal invitation letters, preferably signed by the reference care provider, and reminders mailed to all non-attendees are highly effective in enhancing CRC screening acceptance. Physician reminders may support the diffusion of screening, but they can be effective only for individuals who have access to and make use of healthcare services. Educational interventions for patients and providers are effective, but the implementation of organisational measures may be necessary to favour their impact. Available evidence indicates that organised programmes allow to achieve an extensive coverage and to enhance equity of access, while maximising the health impact of screening. They provide at the same time an infrastructure allowing to achieve a more favourable cost-effectiveness profile of potentially effective strategies, which would not be sustainable in opportunistic settings.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 91%

Optimising colorectal cancer screening acceptance: a review

Senore¹,

Inadomi

Segnan

et al. 2015

Gut

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This will be assessed using the four-item short form of the Consideration of Future Consequences Scale,54 55 with five response categories ranging from strongly agree to strongly disagree .…”

Section: Stream A: Quantitative Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of information about overdetection of breast cancer on women's decision-making about mammography screening: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionWomen are largely unaware that mammography screening can cause overdetection of inconsequential disease, leading to overdiagnosis and overtreatment of breast cancer. Evidence is lacking about how information on overdetection affects women's breast screening decisions and experiences. This study investigates the consequences of providing information about overdetection of breast cancer to women approaching the age of invitation to mammography screening.Methods and analysisThis is a randomised controlled trial with an embedded longitudinal qualitative substudy. Participants are a community sample of women aged 48–50 in New South Wales, Australia, recruited in 2014. Women are randomly allocated to either quantitative only follow-up (n=904) or additional qualitative follow-up (n=66). Women in each stream are then randomised to receive either the intervention (evidence-based information booklet including overdetection, breast cancer mortality reduction and false positives) or a control information booklet (including mortality reduction and false positives only). The primary outcome is informed choice about breast screening (adequate knowledge, and consistency between attitudes and intentions) assessed via telephone interview at 2 weeks postintervention. Secondary outcomes measured at this time include decision process (decisional conflict and confidence) and psychosocial outcomes (anticipated regret, anxiety, breast cancer worry and perceived risk). Women are further followed up at 6 months, 1 and 2 years to assess self-reported screening behaviour and long-term psychosocial outcomes (decision regret, quality of life). Participants in the qualitative stream undergo additional in-depth interviews at each time point to explore the views and experiences of women who do and do not choose to have screening.Ethics and disseminationThe study has ethical approval, and results will be published in peer-reviewed journals. This research will help ensure that information about overdetection may be communicated clearly and effectively, using an evidence-based approach, to women considering breast cancer screening.Trial registration numberAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12613001035718.

show abstract

“…For example, social conditions that cannot cushion short term loss, or which have been characterized by limited efficacy to overcome or prevent negative life experience may enhance the perceived costs of participating in screening or diminish self efficacy to complete the test. There is some empirical evidence that these appraisals may differ by socio-economic status (e.g., Orbell, Johnstone & Crombie, 1996;Whitaker, Good, Miles et al, 2011). However, there is a paucity of studies that have employed population samples, prospectively collected data, objectively observed behavior, or used mediation analyses to examine whether psychological constructs mediate socioeconomic status effects on screening participation (von Wagner, Good, Whitaker & Wardle, 2011).…”

Section: South Asian Ethnicity Socio-economic Status and Psychologicmentioning

confidence: 99%

South Asian Ethnicity, Socioeconomic Status, and Psychological Mediators of Faecal Occult Blood Colorectal Screening Participation: A Prospective Test of a Process Model

Orbell¹,

Szczepura²,

Weller³

et al. 2017

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Socioeconomic inequalities in colorectal cancer screening uptake: Does time perspective play a role?

Cited by 105 publications

References 67 publications

Optimising colorectal cancer screening acceptance: a review

Optimising colorectal cancer screening acceptance: a review

The effect of information about overdetection of breast cancer on women's decision-making about mammography screening: study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

South Asian Ethnicity, Socioeconomic Status, and Psychological Mediators of Faecal Occult Blood Colorectal Screening Participation: A Prospective Test of a Process Model

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About