Optimising recruitment to a lung cancer screening trial: A comparison of general practitioner and community-based recruitment.

IF 2.6 4区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Journal of Medical Screening Pub Date : 2024-03-01 Epub Date: 2023-08-01 DOI:10.1177/09691413231190785
Hannah Scobie, Kathryn A Robb, Sara Macdonald, Stephen Harrow, Frank Sullivan
{"title":"Optimising recruitment to a lung cancer screening trial: A comparison of general practitioner and community-based recruitment.","authors":"Hannah Scobie, Kathryn A Robb, Sara Macdonald, Stephen Harrow, Frank Sullivan","doi":"10.1177/09691413231190785","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>Pre-trial focus groups of the Early detection of Cancer of the Lung Scotland (ECLS) trial indicated that those at high risk of lung cancer are more likely to engage with community-based recruitment methods. The current study aimed to understand if general practitioner (GP) and community-based recruitment might attract different groups of people, and to quantitatively explore the demographic and psychosocial differences between people responding to GP or community-based recruitment.</p><p><strong>Design: </strong>Secondary data analysis of ECLS trial baseline data.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Adults (n = 11,164) aged 50 to 75 years completed a baseline questionnaire as part of their participation in the ECLS trial. The questionnaire assessed smoking behaviour, health state, health anxiety and illness perception. Alongside demographic characteristics, how participants were made aware of the study/participant recruitment method (GP recruitment/community recruitment) was also obtained via trial records.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The likelihood of being recruited via community-based methods increased as deprivation level decreased. Those recruited via the community had higher levels of perceived personal control of developing lung cancer and were more likely to understand their own risk of developing lung cancer, compared to those who were recruited to the trial via their GP. Health state and health anxiety did not predict recruitment methods in multivariable analysis.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Community and opportunistic screening invitations were associated with uptake in people from less-deprived backgrounds, and therefore might not be the optimal method to reach those at high risk of lung cancer and living in more deprived areas.</p>","PeriodicalId":51089,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Screening","volume":" ","pages":"46-52"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10878003/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Screening","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09691413231190785","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/8/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: Pre-trial focus groups of the Early detection of Cancer of the Lung Scotland (ECLS) trial indicated that those at high risk of lung cancer are more likely to engage with community-based recruitment methods. The current study aimed to understand if general practitioner (GP) and community-based recruitment might attract different groups of people, and to quantitatively explore the demographic and psychosocial differences between people responding to GP or community-based recruitment.

Design: Secondary data analysis of ECLS trial baseline data.

Methods: Adults (n = 11,164) aged 50 to 75 years completed a baseline questionnaire as part of their participation in the ECLS trial. The questionnaire assessed smoking behaviour, health state, health anxiety and illness perception. Alongside demographic characteristics, how participants were made aware of the study/participant recruitment method (GP recruitment/community recruitment) was also obtained via trial records.

Results: The likelihood of being recruited via community-based methods increased as deprivation level decreased. Those recruited via the community had higher levels of perceived personal control of developing lung cancer and were more likely to understand their own risk of developing lung cancer, compared to those who were recruited to the trial via their GP. Health state and health anxiety did not predict recruitment methods in multivariable analysis.

Conclusions: Community and opportunistic screening invitations were associated with uptake in people from less-deprived backgrounds, and therefore might not be the optimal method to reach those at high risk of lung cancer and living in more deprived areas.

优化肺癌筛查试验的招募工作:全科医生和社区招募的比较。
目的:苏格兰肺癌早期检测(ECLS)试验的试验前焦点小组表明,肺癌高危人群更倾向于采用社区招募方法。本研究旨在了解全科医生(GP)和社区招募是否会吸引不同的人群,并定量探讨响应全科医生或社区招募的人群在人口统计学和社会心理方面的差异:设计:对 ECLS 试验基线数据进行二次数据分析:年龄在50至75岁之间的成年人(n = 11,164)在参与ECLS试验的过程中填写了一份基线问卷。问卷评估了吸烟行为、健康状况、健康焦虑和疾病认知。除了人口统计学特征外,还通过试验记录了解了参与者是如何知道这项研究的/参与者招募方法(全科医生招募/社区招募):结果:随着贫困程度的降低,通过社区招募的可能性也在增加。与通过全科医生招募参加试验的人相比,通过社区招募的人对罹患肺癌的个人控制感知水平更高,也更有可能了解自己罹患肺癌的风险。在多变量分析中,健康状况和健康焦虑并不能预测招募方式:结论:社区和机会性筛查邀请与贫困程度较低人群的接受率有关,因此可能不是接触肺癌高风险人群和贫困地区居民的最佳方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Medical Screening
Journal of Medical Screening 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
3.40%
发文量
40
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Medical Screening, a fully peer reviewed journal, is concerned with all aspects of medical screening, particularly the publication of research that advances screening theory and practice. The journal aims to increase awareness of the principles of screening (quantitative and statistical aspects), screening techniques and procedures and methodologies from all specialties. An essential subscription for physicians, clinicians and academics with an interest in screening, epidemiology and public health.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信