Dataset Information

What do European women know about their female cancer risks and cancer screening? A cross-sectional online intervention survey in five European countries.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

Informed decisions about cancer screening require accurate knowledge regarding cancer risks and screening. This study investigates: (1) European women's knowledge of their risk of developing breast, ovarian, cervical or endometrial cancer, (2) their knowledge about mammography screening and (3) whether an evidence-based leaflet improves their knowledge.

Design

Cross-sectional online intervention survey.

Setting

National samples from five European countries (Czech Republic, Germany, UK, Italy and Sweden)-drawn from the Harris Interactive and the Toluna panel, respectively, in January 2017-were queried on their knowledge of age-specific risks of developing breast, cervical, ovarian or endometrial cancer within the next 10 years and of mammography screening before and after intervention.

Participants

Of 3629 women (inclusion criteria: age 40-75 years) invited, 2092 responded and 1675 completed the survey (response rate: 61.4%).

Intervention

Evidence-based leaflet summarising information on age-adjusted female cancer risks, mammography and aspects of cancer prevention.

Primary outcome measures

Proportion of women (1) accurately estimating their risk of four female cancers, (2) holding correct assumptions of mammography screening and (3) changing their estimations and assumptions after exposure to leaflet.

Findings

Across countries, 59.2% (95% CI 56.8% to 61.6%) to 91.8% (95% CI 90.3% to 93.0%) overestimated their female cancer risks 7-33 fold (medians_{across?tumours}: 50.0 to 200.0). 26.5% (95% CI 24.4% to 28.7%) were aware that mammography screening has both benefits and harms. Women who accurately estimated their breast cancer risk were less likely to believe that mammography prevents cancer (p<0.001). After leaflet intervention, knowledge of cancer risks improved by 27.0 (95% CI 24.9 to 29.2) to 37.1 (95% CI 34.8 to 39.4) percentage points and of mammography by 23.0 (95% CI 21.0 to 25.1) percentage points.

Conclusion

A considerable number of women in five European countries may not possess the prerequisites for an informed choice on cancer screening. Evidence-based information in patient leaflets can improve this situation.

SUBMITTER: Wegwarth O

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6318519 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

What do European women know about their female cancer risks and cancer screening? A cross-sectional online intervention survey in five European countries.

Wegwarth Odette O Widschwendter Martin M Cibula David D Sundström Karin K Portuesi Rosalba R Lein Ines I Rebitschek Felix G FG

BMJ open 20181228 12

<h4>Objectives</h4>Informed decisions about cancer screening require accurate knowledge regarding cancer risks and screening. This study investigates: (1) European women's knowledge of their risk of developing breast, ovarian, cervical or endometrial cancer, (2) their knowledge about mammography screening and (3) whether an evidence-based leaflet improves their knowledge.<h4>Design</h4>Cross-sectional online intervention survey.<h4>Setting</h4>National samples from five European countries (Czech ...[more]

PMID: 30593552

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundEpigenetic markers might be used for risk-stratifying cancer screening and prevention programs in the future. Although the clinical utility of consequent epigenetic tests for risk stratification is yet to be proven, successful adoption into clinical practice also requires the public's acceptance of such tests. This cross-sectional online survey study sought to learn for the first time about European women's perceptions, attitudes, and intended behavior regarding a predictive epigenetic test for female cancer (breast, ovarian, cervical, and endometrial) risks.Methods1675 women (40-75 years) from five European countries (Czech Republic, Germany, United Kingdom, Italy, Sweden), drawn from online panels by the survey sampling company Harris Interactive (Germany), participated in an online survey where they first received online leaflet information on a predictive epigenetic test for female cancer risks and were subsequently queried by an online questionnaire on their desire to know their female cancer risks, their perception of the benefit-to-harm ratio of an epigenetic test predicting female cancer risks, reasons in favor and disfavor of taking such a test, and their intention to take a predictive epigenetic test for female cancer risks.ResultsMost women desired information on each of their female cancer risks, 56.6% (95% CI: 54.2-59.0) thought the potential benefits outweighed potential harms, and 75% (72.0-77.8) intended to take a predictive epigenetic test for female cancer risks if freely available. Results varied considerably by country with women from Germany and the Czech Republic being more reserved about this new form of testing than women from the other three European countries. The main reason cited in favor of a predictive epigenetic test for female cancer risks was its potential to guide healthcare strategies and lifestyle changes in the future, and in its disfavor was that it may increase cancer worry and coerce unintended lifestyle changes and healthcare interventions.ConclusionsA successful introduction of predictive epigenetic tests for cancer risks will require a balanced and transparent communication of the benefit-to-harm ratio of healthcare pathways resulting from such tests in order to curb unjustified expectations and at the same time to prevent unjustified concerns.

Project description:BackgroundTo successfully implement exercise programs for patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC), services and patient education should consider patients' knowledge, preferences, values, and goals. Hence, gaining insight into their perspectives on exercise and exercise programming is important.MethodIn this cross-sectional survey, we recruited patients with MBC from the Netherlands, Germany, Poland, Spain, and Sweden. We collected data on patients' knowledge and skills about exercise and outcome expectations. We identified barriers to and facilitators of participation in exercise programs, and patients' preferences for program content and modes of exercise delivery.ResultsA total of 420 patients participated in the survey. Respondents were, on average, 56.5 years old (SD 10.8) and 70% had bone metastases. Sixty-eight percent reported sufficient skills to engage in aerobic exercise, but only 35% did so for resistance exercise. Respondents expected exercise to have multiple physical benefits, but a few patients expected exercise to worsen their pain (5%). Not having access to an exercise program for cancer patients (27%), feeling too tired (23%), and/or weak (23%) were the most often reported barriers. Facilitators for exercising regularly were previous positive physical (72%) and emotional (68%) experiences with exercising, and receiving personalized advice from a physiotherapist or sport/fitness instructor (62%). Patients were most interested in walking and preferred exercising at a public gym, although there were differences by country. Fifty-seven percent did not know whether their insurance company reimburses exercise programs and only 9% would be willing to pay more than €50 per month to participate.ConclusionA large percentage of patients with MBC lack the skills to engage in regular exercise as recommended by exercise guidelines for people with cancer. Patients may benefit from personalized advice and appropriate training facilities to overcome barriers. When implementing exercise interventions, attention should be given to reimbursement and the relatively low willingness-to-pay.

Project description:BackgroundThe landscape of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) therapy is rapidly changing. This analysis aimed to understand patient characteristics, diagnosis and treatment patterns in patients with metastatic NSCLC (mNSCLC) without EGFR and ALK mutations across five European countries.MethodsData were drawn from the Adelphi NSCLC Disease Specific Programme™, a point-in-time survey of oncologists/pulmonologists and their consulting patients in France, Germany, Italy, Spain and UK. Physicians completed record forms (RFs) for the next six consecutive consulting patients with advanced NSCLC, who then voluntarily completed questionnaires. As an oversample, physicians provided a further ten RFs specifically for patients with EGFR-wild-type mNSCLC: five patients diagnosed before March 2020 (pre-SARS-CoV-2 [COVID-19]) and five patients diagnosed from March 2020 (during COVID-19). Only EGFR-wild-type/ALK-wild-type patients were included for analysis.ResultsMean (standard deviation [SD]) age for 1073 patients with EGFR-wild-type/ALK-wild-type mNSCLC was 66.2 (8.9) years, 65.2% were male and 63.7% had adenocarcinoma. Level of PD-L1 expression at advanced diagnosis was < 1% for 23.1% of patients, 1-49% for 40.9% and ≥ 50% for 36.0%. Most common first-line (1L) advanced treatment was chemotherapy only (36.9%), immunotherapy monotherapy (30.5%) or immunotherapy + chemotherapy (27.6%). Of 158 patients who had progressed beyond 1L therapy, the mean (SD) time-to-treatment discontinuation was 5.1 (4.3) months; 75.9% of whom completed their 1L treatment as intended. A complete response was achieved by 6.7% and a partial response by 69.2% of patients. Of 38 patients who discontinued 1L treatment early, disease progression was reported for 73.7%. Quality of life (QoL) reported by patients was generally lower than normative reference values. Of 2373 oversample patients, physicians reported management changes for 34.7% due to COVID-19, ranging from 19.6% in Germany to 79.7% in the UK. Immunotherapy was prescribed as 1L NSCLC treatment during COVID-19 for 64.2% (n = 786) of patients and pre-COVID-19, for 47.8% (n = 549).ConclusionsReal-world treatment patterns suggest that chemotherapy use remains high despite guidelines recommending immunotherapy-based 1L treatment for mNSCLC. QoL reported by patients was generally lower than population reference values. Not implying causality, 1L immunotherapy use was higher during COVID-19 than pre-COVID-19, and the UK saw the biggest impact to patient management due to COVID-19.

Project description:BackgroundInformal carers have a crucial role in the care of older people, but they are at risk of social isolation and psychological exhaustion. Web-based services like apps and websites are increasingly used to support informal carers in addressing some of their needs and tasks, such as health monitoring of their loved ones, information and communication, and stress management. Despite the growing number of available solutions, the lack of knowledge or skills of carers about the solutions often prevent their usage.ObjectiveThis study aimed to review and select apps and websites offering functionalities useful for informal carers of frail adults or older people in 5 European countries (Cyprus, Greece, Italy, Portugal, and Sweden).MethodsA systematic online search was conducted from January 2017 to mid-March 2017 using selected keywords, followed by an assessment based on a set of commonly agreed criteria and standardized tools. Selected resources were rated and classified in terms of scope. Focus groups with informal carers were conducted to validate the list and the classification of resources. The activities were conducted in parallel in the participating countries using common protocols and guidelines, a standardization process, and scheduled group discussions.ResultsFrom a total of 406 eligible resources retrieved, 138 apps and 86 websites met the inclusion criteria. Half of the selected resources (109/224, 48.7%) were disease-specific, and the remaining resources included information and utilities on a variety of themes. Only 38 resources (38/224, 17.0%) were devoted specifically to carers, addressing the management of health disturbances and diseases of the care recipient and focusing primarily on neurodegenerative diseases. Focus groups with the carers showed that almost all participants had no previous knowledge of any resource specifically targeting carers, even if interest was expressed towards carer-focused resources. The main barriers for using the resources were low digital skills of the carers and reliability of health-related apps and websites. Results of the focus groups led to a new taxonomy of the resources, comprising 4 categories: carer's wellbeing, managing health and diseases of the care recipient, useful contacts, and technologies for eldercare.ConclusionsThe review process allowed the identification of online resources of good quality. However, these resources are still scarce due to a lack of reliability and usability that prevent users from properly benefiting from most of the resources. The involvement of end users provided added value to the resource classification and highlighted the gap between the potential benefits from using information and communication technologies and the real use of online resources by carers.

Dataset Information

What do European women know about their female cancer risks and cancer screening? A cross-sectional online intervention survey in five European countries.

Objectives

Design

Setting

Participants

Intervention

Primary outcome measures

Findings

Conclusion

Publications

What do European women know about their female cancer risks and cancer screening? A cross-sectional online intervention survey in five European countries.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets