Influencing cancer screening participation rates - providing a combined cancer screening program (a 'One Stop' shop) could be a potential answer

Abstract

Introduction: Participation in established cancer screening programs remains variable. Therefore, a renewed focus on how to increase screening uptake, including addressing structural barriers such as time, travel, and cost is needed. One approach could be the provision of combined cancer screening, where multiple screening tests are provided at the same time and location (essentially a 'One Stop' screening shop). This cohort study explored both cancer screening behavior and the acceptability of a combined screening approach. Methods: Participants of the North Western Adelaide Health Study (NWAHS), South Australia were invited to participate in a questionnaire about cancer screening behaviors and the acceptability of a proposed 'One Stop' cancer screening shop. Data were collected from 10th August 2015 to 18th January 2016, weighted for selection probability, age, and sex and analyzed using descriptive and multivariable logistic regression analysis. Results: 1,562 people, 52% female (mean age 54.1 years ± 15.2) participated. Reported screening participation was low, the highest being for Pap Smear (34.4%). Common reasons for screening participation were preventing sickness (56.1%, CI 53.2-59.0%), maintaining health (51%, CI 48-53.9%), and free program provision (30.9%, CI 28.2-33.6%). Females were less likely to state that screening is not beneficial [OR 0.37 (CI 0.21-0.66), p < 0.001] and to cite sickness prevention [OR 2.10 (CI 1.46-3.00), p < 0.001] and free program [OR 1.75 (CI 1.22-2.51), p < 0.003] as reasons for screening participation. Of those who did not participate, 34.6% (CI 30.3-39.1%) stated that there was nothing that discouraged them from participation, with 55- to 64-year olds [OR 0.24 (CI 0.07-0.74), p < 0.04] being less likely to cite this reason. 21% (CI 17.2-24.8%) thought they did not need screening, while a smaller proportion stated not having time (6.9%, CI 4.9-9.7%) and the costs associated with screening (5.2%, CI 3.5-7.7%). The majority of participants (85.3%, CI 81.9-88.2%) supported multiple screening being offered at the same time and location. Conclusion: Identified screening behaviors in this study are similar to those reported in the literature. The high support for the concept of combined cancer screening demonstrates that this type of approach is acceptable to potential end users and warrants further investigation.