METHODS: We conducted an overview of cancer screening in the region with the goal of summarizing current designs of cancer screening programs. First, a selective narrative literature review was used as an exploration to identify countries with organized screening programs. Second, representatives of each country with an organized program were approached and asked to provide relevant information on the organizations of their national or regional cancer screening program.
RESULTS: There was wide variation in the screening strategies offered in the considered region with only eight programs identified as having an organized design. The majority of these programs did not meet all the essential criteria for being organized screening. The greatest variation was observed in the starting and stopping ages.
CONCLUSIONS: Essential criteria of organized screening are missed. Improving organization is crucial to ensure that the beneficial effects of screening are achieved in the long-term. It is strongly recommended to consider a regional cancer screening network.
METHODS: We collected data from 7954 asymptomatic subjects (age, 50-75 y) who received screening colonoscopy examinations at 14 sites in Asia. We randomly assigned 5303 subjects to the derivation cohort and the remaining 2651 to the validation cohort. We collected data from the derivation cohort on age, sex, family history of colorectal cancer, smoking, drinking, body mass index, medical conditions, and use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or aspirin. Associations between the colonoscopic findings of APN and each risk factor were examined using the Pearson χ2 test, and we assigned each participant a risk score (0-15), with scores of 0 to 3 as average risk and scores of 4 or higher as high risk. The scoring system was tested in the validation cohort. We used the Cochran-Armitage test of trend to compare the prevalence of APN among subjects in each group.
RESULTS: In the validation cohort, 79.5% of patients were classified as average risk and 20.5% were classified as high risk. The prevalence of APN in the average-risk group was 1.9% and in the high-risk group was 9.4% (adjusted relative risk, 5.08; 95% CI, 3.38-7.62; P < .001). The score included age (61-70 y, 3; ≥70 y, 4), smoking habits (current/past, 2), family history of colorectal cancer (present in a first-degree relative, 2), and the presence of neoplasia in the distal colorectum (nonadvanced adenoma 5-9 mm, 2; advanced neoplasia, 7). The c-statistic of the score was 0.74 (95% CI, 0.68-0.79), and for distal findings alone was 0.67 (95% CI, 0.60-0.74). The Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test statistic was greater than 0.05, indicating the reliability of the validation set. The number needed to refer was 11 (95% CI, 10-13), and the number needed to screen was 15 (95% CI, 12-17).
CONCLUSIONS: We developed and validated a scoring system to identify persons at risk for APN. Screening participants who undergo flexible sigmoidoscopy screening with a score of 4 points or higher should undergo colonoscopy evaluation.
METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The implementation research logic model guided the development of the study and implementation outcome measures were informed by the 'Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance' (RE-AIM) framework. This CRC screening intervention for Malaysia uses home-testing and digital, small media, communication to improve CRC screening uptake. A sample of 780 people aged 50-75 years living in Segamat district, Malaysia, will be selected randomly from the South East Asia Community Observatory (SEACO) database. Participants will receive a screening pack as well as a WhatsApp video of a local doctor to undertake a stool test safely and to send a photo of the test result to a confidential mobile number. SEACO staff will inform participants of their result. Quantitative data about follow-up clinic attendance, subsequent hospital tests and outcomes will be collected. Logistic regression will be used to investigate variables that influence screening completion and we will conduct a budget impact-analysis of the intervention and its implementation. Qualitative data about intervention implementation from the perspective of participants and stakeholders will be analysed thematically.
ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval has been granted by Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee (MUHREC ID: 29107) and the Medical Review and Ethics Committee (Reference: 21-02045-O7G(2)). Results will be disseminated through publications, conferences and community engagement activities.
TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: National Medical Research Register Malaysia: 21-02045-O7G(2).
METHODS: Individual semi-structured interviews with 22 people (health professionals, cancer survivors, community volunteers and member from a non-governmental organization) and four focus group discussions (n = 22 participants) with women from a local community were conducted. All participants were purposively sampled and female residents registered with the South East Asia Community Observatory aged ≥40 years were eligible to participate in the focus group discussions. Data were transcribed verbatim and analyzed using thematic analysis.
RESULTS: The thematic analysis illuminated barriers, challenges and opportunities across six domains: (i) personal experiences and barriers to help-seeking as well as financial and travel access barriers; (ii) primary care challenges (related to delivering clinical breast examination and teaching breast-self-examination); (iii) secondary care challenges (related to mammogram services); (iv) disconnection between secondary and primary care breast cancer screening pathways; and (v) opportunities to improve breast cancer early detection relating to community civil service society activities (i.e. awareness raising, support groups, addressing stigma/embarrassment and encouraging husbands to support women) and vi) links between public healthcare personnel and community (i.e. improving breast self-examination education, clinical breast examination provision and subsidised mammograms).
CONCLUSION: The results point to a variety of reasons for low uptake and, therefore, to the complex nature of improving breast cancer screening and early detection. There is a need to adopt a systems approach to address this complexity and to take account of the socio-cultural context of communities in order, in turn, to strengthen cancer control policy and practices in Malaysia.
METHODS: A nationwide cross-sectional study was conducted in which a total of 813 women (aged ≥ 40 years old) were randomly selected and surveyed using the validated Awareness and Beliefs about Cancer (ABC) measure. The association between BC screening use, sociodemographic characteristics, and negative beliefs about BC screening were analysed using stepwise Poisson regressions.
RESULTS: Seven out of ten Malaysian women believed that BC screening was necessary only when experiencing cancer symptoms. Women > 50 years and from households with more than one car or motorcycle were 1.6 times more likely to attend a mammogram or a clinical breast examination (mammogram: Prevalence Ratio (PR) = 1.60, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) = 1.19-2.14, Clinical Breast Examination (CBE): PR = 1.61, 95% CI = 1.29-1.99). About 23% of women expected to feel anxious about attending BC screening, leading them to avoid the procedure. Women who held negative beliefs about BC screening were 37% less likely to attend a mammogram (PR = 0.63, 95% CI = 0.42-0.94) and 24% less likely to seek a CBE (PR = 0.75, 95% CI = 0.60-0.95).
CONCLUSIONS: Public health strategies or behaviour interventions targeting negative beliefs about BC screening among Malaysian women may increase uptake and reduce late presentation and advanced-stage cancer. Insights from the study suggest that women under 50 years, in the lower income group without a car or motorcycle ownership, and of Malay or Indian ethnicity (compared to Chinese-Malay) are more likely to hold beliefs inhibiting BC screening.
OBJECTIVE: We conducted a scoping review to identify the types of interventions targeting PFH-CRC, their effectiveness in increasing CRC screening uptake, and the elements associated with the outcomes.
METHODS: The Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping review was followed. The search for eligible articles was conducted from the inception of each database until 17 July 2024 in PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane, PsycINFO and Web of Science with no restrictions on language.
RESULTS: Thirty studies from 1995 to 2023 across 13 countries were included; mostly from high-income countries. There was considerable variability in study design, intervention characteristics, and screening outcomes. Eleven studies used theoretical frameworks in intervention development. Fourteen studies reported statistically significant increases in screening uptake among PFH-CRC, most using complex, multiple-component interventions. Tailored print materials and patient navigation more consistently demonstrated increased screening uptake, while counselling yielded mixed results.
CONCLUSION: Interventions for promoting CRC screening uptake in PFH-CRC commonly incorporate print material, patient navigation and counselling, often combined into complex interventions. Future research should include more implementation studies to translate these interventions into real-world settings. Additionally, there are gaps in research from low- and middle-income countries, highlighting the need for further research in these resource-limited settings.
METHODS: Following the PRISMA guidelines, literature searches were conducted systematically through various databases including PubMed, Science Direct, Scopus, Cochrane Library and Oxford Academic Journals. Article identification, screening steps and eligibility measures were meticulously performed throughout the review.
RESULTS: A total of 22 papers were appraised and included in this review. Five main themes were generated which were socio-ethical misconceptions, cultural and religious beliefs, cultural and religious barriers, stigmatization and fear of breast cancer impact. Eight sub-themes and 14 sub sub-themes were further elicited from the main themes.
CONCLUSION: Muslim women have socio-ethical, cultural and religious misconceptions on what constitutes health and practices as well as on the nature and etiology of BC. Cultural barriers and religious values of Muslim women were indicated to influence their health behaviors such as upholding their modesty when choosing health interventions. BC stigma and fear were also found to be key sources of psychological distress that discouraged Muslim women from undergoing BC screening. The study suggests the implementation of holistic effort in educating Muslim women to increase BC screening rate.