Highlights Two online experiments testing descriptive social norms in cancer screening. Increasing perceived uptake is positively associated with screening intention. Providing feedback about normative beliefs does not affect perceived credibility of the uptake message. The least credible messages stating highest uptake had largest effect on intentions.

Objectives A large proportion of women have a preference for a same-gender endoscopy practitioner. We tested how information about practitioner gender affected intention to have bowel scope screening in a sample of women disinclined to have the test. Methods In an online experimental survey, women aged 35–54 living in England who did not intend to participate in bowel scope screening (N = 1060) were randomised to one of four experimental conditions: (1) control (practitioner’s gender is unknown), (2) opposite-gender (male practitioner by default), (3) same gender (female practitioner by default), and (4) active choice (the patient could choose the gender of the practitioner). Intention was measured following the interventions. Results Of 1010 (95.3%) women who completed the survey, most were White-British (83.6%), and working (63.3%). Compared with control, both active choice and same-gender conditions increased intention among disinclined women (9.3% vs. 16.0% and 17.9%; OR: 1.85; 95% CI: 1.07–3.20 and OR: 2.07; 95% CI: 1.23–3.50). There were no differences in intention between the opposite-gender and control conditions (9.8% vs. 9.3%; OR: 1.06; 95% CI: 0.60–1.90) or the active choice and same-gender conditions (16.0% vs. 17.9%: OR: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.55–1.46, using same gender as baseline). Conclusions Offering disinclined women a same-gender practitioner, either by choice or default, increased subsequent intention, while an opposite gender default did not negatively affect intention. Reducing uncertainty about gender of practitioner could positively affect uptake in women, and should be tested in a randomised controlled trial.

BackgroundThere has been interest in using the non-invasive, home-based quantitative faecal immunochemical test (FIT) to rule out colorectal cancer (CRC) in high-risk symptomatic patients.AimTo elicit public preferences for FIT versus colonoscopy (CC) and its delivery in primary care.Design & settingA cross-sectional online survey in England.MethodA total of 1057 adults (without CRC symptoms and diagnosis) aged 40–59 years were invited from an English online survey panel. Responders were asked to imagine they had been experiencing CRC symptoms that would qualify them for a diagnostic test. Participants were presented with choices between CC and FIT in ascending order of number of CRCs missed by FIT (from 1–10%). It was measured at what number of missed CRCs responders preferred CC over FIT.ResultsWhile 150 participants did not want either of the tests when both missed 1% CRCs, the majority (n = 741, 70.0%) preferred FIT to CC at that level of accuracy. However, this preference reduced to 427 (40.4%) when FIT missed one additional cancer. Women were more likely to tolerate missing CRC when using FIT. Having lower numeracy and perceiving a higher level of risk meant participants were less likely to tolerate a false negative test. Most of those who chose FIT preferred to return it by mail (62.2%), to be informed about normal test results by letter (42.1%), and about abnormal test results face to face (32.5%).ConclusionWhile the majority of participants preferred FIT over CC when both tests had the same sensitivity, tolerance for missed CRCs was low.

Cancer screening aims to detect cancer before the appearance of symptoms. Applying a proactive and systematic approach, cancer screening programs invite every person in the target population automatically. Many countries have established guidelines that define criteria and principles on whether to implement screening programs for specific conditions. Despite the universal coverage of these programs, inequalities have been observed in their uptake based on various sociodemographic factors: gender, age, ethnicity, socioeconomic status (SES), educational level, and marital status. Behavioral science provides key performance indicators of these programs. Psychological factors such as perceived benefits (e.g., ability of the program to diagnose early or even prevent cancer) and barriers (e.g., opportunity costs relating to test attendance or completion), as well as people’s cancer and screening-related beliefs and perceptions of their own susceptibility to cancer, play a crucial role in cancer screening uptake. Furthermore, there is increasing awareness among professional bodies for the need to balance the public health benefits against individual costs, including financial and opportunity costs associated with participation and potential longer-term harms, such as receiving a cancer diagnosis that would never have caused any symptoms or problems). These recent developments have led to stronger emphasis on monitoring patient-reported experiences and ensuring that participation is based on informed choice. In addition, some of these issues have also been addressed by more fundamental changes to the screening paradigm such as more personalized approaches (using additional genetic and epigenetic information) to establishing eligibility criteria. The acceptability of using this information and its implication to offer more or less intensive screening and developing effective ways to understand the ability of the program to communicate this information are key challenges for the clinical, research and policy making community.