Journal

Family Practice

Papers (5)

Lay and general practitioner attitudes towards endometrial cancer prevention: a cross-sectional study

Abstract Background Effective and targeted endometrial cancer prevention strategies could reduce diagnoses by 60%. Whether this approach is acceptable to individuals and general practitioners (GPs) is currently unknown. This study sought to determine attitudes towards the provision of personalised endometrial cancer risk assessments and the acceptability of potential prevention strategies. Methods Specific online questionnaires were developed for individuals aged 45–60 years with a uterus and UK-practising GPs, with social media, charity websites, and email used to advertise the study. Individuals completed the questionnaires between February and April 2022. Results Of 660 lay questionnaire respondents, 90.3% (n = 596) thought that undergoing an endometrial cancer risk assessment was a good or very good idea and 95.6% (n = 631) would be willing to undergo such an assessment. The commonest reasons for wanting to participate were “to try and reduce my risk” (n = 442, 67.0%), “to be informed” (n = 354, 53.6%), and “it could save my life’ (n = 315, 47.7%). Over 80% of respondents would make lifestyle changes to reduce their endometrial cancer risk (n = 550), with half accepting a pill, Mirena, or hysterectomy for primary prevention. GPs were similarly engaged, with 93.0% (n = 106) willing to offer an endometrial cancer risk assessment if a tool were available, potentially during a Well Woman screen. Conclusion Personalised endometrial cancer risk assessments are acceptable to potentially eligible individuals and GPs and could be accommodated within routine practice. Clinical trials to determine the effectiveness of lifestyle modification and Mirena for endometrial protection are urgently required and should be targeted at those at greatest disease risk.

Impact of a shared medical decision-making aid on patient decisional conflict regarding human papillomavirus vaccination: a mixed-methods study

Abstract Introduction Human papillomaviruses (HPVs) cause several vaccine-preventable cancers, including cervical cancer. In France, HPV vaccination coverage remains low. Decision aids (DAs) can help individuals make informed health choices. This study assessed the impact of an online DA (SOSHPV) on decisional conflict and vaccination intention, and explored user perceptions in real-life contexts. Methods A convergent mixed-methods design was used (November 2023–June 2024). The quantitative component included a pre–post questionnaire assessing knowledge, vaccination intention, and decisional conflict. The qualitative component involved semistructured interviews with a subsample of users, analyzed using grounded theory. Results Among 943 website visitors, 187 participants (54 males, 12 adolescents) completed the presurvey, and 44 (12 males, 6 adolescents) completed both assessments. Over half (54%) were young parents using the tool to support HPV vaccination decisions for their child. Post-intervention, knowledge improved (P < 0.001), and decisional conflict decreased (P < 0.001). Vaccination intention shifted: 55%–75% in favor and 32%–18% undecided (P < 0.001). Qualitative analysis (n = 12) revealed three themes: social ambivalence around vaccination, the DA as a support for informed choices, and its role in enhancing communication with healthcare providers. Discussion This study showed a reduction in decisional conflict and increased vaccination intention. These findings suggest that DAs may play an important role in addressing vaccine hesitancy and supporting value-aligned choices in real-world settings. Conclusion This study highlights the potential of an online DA to improve vaccine acceptance by reducing decisional conflict and enhancing dialog. Further research is needed to assess its large-scale impact on vaccine uptake.

Physician payment models and preventive cancer screening: a population-based retrospective cohort analysis from Ontario, Canada

Abstract Background Ontario's primary care reforms have introduced three blended physician payment models: (i) blended fee-for-service (BFFS), (ii) blended capitation without interprofessional teams, and (iii) blended capitation with teams. Each model includes the same pay-for-performance incentives, yet their impact on cancer screening, including that during the COVID-19 pandemic, remains unclear. Methods We used linked administrative data (2018–23) to examine the associations between these models and colorectal, cervical, and breast cancer screening rates. Fractional probit regression models, adjusting for physician and patient characteristics, estimated the effects of each payment model relative to the BFFS. Stratified analyses explored heterogeneity by physician sex, age, practice size, rurality, and socioeconomic deprivation. Results Compared with the BFFS model, the blended capitation models were associated with higher screening rates, although initial differences were modest. By 2022, nonteam and team capitation models had colorectal screening rates 3.0% and 3.6% higher, respectively, than those of the BFFS. Similar but smaller increases were observed for cervical and breast cancer screening. These advantages persisted through COVID-19 disruptions and were most pronounced among physicians serving rural or socioeconomically disadvantaged populations. Stratified analyses indicated that female, younger, and higher-volume physicians performed better in capitation-based models. Conclusions Blended capitation arrangements, especially those integrating interprofessional teams, appear more effective than the BFFS in delivering preventive cancer screening. Strengthening team-based primary care and targeted incentives could bolster preventable cancer screening rates in the population, even under pandemic-related challenges. These findings can inform policy decisions aimed at improving population health through optimized primary care provisions.

Predictive factors for non-participation or partial participation in breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening programmes†

AbstractBackgroundNo study has investigated factors associated with non-participation or partial participation in the different combination patterns of screening programmes for all three cancers, that is, breast, colorectal and cervical cancer.MethodsIn a retrospective cohort study, we sought to describe combinations of cancer screening participation rates among women in the Val-de-Marne area of France and to identify individual and contextual factors associated with non-participation or partial participation.ResultsWomen aged between 50 and 65 and who were eligible for all three screening programmes (n = 102 219) were analysed in multilevel logistic models, with the individual as the Level 1 variable and the place of residence as the Level 2 variable. The women who did not participate in any of the screening programmes were 34.4%, whereas 30.1%, 24% and 11.5% participated in one, two or all three screening programmes, respectively. Age below 55, a previous false-positive mammography, prior opportunistic mammography only, no previous mammography, membership of certain health insurance schemes (all P < 0.05) and residence in a deprived area (P < 0.001) were independently associated with non-participation or partial participation. We observed a stronger effect of deprivation on non-participation in all three cancers than in combinations of screening programmes.ConclusionOur findings suggest that the health authorities should focus on improving cancer screenings in general rather than screenings for specific types of cancer, especially among younger women and those living in the most socially deprived areas.

Publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)

ISSN

1460-2229