Background: The Netherlands hosts, as many other European countries, three population-based cancer screening programmes (CSPs). The overall uptake among these CSPs is high, but has decreased over... Show moreBackground: The Netherlands hosts, as many other European countries, three population-based cancer screening programmes (CSPs). The overall uptake among these CSPs is high, but has decreased over recent years. Especially in highly urbanized regions the uptake rates tend to fall below the minimal effective rate of 70% set by the World Health Organization. Understanding the reasons underlying the decision of citizens to partake in a CPS are essential in order to optimize the current screening participation rates. The aim of this study was to explore the various perspectives concerning cancer screening among inhabitants of The Hague, a highly urbanized region of the Netherlands. Methods: A Q-methodology study was conducted to provide insight in the prevailing perspectives on partaking in CSPs. All respondents were inhabitants of the city of The Hague, the Netherlands. In an online application they ranked a set of 31 statements, based on the current available literature and clustered by the Integrated Change model, into a 9-column forced ranking grid according to level of agreement, followed by a short survey. Respondents were asked to participate in a subsequent interview to explain their ranking. By-person factor analysis was used to identify distinct perspectives, which were interpreted using data from the rankings and interviews. Results: Three distinct perspectives were identified: 1). "Positive about participation", 2). "Thoughtful about participation", and 3). "Fear drives participation". These perspectives provide insight into how potential respondents, living in an urbanized region in the Netherlands, decide upon partaking in CSPs. Conclusions: Since CSPs will only be effective when participation rates are sufficiently high, it is essential to have insight into the different perspectives among potential respondents concerning partaking in a CSP. This study adds new insights concerning these perspectives and suggests several ideas for future optimization of the CSPs. Show less
Spierenburg, W.; Wier, M.F. van; Poolman, R.W. 2022
Objective: To investigate patient preferences and the determinants of participation willingness in or-thopaedic diagnostic or invasive surgical randomized controlled trials.Methods: This... Show moreObjective: To investigate patient preferences and the determinants of participation willingness in or-thopaedic diagnostic or invasive surgical randomized controlled trials.Methods: This observational study included one hundred patients visiting an orthopaedic clinic. The pa-tients answered if they were willing to participate in a hypothetical invasive and diagnostic trial among patients with a distal radius fracture.Results: We found no difference in participation willingness in either the invasive surgical (66/100) or the diagnostic trial (68/100, p = 0.76). Willingness to participate was not associated with age, gender, country of origin, level of education, marital status, or distance of home from the hospital with the confidence interval for all odds ratios including the value 1. Patients who expressed willingness to participate do so because they wanted to contribute to science; patients who declined to participate wanted to speak with a doctor and to be better informed.Conclusion: This study showed a high rate of willingness to participate in orthopaedic surgical invasive trials and in diagnostic trials. Nevertheless, to ensure participation, it is recommended to put emphasis on the contribution to science and to give adequate information about the trial including the opportunity to talk to a doctor.(c) 2022 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Show less
Background Many breast, colorectal, and cervical cancer screening programs were disrupted due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This study aimed to estimate the short-term impact of the temporary shutdown ... Show moreBackground Many breast, colorectal, and cervical cancer screening programs were disrupted due to the COVID-19 pandemic. This study aimed to estimate the short-term impact of the temporary shutdown (from March until May- June) of the cancer screening programs invitations in Flanders (Belgium) by looking at invitation coverage, percentage of people screened after invitation and the screening interval. Methods Yearly invitation coverage was calculated as the number of people who received an invitation, as a proportion of the people who should have received an invitation that year. Weekly response to the invitation was calculated as the number of people who were screened within 40 days of their date of invitation, as a percentage of the people who received an invitation that week (as a proxy for willingness to screen). Weekly screening interval was calculated as the mean number of months between the current screening and the previous screening of all the people who screened that week. The two last indicators were calculated for each week in 2019 and 2020, after which the difference between that week's value in 2020 and 2019 with 95% confidence intervals. Results of these two indicators were also analysed after stratification for gender, age and participation history. Results Invitation coverage was not impacted in the colorectal and cervical cancer screening program. In the breast cancer screening program invitation coverage went down from 97.5% (2019) to 88.7% (2020), and the backlog of invitations was largely resolved in the first six months of 2021. The willingness to screen was minimally influenced by COVID-19. The breast cancer screening program had a temporary increase in screening interval in the first months following the restart after COVID-19 related shutdown, when it was on average 2.1 months longer than in 2019. Conclusions Willingness to screen was minimally influenced by COVID-19, but there may be an influence on screening coverage because of lower invitation coverage, mainly for the for breast Cancer Screening Program. The increases in screening intervals for the three Cancer Screening Program seem reasonable and would probably not significantly increase the risk of delayed screening cancer diagnoses. When restarting a Cancer Screening Program after a COVID-19 related shutdown, monitoring is crucial. Show less
