Explore the vast range of titles available.

Background Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening can reduce both CRC incidence and mortality, and faecal immunochemical testing (FIT)-based screening programmes are therefore now being implemented in many countries. However, social inequality in FIT-based screening participation is well documented, and initiatives to address this challenge are understudied. We explored the perceptions of CRC screening and the perceived barriers and facilitators towards FIT-based CRC screening among men visiting a drop-in centre for people with severe social problems in Denmark. Methods The study was a qualitative interview study. Participants were sixteen men visiting a drop-in centre in Denmark. A local staff member provided supplementary information and assisted with the recruitment process. The interviews were transcribed verbatim, followed by an inductive content analysis. Results The men were often dealing with health and social problems, and they often had low self-esteem. At first, they stated that they did not think much about cancer and their own risk of being diagnosed with it. They argued that they had little time, energy, and resources to participating in, for example, CRC screening programmes, and barriers to participating were facts of life such as comorbidity and cognitive difficulties. Further, they were not sure how to participate, and some misunderstood the concept of screening. However, during the interviews, the main part of the participants became very keen to participate, and they suggested that in the future, they could receive regular information about cancer screening in face-to-face interactions with someone who cared and was interested in helping them. Conclusion Men in a vulnerable position visiting a drop-in centre were interested in CRC screening. If we intervene in a way that meets the needs among these vulnerable citizens, it may contribute to reducing social inequality in FIT-based CRC screening programmes.

Background To reach non-participants, reluctant to undergo clinician-based cervical cancer screening and vaginal self-sampling, urine collection for high-risk human papillomavirus detection (hrHPV) may be valuable. Using two hrHPV DNA assays, we evaluated the concordance of hrHPV positivity in urine samples in comparison with vaginal self-samples and cervical cytology samples taken by the general practitioner (GP). We also studied women’s acceptance of urine collection and preferences towards the different sampling procedures. Methods One hundred fifty paired self-collected urine and vaginal samples and GP-collected cervical cytology samples were obtained from 30 to 59-year-old women diagnosed with ASC-US within the Danish cervical cancer screening program. After undergoing cervical cytology at the GP, the women collected first-void urine and vaginal samples at home and completed a questionnaire. Each sample was hrHPV DNA tested by the GENOMICA CLART® and COBAS® 4800 assays. Concordance in hrHPV detection between sample types was determined using Kappa ( k ) statistics. Sensitivity and specificity of hrHPV detection in urine was calculated using cervical sampling as reference. Results With the COBAS assay, urine showed good concordance to the vaginal ( k  = 0.66) self-samples and cervical samples ( k  = 0.66) for hrHPV detection. The corresponding concordance was moderate ( k  = 0.59 and k  = 0.47) using CLART. Compared to cervical sampling, urinary hrHPV detection had a sensitivity of 63.9% and a specificity of 96.5% using COBAS; compared with 51.6 and 92.4% for CLART. Invalid hrHPV test rates were 1.8% for COBAS and 26.9% for CLART. Urine collection was well-accepted and 42.3% of the women ranked it as the most preferred future screening procedure. Conclusions Urine collection provides a well-accepted screening option. With COBAS, higher concordance between urine and vaginal self-sampling and cervical sampling for hrHPV detection was found compared to CLART. Urinary hrHPV detection with COBAS is feasible, but its accuracy may need to be improved before urine collection at home can be offered to non-participants reluctant to both cervical sampling and vaginal self-sampling.

High-risk human papillomavirus (HPV) test is replacing cytology as the primary cervical cancer screening test due to superior sensitivity, but in most countries women ≥65 years have never had an HPV test despite they account for around 50% of cervical cancer deaths. We explored the effect of a catch-up HPV test among 65- to 69-year-old women without previous record of HPV-based screening. This population-based nonrandomized intervention study (quasi-experimental design) included Danish women aged 65 to 69 with no record of cervical cancer screening in the last ≥5.5 years and no HPV-exit test at age 60 to 64 at the time of study inclusion. Eligible women residing in the Central Denmark Region were invited for HPV screening either by attending clinician-based sampling or requesting a vaginal self-sampling kit (intervention group, n = 11,192). Women residing in the remaining four Danish regions received standard care which was the opportunity to have a cervical cytology collected for whatever reason (reference group, n = 33,387). Main outcome measures were detection of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia (CIN) grade 2 or worse (CIN2+) per 1,000 women eligible for the screening offer and the benefit-harm ratio of the intervention and standard practice measured as the number of colposcopies needed to detect one CIN2+ case. The minimum follow-up time was 13 months for all tested women (range: 13 to 25 months). In the intervention group, 6,965 (62.2%) were screened within 12 months from the date of study inclusion and 743 (2.2%) women had a cervical cytology collected in the reference group. The CIN2+ detection was significantly higher in the intervention group (3.9, 95% confidence interval (CI): [2.9, 5.3]; p < 0.001; n = 44/11,192) as compared to the reference group (0.3, 95% CI: [0.2, 0.6]; n = 11/33,387). For the benefit-harm ratio, 11.6 (95% CI: [8.5, 15.8]; p = 0.69; n = 511/44) colposcopies were performed to detect one CIN2+ in the intervention group as compared to 10.1 (95% CI: [5.4, 18.8]; n = 111/11) colposcopies in the reference group. The study design entails a risk of confounding due to the lack of randomization. The higher CIN2+ detection per 1,000 eligible women in the intervention group supports that a catch-up HPV test could potentially improve cervical cancer prevention in older women. This study informs the current scientific debate as to whether women aged 65 and above should be offered a catch-up HPV test if they never had an HPV test. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04114968.

Background Screening programmes for cervical cancer, breast cancer and colorectal cancer have been implemented in many Western countries to reduce cancer incidence and mortality. Ethnic minority women are less likely to participate in cancer screening than the majority population. In worst case this can result in higher incidence rates, later diagnosis and treatment and ultimately inferior survival. In this paper we explored the perceptions about cancer and perceived barriers towards cancer screening participation among ethnic minority women in a deprived area in Denmark. Methods Interview study with ethnic minority women in a deprived area in Denmark. The interviews were transcribed verbatim followed by an inductive content analysis. Results Cancer was perceived as a deadly disease that could not be treated. Cancer screening was perceived as only relevant if the women had symptoms. Knowledge about cancer screening was fragmented, often due to inadequate Danish language skills and there was a general mistrust in the Danish healthcare system due to perceived low medical competences in Danish doctors. There was, however, a very positive and curious attitude regarding information about the Danish cancer screening programmes and a want for more information. Conclusion Ethnic minority women did not have sufficient knowledge about cancer and the purpose of cancer screening. Perceptions about cancer screening were characterised by openness and the study showed positive and curious attitudes towards screening participation. The findings emphasise the importance of culturally adapted interventions for ethnic minority women in attempts to reduce inequality in screening participation.

Background Cervical cancer screening participation remains insufficient in most countries. Our aim was to evaluate whether offering a HPV self-sampling kit, either mailed directly to the woman’s home or using timely opt-in procedures for ordering the kit, increased screening participation compared with a standard second reminder. Methods In this randomized, controlled effectiveness trial, 9791 Danish women aged 30–64 who were due to receive the second reminder were equally randomized to either: 1) direct mailing of a second reminder and a self-sampling kit (directly mailed group); 2) mailing of a second reminder that offered a self-sampling kit to be ordered by e-mail, text message, phone, or webpage (opt-in group); or 3) mailing of a second reminder to attend regular cytology screening (control group). In an intention-to-treat analysis, we estimated the participation rate at 180 days post intervention, by returning a self-sample or attending regular cytology screening. We calculated the proportion of women with a positive HPV self-sample who attended for cervical cytology triage at the general practitioner within 90 days. Results Participation was significantly higher in the directly mailed group (38.0%) and in the opt-in group (30.9%) than in the control group (25.2%) (participation difference (PD): 12.8%, 95% CI: 10.6–15.0% and PD: 5.7%, 95% CI: 3.5–7.9%, respectively). Within 90 days, 107 women (90.7%, 95% CI: 83.9–95.3%) with a HPV-positive self-sample attended follow-up. Conclusions Offering the opportunity of HPV self-sampling as an alternative to regular cytology screening increased participation; the direct mailing strategy was the most effective invitation strategy. A high compliance with follow-up was seen. Trial registration Current Controlled Trials NCT02680262 . Registered 10 February 2016.

Background Cancer is a major global health concern. Unfortunately, Indigenous populations such as Greenlanders living in Denmark, face significant disparities in cancer risk, incidence, diagnosis, care quality, and outcomes. In Denmark, vulnerable Greenlanders face challenges accessing cancer screening. The aim of this study was to explore their perceptions of cancer, barriers to participation in cancer screening, and potential for developing a tailored intervention. Methods This qualitative study was based on participant observations and qualitative interviews. The sample comprised 46 participants from four distinct drop-in centres. Of these, 28 were vulnerable Greenlanders (19 women and 9 men), 9 were staff members (6 women and 3 men), and 6 were relatives (4 women and 2 men). The data were analysed through inductive content analysis. Results Vulnerable Greenlanders in Denmark believed they were responsible for their own health and were generally satisfied with the healthcare system. However, they found it challenging to manage their own health and many depended on support from others. Fear of cancer and death shaped their attitudes towards screening. Conclusion For vulnerable Greenlanders in Denmark participation in cancer screening programmes was positively viewed for most but could be challenging. Different intervention ideas raised by the vulnerable Greenlanders, relatives and staff members could guide the development of strategies to increase participation rates.

Screening participation remains suboptimal in cervical cancer (CC) and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening despite their effectiveness in reducing cancer-related morbidity and mortality. We investigated the effectiveness of an intervention by leveraging the high participation rate in breast cancer (BC) screening as an opportunity to offer self-sampling kits to nonparticipants in CC and CRC screening. A pragmatic, unblinded, cluster-randomised, multiple period, crossover trial was conducted in 5 BC screening units in the Central Denmark Region (CDR) between September 1, 2021 and May 25, 2022. On each of 100 selected weekdays, 1 BC screening unit was randomly allocated as the intervention unit while the remaining units served as controls. Women aged 50 to 69 years attending BC screening at the intervention unit were offered administrative check-up on their CC screening status (ages 50 to 64 years) and CRC screening status (aged 50 to 69), and women with overdue screening were offered self-sampling. Women in the control group received only standard screening offers according to the organised programmes. The primary outcomes were differences between the intervention group and the control group in the total screening coverage for the 2 programmes and in screening participation among women with overdue screening, measured 6 months after the intervention. These were assessed using intention-to-treat analysis, reporting risk differences with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). A total of 27,116 women were included in the trial, with 5,618 (20.7%) in the intervention group and 21,498 (79.3%) in the control group. Six months after the intervention, total coverage was higher in the intervention group as compared with the control group in CC screening (88.3 versus 83.5, difference 4.8 percentage points, 95% CI [3.6, 6.0]; p < 0.001) and in CRC screening (79.8 versus 76.0, difference 3.8 percentage points, 95% CI [2.6, 5.1]; p < 0.001). Among women overdue with CC screening, participation in the intervention group was 32.0% compared with 6.1% in the control group (difference 25.8 percentage points, 95% CI [22.0, 29.6]; p < 0.001). In CRC screening, participation among women overdue with screening in the intervention group was 23.8% compared with 8.9% in the control group (difference 14.9 percentage points, 95% CI [12.3, 17.5]; p < 0.001). Women who did not participate in BC screening were not included in this study. Offering self-sampling to women overdue with CC and CRC screening when they attend BC screening was a feasible intervention, resulting in an increase in participation and total coverage. Other interventions are required to reach women who are not participating in BC screening. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05022511. The record of processing activities for research projects in the Central Denmark Region (R. No.: 1-16-02-217-21).

Background A population-based breast cancer screening programme was implemented in the Central Denmark Region in 2008–09. The objective of this registry-based study was to examine the association between socio-demographic characteristics and screening participation and to examine whether the group of non-participants can be regarded as a homogeneous group of women. Method Participation status was obtained from a regional database for all women invited to the first screening round in the Central Denmark Region in 2008–2009 (n=149,234). Participation data was linked to registries containing socio-demographic information. Distance to screening site was calculated using ArcGIS. Participation was divided into ‘participants’ and ‘non-participants’, and non-participants were further stratified into ‘active non-participants’ and ‘passive non-participants’ based on whether the woman called and cancelled her participation or was a ‘no-show’. Results The screening participation rate was 78.9%. In multivariate analyses, non-participation was associated with older age, immigrant status, low OECD-adjusted household income, high and low level education compared with middle level education, unemployment, being unmarried, distance to screening site >20 km, being a tenant and no access to a vehicle. Active and passive non-participants comprised two distinct groups with different socio-demographic characteristics, with passive non-participants being more socially deprived compared with active non-participants. Conclusion Non-participation was associated with low social status e.g. low income, unemployment, no access to vehicle and status as tenant. Non-participants were also more likely than participants to be older, single, and of non-Danish origin. Compared to active non-participants, passive non-participants were characterized by e.g. lower income and lower educational level. Different interventions might be warranted to increase participation in the two non-participant groups.

The decision to take up colorectal cancer screening has to be made on informed grounds balancing benefits and harms. Self-administered decision aids can support citizens in making an informed choice. A self-administered web-based decision aid targeting citizens with lower educational attainment has been evaluated within the target population. However, the effectiveness in the general screening population remains unexplored. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of a web-based decision aid for colorectal cancer screening on components of informed choice among previous non-participants in colorectal cancer screening. The study was designed as a parallel randomised controlled trial among non-participants in colorectal cancer screening in Central Denmark Region (men and women aged 53-74 years). Respondents to baseline and follow-up questionnaires comprised the study population (n = 1,723). The intervention group received the decision aid electronically along with the second reminder. The control group received only the second reminder. The main outcomes (knowledge, attitudes, uptake and decisional conflict) were obtained through questionnaires data and from the Danish Colorectal Cancer Screening Database. The decision aid increased the uptake rate by 8 percentage points (95% CI: 3.4;12.6) but had no effect on either knowledge (scale score differences: 0.09; 95% CI: -0.05;0.24) or attitudes (0.45; 95% CI: -0.00;0.91). Decisional conflict decreased by 1.69 scale points (95% CI: -3.18;-0.20). The effect was similar across educational attainment levels. The web-based decision aid offers a feasible way to provide individualised screening information in a \"one size fits all\" approach that may hold the potential to increase informed CRC screening uptake. ClinicalTrials.gov registration number: NCT03253888.