Explore the vast range of titles available.

The entire landscape of cancer management in primary care, from case identification to the management of people living with and beyond cancer, is evolving rapidly in the face of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.1 In a climate of fear and mandated avoidance of all but essential clinical services, delays in patient, population, and health-care system responses to suspected cancer symptoms seem inevitable. Patients might be reluctant to present because of fear of interacting with others, limited capacity to use video or teleconsultations, and concerns about wasting the doctor's time.6,7 For family doctors, the COVID-19 pandemic is affecting all aspects of normal working life, including a reduced workforce due to illness and self-isolation, and the reduced availability of appointments and investigations in primary and secondary care. The National Health Service guidelines state that patients will want to discuss whether the benefits of continuing active cancer treatment outweigh the risks of potentially being seriously unwell if they contract COVID-19, which is a role that could well fall to primary care.9 The UK cancer charity Macmillan Cancer Support reports that a quarter of calls to its support line are from patients with cancer who are anxious about COVID-19.10 Although cancer charities provide a vital support role, primary care needs to support the physical and mental health of patients for whom potentially lifesaving cancer treatments are being postponed.

Background People from lower socioeconomic groups have worse survival outcomes for cancer, which in part reflects later-stage disease at diagnosis. The mechanisms underlying delayed cancer symptom presentation in lower socioeconomic groups are not well understood. Methods Systematic review of studies of actual or anticipated symptom presentation across all tumour sites. Included studies measured socioeconomic group, symptom presentation and one or more of the following variables: cancer symptom knowledge, beliefs about cancer, barriers/facilitators to symptom presentation. Results A total of 60 studies was included. Symptom knowledge overall was lowest and actual presentation time was longest in lower socioeconomic groups. Knowledge for specific symptoms such as lumps and bleeding was good and encouraged timely symptom presentation, in contrast to non-specific symptoms which were not well recognised. The combination of fearful and fatalistic beliefs was typically associated with later presentation, especially in lower socioeconomic groups. Emotional barriers such as ‘worry what the doctor might find’ were more frequently reported in lower socioeconomic groups, and there was evidence to suggest that disclosing symptoms to family/friends could help or hinder early presentation. Conclusions Poor symptom knowledge, fearful and fatalistic beliefs about cancer, and emotional barriers combine to prolong symptom presentation among lower socioeconomic groups. Targeted interventions should utilise social networks to improve knowledge of non-specific symptoms, challenge negative beliefs and encourage help-seeking, in order to reduce avoidable delays and minimise socioeconomic group inequalities.

ObjectiveThe current study aimed to identify the barriers to participation among high-risk individuals in the UK Lung Cancer Screening (UKLS) pilot trial.SettingThe UKLS pilot trial is a randomised controlled trial of low-dose CT (LDCT) screening that has recruited high-risk people using a population approach in the Cambridge and Liverpool areas.ParticipantsHigh-risk individuals aged 50–75 years were invited to participate in UKLS. Individuals were excluded if a LDCT scan was performed within the last year, if they were unable to provide consent, or if LDCT screening was unable to be carried out due to coexisting comorbidities.Outcome measuresStatistical associations between individual characteristics and UKLS uptake were examined using multivariable regression modelling. In those who completed a non-participation questionnaire (NPQ), thematic analysis of free-text data was undertaken to identify reasons for not taking part, with subsequent exploratory linkage of key themes to risk factors for non-uptake.ResultsComparative data were available from 4061 high-risk individuals who consented to participate in the trial and 2756 who declined participation. Of those declining participation, 748 (27.1%) completed a NPQ. Factors associated with non-uptake included: female gender (OR=0.64, p<0.001), older age (OR=0.73, p<0.001), current smoking (OR=0.70, p<0.001), lower socioeconomic group (OR=0.56, p<0.001) and higher affective risk perception (OR=0.52, p<0.001). Among non-participants who provided a reason, two main themes emerged reflecting practical and emotional barriers. Smokers were more likely to report emotional barriers to participation.ConclusionsA profile of risk factors for non-participation in lung screening has emerged, with underlying reasons largely relating to practical and emotional barriers. Strategies for engaging high-risk, hard-to-reach groups are critical for the equitable uptake of a potential future lung cancer screening programme.Trial registration numberThe UKLS trial was registered with the International Standard Randomised Controlled Trial Register under the reference 78513845.

Background Socioeconomic inequalities in cancer survival can in part be explained by long patient intervals among people from deprived groups; however, the reasons for this are unclear. This qualitative study explores the actual and anticipated barriers to cancer symptom presentation in the context of socioeconomic deprivation. Methods Thirty participants were recruited through the International Cancer Benchmarking Partnership Welsh database ( n  = 20), snowball sampling ( n  = 8) and community partners ( n  = 2). Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted with symptomatic and asymptomatic adults over the age of 50 years, who were identified as being from a low socioeconomic group based on multiple individual and group level indicators. Transcripts were analysed using a Framework approach based on the COM-B model (Capability, Opportunity, Motivation-Behaviour). Results There was evidence of poor awareness of non-specific cancer symptoms (Capability), fearful and fatalistic beliefs about cancer (Motivation), and various barriers to accessing an appointment with the family physician (Opportunity) and full disclosure of symptoms (Capability). These in combination were associated with a lengthened patient interval among participants. Social networks (Opportunity) were influential on the formation of knowledge and beliefs about cancer. Participants’ behavioural and normative beliefs were usually formed and reinforced by people they knew with cancer, and such beliefs were considered to lengthen the patient interval. Discussing symptoms with a family member or friend before a visit to the family physician was the norm, and could act as a barrier or facilitator depending on the quality of advice given (Opportunity). Economic hardship meant fulfilling basic day-to-day needs such as finding money for food were prioritised over medical help seeking (Opportunity). Conclusions The complex interaction between individual characteristics and socio-environmental factors is important for understanding cancer symptom presentation behaviour, especially in the context of socioeconomic deprivation. Interventions targeted at deprived communities should take into account the wider social influences on symptom presentation behaviour.

Background Cervical screening for high‐risk Human Papillomavirus subtypes is offered to those eligible in the UK via the NHS cervical screening programmes. However, uptake of cervical screening continues to remain below the national target of 80%. Groups less likely to participate include people from low socioeconomic groups, ethnic minority backgrounds, younger/older age and/or LGBTQ group identity. The cervical screening‐eligible population could soon, for the first time in the UK, have a choice of mode between clinician taken or self‐sampling. Aims To understand information and decision‐support needs of diverse cervical screening‐eligible individuals when presented with a choice of cervical screening mode and develop recommendations for a communication strategy to support informed decision‐making. Methods Qualitative co‐production explored communication preferences and decision‐support needs in a diverse sample of cervical screening‐eligible individuals using semi‐structured interviews with individuals eligible for cervical screening (n = 30) and stakeholders (n = 23). Interviews were transcribed, thematically analysed and mapped to behavioural and decision‐making theories to inform a communication strategy for offering choice in cervical screening mode in the UK. Results Four main themes across both participant groups were identified: misunderstanding of clinician screening, attitudes towards choice, communication launch preferences and decision‐support needs. Logic models to inform a communication strategy in preparation for the future launch of choice in cervical screening mode in the UK were developed. Implications The communication launch strategy can inform interventions to support informed decision‐making if HPV self‐sampling is incorporated into UK cervical screening programmes. Patient and Public Contribution Two public partners were involved in the study from inception to completion. They advised on recruitment, participant facing documents and were involved in analysis.

Background Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death worldwide. Routine UK lung cancer screening is not yet available, thus understanding barriers to participation in lung screening could help maximize effectiveness if introduced. Methods Population‐based survey of 1007 adults aged 16 and over in Wales using random quota sampling. Computer‐assisted face‐to‐face interviews included demographic variables (age, gender, smoking, social group), four lung cancer belief statements and three lung screening attitudinal items. Determinants of lung screening attitudes were examined using multivariable regression adjusted for age, gender, social group and previous exposure to lung campaign messages. Results Avoidance of lung screening due to fear of what might be found was statistically significantly associated with negative lung cancer beliefs including fatalism (aOR = 8.8, 95% CI = 5.6‐13.9, P ≤ 0.001), low perceived value of symptomatic presentation (aOR = 2.4, 95% CI = 1.5‐3.9, P ≤ 0.001) and low treatment efficacy (aOR = 0.3, CI = 0.2‐0.7, P ≤ 0.01). Low perceived effectiveness of lung screening was significantly associated with fatalism (aOR = 6.4, 95% CI = 3.5‐11.7, P ≤ 0.001), low perceived value of symptom presentation (aOR = 4.9, 95% CI = 2.7‐8.9, P ≤ 0.001) and low treatment efficacy (aOR = 0.1, 95% CI = 0.1‐0.3, P ≤ 0.001). In contrast, respondents who thought lung screening could reduce cancer deaths had positive beliefs about lung cancer (aOR = 0.4, 95% CI = 0.2‐0.7, P ≤ 0.001) and its treatment (aOR = 6.1, 95% CI = 3.0‐12.6, P ≤ 0.001). Conclusion People with negative beliefs about lung cancer may be more likely to avoid lung screening. Alongside the introduction of effective early detection strategies, interventions are needed to modify public perceptions of lung cancer, particularly for fatalism.

Background Lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography for high-risk populations is being implemented in the UK. However, inclusive identification and invitation of the high-risk population is a major challenge for equitable lung screening implementation. Primary care electronic health records (EHRs) can be used to identify lung screening-eligible individuals based on age and smoking history, but the quality of EHR smoking data is limited. This study piloted a novel strategy for ascertaining smoking status in primary care and tested EHR search combinations to identify those potentially eligible for lung cancer screening. Methods Seven primary care General Practices in South Wales, UK were included. Practice-level data on missing tobacco codes in EHRs were obtained. To update patient EHRs with no tobacco code, we developed and tested an algorithm that sent a text message request to patients via their GP practice to update their smoking status. The patient’s response automatically updated their EHR with the relevant tobacco code. Four search strategies using different combinations of tobacco codes for the age range 55-74 + 364 were tested to estimate the likely impact on the potential lung screening-eligible population in Wales. Search strategies included: BROAD (wide range of ever smoking codes); VOLUME (wide range of ever-smoking codes excluding “trivial” former smoking); FOCUSED (cigarette-related tobacco codes only), and RECENT (current smoking within the last 20 years). Results Tobacco codes were not recorded for 3.3% of patients ( n  = 724/21,956). Of those with no tobacco code and a validated mobile telephone number ( n  = 333), 55% ( n  = 183) responded via text message with their smoking status. Of the 183 patients who responded, 43.2% ( n  = 79) had a history of smoking and were potentially eligible for lung cancer screening. Applying the BROAD search strategy was projected to result in an additional 148,522 patients eligible to receive an invitation for lung cancer screening when compared to the RECENT strategy. Conclusion An automated text message system could be used to improve the completeness of primary care EHR smoking data in preparation for rolling out a national lung cancer screening programme. Varying the search strategy for tobacco codes may have profound implications for the size of the population eligible for lung-screening invitation.

ObjectivesTo understand self-reported potential cancer symptom help-seeking behaviours and attitudes during the first 6 months (March–August 2020) of the UK COVID-19 pandemic.DesignUK population-based survey conducted during August and September 2020. Correlates of help-seeking behaviour were modelled using logistic regression in participants reporting potential cancer symptoms during the previous 6 months. Qualitative telephone interviews with a purposeful subsample of participants, analysed thematically.SettingOnline UK wide survey.Participants7543 adults recruited via Cancer Research UK online panel provider (Dynata) and HealthWise Wales (a national register of ‘research ready’ participants) supplemented with social media (Facebook and Twitter) recruitment. 30 participants were also interviewed.Main outcome measuresSurvey measures included experiences of 15 potential cancer symptoms, help-seeking behaviour, barriers and prompts to help-seeking.ResultsOf 3025 (40.1%) participants who experienced a potential cancer symptom, 44.8% (1355/3025) had not contacted their general practitioner (GP). Odds of help-seeking were higher among participants with disability (adjusted OR (aOR)=1.38, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.71) and who experienced more symptoms (aOR=1.68, 95% CI 1.56 to 1.82), and lower among those who perceived COVID-19 as the cause of symptom(s) (aOR=0.36, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.52). Barriers included worries about wasting the doctor’s time (1158/7543, 15.4%), putting strain on healthcare services (945, 12.6%) and not wanting to make a fuss (907, 12.0%). Interviewees reported reluctance to contact the GP due to concerns about COVID-19 and fear of attending hospitals, and described putting their health concerns on hold.ConclusionsMany people avoided healthcare services despite experiencing potential cancer symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic. Alongside current help-seeking campaigns, well-timed and appropriate nationally coordinated campaigns should signal that services are open safely for those with unusual or persistent symptoms.Trial registration numberISRCTN17782018.

Background In the absence of routine ovarian cancer screening, promoting help-seeking in response to ovarian symptoms is a potential route to early diagnosis. The factors influencing women’s anticipated time to presentation with potential ovarian cancer symptoms were examined. Methods Cross-sectional questionnaires were completed by a sample of women at increased familial risk ( n  = 283) and population risk ( n  = 1043) for ovarian cancer. Measures included demographic characteristics, symptom knowledge, anticipated time to symptom presentation, and health beliefs (perceived susceptibility, worry, perceived threat, confidence in symptom detection, benefits and barriers to presentation). Structural equation modelling was used to identify determinants of anticipated time to symptomatic presentation in both groups. Results Associations between health beliefs and anticipated symptom presentation differed according to risk group. In increased risk women, high perceived susceptibility ( r  = .35***), ovarian cancer worry ( r  = .98**), perceived threat ( r  = −.18**), confidence ( r  = .16**) and perceiving more benefits than barriers to presentation ( r  = −.34**), were statistically significant in determining earlier anticipated presentation. The pattern was the same for population risk women, except ovarian cancer worry ( r  = .36) and perceived threat ( r  = −.03) were not statistically significant determinants. Conclusions Associations between underlying health beliefs and anticipated presentation differed according to risk group. Women at population risk had higher symptom knowledge and anticipated presenting in shorter time frames than the increased risk sample. The cancer worry component of perceived threat was a unique predictor in the increased risk group. In increased risk women, the worry component of perceived threat may be more influential than susceptibility aspects in influencing early presentation behaviour, highlighting the need for ovarian symptom awareness interventions with tailored content to minimise cancer-related worry in this population.

Background Many countries are introducing low‐dose computed tomography screening programmes for people at high risk of lung cancer. Effective communication strategies that convey risks and benefits, including unfamiliar concepts and outcome probabilities based on population risk, are critical to achieving informed choice and mitigating inequalities in uptake. Methods This study investigated the acceptability of an aspect of NHS England's communication strategy in the form of a leaflet that was used to invite and inform eligible adults about the Targeted Lung Health Check (TLHC) programme. Acceptability was assessed in terms of how individuals engaged with, comprehended and responded to the leaflet. Semi‐structured, ‘think aloud’ interviews were conducted remotely with 40 UK screening‐naïve current and former smokers (aged 55–73). The verbatim transcripts were analysed thematically using a coding framework based on the Dual Process Theory of cognition. Results The leaflet helped participants understand the principles and procedures of screening and fostered cautiously favourable intentions. Three themes captured the main results of the data analysis: (1) Response—participants experienced anxiety about screening results and further investigations, but the involvement of specialist healthcare professionals was reassuring; (2) Engagement—participants were rapidly drawn to information about lung cancer prevalence, and benefits of screening, but deliberated slowly about early diagnosis, risks of screening and less familiar symptoms of lung cancer; (3) Comprehension—participants understood the main principles of the TLHC programme, but some were confused by its rationale and eligibility criteria. Radiation risks, abnormal screening results and numerical probabilities of screening outcomes were hard to understand. Conclusion The TLHC information leaflet appeared to be acceptable to the target population. There is scope to improve aspects of comprehension and engagement in ways that would support informed choice as a distributed process in lung cancer screening. Patient or Public Contribution The insight and perspectives of patient representatives directly informed and improved the design and conduct of this study.