The psychological impact of predictive genetic testing for hereditary non-polyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC) was assessed in 114 individuals (32 carriers and 82 non-carriers) attending familial cancer clinics, using mailed self-administered questionnaires prior to, 2 weeks, 4 months and 12 months after carrier status disclosure. Compared to baseline, carriers showed a significant increase in mean scores for intrusive and avoidant thoughts about colorectal cancer 2 weeks (t = 2.49; p = 0.014) and a significant decrease in mean depression scores 2 weeks post-notification of result (t = -3.98; p < 0.001) and 4 months post-notification of result (t = -3.22; p = 0.002). For non-carriers, significant decreases in mean scores for intrusive and avoidant thoughts about colorectal cancer were observed at all follow-up assessment time points relative to baseline. Non-carriers also showed significant decreases from baseline in mean depression scores 2 weeks, 4 months and 12 months post-notification. Significant decreases from baseline for mean state anxiety scores were also observed for non-carriers 2 weeks post-notification (t = -3.99; p < 0.001). These data indicate that predictive genetic testing for HNPCC leads to psychological benefits amongst non-carriers, and no adverse psychological outcomes were observed amongst carriers.

Multi-disciplinary familial cancer clinics are becoming an integral part of cancer services. It is, therefore, important to assess how attendance at these clinics impacts on cancer-related concerns, risk perceptions and behavioural intentions, and how the clinic services are being received by those using them. This study has assessed a familial colorectal cancer clinic with respect to cancer-related worries and risk perceptions and their impact on interest in DNA testing and overall satisfaction with the clinic. Pre- and post-clinic questionnaires were completed by 127 patients and relatives attending the clinic. After attending the clinic, the proportion of people 'very' or 'extremely' worried about developing bowel cancer reduced from 49 (pre-clinic) to 34% (p = 0.002). Worry about bowel cancer was positively associated with younger age, higher education level and higher perceived risk of developing cancer. A reduction in level of risk perception correlated with a lower likelihood of feeling 'very worried' about developing bowel cancer. Of those intending to go ahead with DNA testing, 58% were 'very worried' about bowel cancer compared with 15% of those not intending to proceed with testing, suggesting that worry was a motivation for interest in DNA testing. One-third of participants indicated another session of genetic counselling would be helpful. Within this group, a higher proportion was very worried about bowel cancer (43%) than for those who did not want another session (17%). Attendance at this familial colorectal cancer clinic alleviated worry for many individuals, partly due to improved information about risk of colorectal cancer.

We have evaluated whether or not client expectations, in terms of education and information needs, have been met by a multi-disciplinary familial colorectal cancer clinic. The study used a pre- and post-clinic questionnaire design and 126 (84 women, 42 men) clients of the clinic participated. The most common reason for coming to the clinic is to 'find out whether there is a gene for colorectal cancer in the family', followed by 'to reduce risk for bowel cancer' and 'concern for children's risk'. Clients would have preferred to receive more information before attendance at the clinic to help with preparation. Information given during the clinic increased knowledge of bowel cancer genetics and had a positive effect on the accuracy of some clients' perceptions of their risk of developing cancer. In multivariate analysis, higher risk perceptions, higher education level and greater baseline knowledge predicted post-clinic knowledge of bowel cancer genetics and an increase in knowledge. Client reports of the presence of a genetic counsellor or medical geneticist in the session also predicted post-clinic knowledge and an increase in knowledge. Most participants felt they received enough information during the clinic session on various aspects of familial colorectal cancer, but the desire for more written information on prevention, including lifestyle actions, was expressed by many.

Summary This retrospective analysis of psychological predictors of attendance studied the women from the annual screening arm of the United Kingdom Coordinating Committee on Cancer Research (UKCCCR) trial of annual screening mammography for the early detection of breast cancer. Some women attended screening at the first invitation in year 1 (attenders), others did not attend for screening at any time (non-attenders), whereas a third group delayed attending until year 2 (ambivalent attenders). A total of 147 women were recruited to the study: 80 attenders, 28 non-attenders and 39 ambivalent attenders. It proved extremely difficult to contact non-attenders to take part in the study. Non-attenders were significantly more depressed on the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; had experienced more miscarriages, stillbirths or terminations of pregnancy; were less knowledgeable about mammography; and were displeased to have received an invitation to screening. Whereas non-attenders are unlikely ever to attend breast screening because of their long-standing attitudes and preferred coping styles, ambivalent attenders may become more amenable to screening with the passage of time. In this study such women were persuaded to attend in year 2 with a simple, cost-effective intervention: an additional invitation letter after a year.Keywords: attendance; breast screening; depression; perinatal losses; psychology Low take-up rates for breast screening examinations pose a serious challenge for health promotion. Attenders and non-attenders for mammography have now been compared in a variety of UK, European and US settings, and the studies of Fallowfield, Rimer, Vernon, Frazier, Sutton and Polednak are useful exemplars.