Search

Abstract Objective Patient reported experience measures (PREMs) are common tools utilised in hospitals to support quality improvements, allow consumers to provide feedback on care experiences and can be used to support consumers’ hospital selections. This study aimed to understand the views and opinions of private hospital staff on PREM use and the utility of PREMs as a consumer decision-making tool. Method Qualitative, semi-structured interview study conducted via telephone between March-June 2023. Participants (n = 10) were recruited from major private healthcare providers in Australia with half representing hospital-based staff and the other half corporate head office staff who work in patient experience and quality. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analysed thematically. Results PREM benefits included an understanding of patient experience that improved provision of patient centred care with feedback acting as catalyst for change, to corporate-level strategic initiatives that address specific issues. Drawbacks of PREM reporting included concerns around skewed results by biased respondents, and completion based on hard to alter items (e.g., infrastructure) or on matters outside of hospital control (e.g., insurance). Staff had mixed reactions to consumers using PREMs results when selecting a hospital, some advocated for transparency while others feared consumers would misinterpret the data. Conclusions Improved real-time reporting of PREMs, learning from other industries about recording customer experience, and mandatory reporting by private hospitals could further the benefits of PREM measurement in private healthcare. Recognised was the need for PREMs to be displayed in a readily understood way so those with limited health literacy can correctly interpret.

Abstract Objectives Patient reported experience measures (PREMs) are tools often utilised in hospitals to support quality improvements and to provide objective feedback on care experiences. Less commonly PREMs can be used to support consumers choices in their hospital care. Little is known about the experience and views of the Australian consumer regarding PREMs nor the considerations these consumers have when they need to make decisions about attending hospital. This study aimed to explore consumer awareness of PREMs, consumer attitudes towards PREMs and the utility of PREMs as a decision-making tool in accessing hospital care. Methods Qualitative study involving semi-structured interviews conducted over the phone. Participants (n = 40) were recruited from across Australia and purposively sampled according to key characteristics: holding private health insurance, > 30-years of age, may have accessed private hospital care in the past year, variety of educational and cultural backgrounds, and if urban or rural residing. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analysed thematically. Results Four overarching themes and six subthemes were identified from the data. Major findings were that prior awareness of PREMs was limited; however, many had filled in a PREM either for themselves or for someone they cared for following a hospital stay. Most respondents preferred to listen to experience of self or family/friends or the recommendation of their physician when choosing a hospital to attend. Participants appeared to be more interested in the treating clinician than the hospital with this clinician often dictating the hospital or hospital options. If provided choice in hospital, issues of additional costs, timeliness of treatment and location were important factors. Conclusion While PREMs were considered a possible tool to assist in hospital decision-making process, previous hospital experiences, the doctor and knowing up-front cost are an overriding consideration for consumers when choosing their hospital. Consideration to format and presentation of PREMs data is needed to facilitate understanding and allow meaningful comparisons. Future research could examine the considerations of those consumers who primarily access public healthcare facilities and how to improve the utility of PREMs.

Abstract Background Psychosocial impacts of lung cancer screening (LCS) can cause both harm to individuals and serve as barriers to screening participation and adherence. Early data suggest that the psychosocial impacts of LCS are moderated by certain factors (e.g. sociodemographic characteristics and beliefs), but evidence synthesis is lacking. This systematic review aimed to understand individual‐level risk factors for psychosocial burden during LCS as a precursor to developing strategies to identify and support participants, and improve LCS engagement. Methods Four databases were searched for full‐text articles published in English reporting any association between participant factors and psychosocial outcomes experienced during LCS. Study quality was assessed by two independent investigators; findings were synthesised narratively. The review was pre‐registered with PROSPERO and adhered to PRISMA guidelines. Results Thirty‐five articles were included; most (33/35) studies were assessed at high or moderate risk of bias. Study designs were pre‐post (n = 13), cross‐sectional (n = 13), qualitative (n = 8) and mixed‐methods (n = 1) and conducted primarily in the United States (n = 17). Psychological burden in LCS varied, and was often associated with younger age, female gender, current smoking status or increased smoking history, lower education, lower socio‐economic group, not being married or co‐habiting and experience with cancer. However, results were mixed, and non‐significant associations were also reported across all factors. Beliefs (e.g. fatalism, stigma and expectation of LDCT results) and comorbid psychological burden were also linked to psychosocial outcomes, but evidence was sparse. Associations between risk perception, other participant factors and other psychosocial outcomes was inconclusive, likely reflecting individual biases in risk conceptualisation. Conclusion(s) Several participant factors are consistently reported to be associated with psychosocial impacts of LCS, though study heterogeneity and high risk of bias necessitate more robust evaluation. Further research on how perceptions, beliefs and expectations can be used to improve psychosocial outcomes during LCS is needed.

Introduction Many types of prostate cancer present minimal risk to a man’s lifespan or well-being, but existing terminology makes it difficult for men to distinguish these from high-risk prostate cancers. This study aims to explore whether using an alternative label for low-risk prostate cancer influences management choice and anxiety levels among Australian men and their partners.Methods and analysis We will run two separate studies for Australian men and Australian women with a male partner. Both studies are between-subjects factorial (3×2) randomised online hypothetical experiments. Following consent, eligible participants will be randomised 1:1:1 to three labels: ‘low-risk prostate cancer, Gleason Group 1’, ‘low-risk prostate neoplasm’ or ‘low-risk prostate lesion’. Participants will then undergo a second randomisation step with 1:1 allocation to the provision of detailed information on the benefits and harms of different management choices versus the provision of less detailed information about management choices. The required sample sizes are 1290 men and 1410 women. The primary outcome is the participant choice of their preferred management strategy: no immediate treatment (prostate-specific antigen (PSA)-based monitoring or active surveillance using PSA, MRI, biopsy with delayed treatment for disease progression) versus immediate treatment (prostatectomy or radiation therapy). Secondary outcomes include preferred management choice (from the four options listed above), diagnosis anxiety, management choice anxiety and management choice at a later time point (for participants who initially choose a monitoring strategy).Ethics and dissemination Ethics approval has been received from The University of Sydney Human Research Ethics Committee (2023/572). The results of the study will be published in a peer-reviewed medical journal and a plain language summary of the findings will be shared on the Wiser Healthcare publications page http://www.wiserhealthcare.org.au/category/publications/Trial registration numbers Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ID 386701 and 386889).

BackgroundIn recent years, social media have emerged as important spaces for commercial marketing of health tests, which can be used for the screening and diagnosis of otherwise generally healthy people. However, little is known about how health tests are promoted on social media, whether the information provided is accurate and balanced, and if there is transparency around conflicts of interest. ObjectiveThis study aims to understand and quantify how social media is being used to discuss or promote health tests with the potential for overdiagnosis or overuse to generally healthy people. MethodsContent analysis of social media posts on the anti-Mullerian hormone test, whole-body magnetic resonance imaging scan, multicancer early detection, testosterone test, and gut microbe test from influential international social media accounts on Instagram and TikTok. The 5 tests have been identified as having the following criteria: (1) there are evidence-based concerns about overdiagnosis or overuse, (2) there is evidence or concerns that the results of tests do not lead to improved health outcomes for generally healthy people and may cause harm or waste, and (3) the tests are being promoted on social media to generally healthy people. English language text-only posts, images, infographics, articles, recorded videos including reels, and audio-only posts are included. Posts from accounts with

Objectives The study aims to investigate the perceptions of patients with thyroid cancer on the potential impact of diagnosis and treatment delays during the COVID-19 pandemic.Design This study involved qualitative semi-structured telephone interviews. The interviews were transcribed verbatim, analysed using the thematic framework analysis method and reported using the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research.Setting Participants in the study were treated and/or managed at hospital sites across New South Wales and Victoria, Australia.Participants 17 patients with thyroid cancer were interviewed and included in the analysis (14 females and 3 males).Results The delays experienced by patients ranged from 12 months. The patients reported about delays to diagnostic tests, delays to surgery and radioactive iodine treatment, perceived disease progression and, for some, the financial burden of choosing to go through private treatment to minimise the delay. Most patients also reported not wanting to experience delays any longer than they did, due to unease and anxiety.Conclusions This study highlights an increased psychological burden in patients with thyroid cancer who experienced delayed diagnosis and/or treatment during COVID-19. The impacts experienced by patients during this time may be similar in the case of other unexpected delays and highlight the need for regular clinical review during delays to diagnosis or treatment.

Background: Digital breast tomosynthesis (DBT) for breast cancer screening has been shown in international trials to increase cancer detection compared with mammography; however, results have varied across screening settings, and currently there is limited and conflicting evidence on interval cancer rates (a surrogate for screening effectiveness). Australian pilot data also indicated substantially longer screen-reading time for DBT posing a barrier for adoption. There is a critical need for evidence on DBT to inform its role in Australia, including evaluation of potentially more feasible models of implementation, and quantification of screening outcomes by breast density which has global relevance. Methods: This study is a prospective trial embedded in population-based Australian screening services (Maroondah BreastScreen, Eastern Health, Victoria) comparing hybrid screening comprising DBT (mediolateral oblique view) and digital mammography (cranio-caudal view) with standard mammography screening in a concurrent group attending another screening site. All eligible women aged ≥40 years attending the Maroondah service for routine screening will be enrolled (unless they do not provide verbal consent and opt-out of hybrid screening; are unable to provide consent; or where a ‘pushback’ image on hybrid DBT cannot be obtained). Each arm will enrol 20,000 women. The primary outcomes are cancer detection rate (per 1000 screens) and recall rate (percentage). Secondary outcomes include ‘opt-out’ rate; cohort characteristics; cancer characteristics; assessment outcomes; screen-reading time; and interval cancer rate at 24-month follow-up. Automated volumetric breast density will be measured to allow stratification of outcomes by mammographic density. Stratification by age and screening round will also be undertaken. An interim analysis will be undertaken after the first 5000 screens in the intervention group. Discussion: This is the first Australian prospective trial comparing hybrid DBT/mammography with standard mammography screening that is powered to show differences in cancer detection. Findings will inform future implementation of DBT in screening programs world-wide and provide evidence on whether DBT should be adopted in the broader BreastScreen program in Australia or in subgroups of screening participants. Trial registration: The trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ANZCTR, ACTRN12623001144606, https://www.anzctr.org.au/). Registration will be updated to reflect trial progress and protocol amendments.

Abstract Background Building health literacy about potentially modifiable risk factors for breast cancer may help to empower women to make more informed decisions about their breast health; however there has been limited qualitative research on this topic. This study aimed to explore current knowledge, understanding and experience of potentially modifiable risk factors for breast cancer, and views on current and future communication strategies for this information and related interventions. Methods Qualitative study using online focus groups via Zoom in October-November 2022. A diverse sample of women from the Australian community aged 40–74 years were recruited. Results Fifty-one women from a range of socioeconomic backgrounds took part in nine focus groups. General knowledge of risk factors for breast cancer in the community is limited, particularly in relation to modifiable factors such as alcohol consumption and postmenopausal obesity, with many women describing feelings of ‘shock’ following this information. Women overwhelming believed that information on modifiable risk factors for breast cancer should be communicated more widely, however communication preferences for receiving this information varied. There was a strong preference amongst the women for a cascade of information which they believed may then help target greater number of women of all ages and backgrounds. Despite worry about long-term compliance, women also supported various lifestyle interventions which may help them and other women to reduce their overall risk. Conclusions Findings from this study highlight the need for more widespread community communication and education about risk factors for breast, in particular potentially modifiable risk factors such as alcohol consumption and postmenopausal obesity. As breast screening programs in Australia and globally begin to evaluate the potential for risk-related screening this will provide an additional context for primary prevention, hence planning of messaging and piloting of lifestyle-related prevention strategies in breast cancer is needed now. Gaining an understanding of women’s preferences for communication and forms of interventions is vital to ensure their engagement.

Background: Breast cancer care has been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. This systematic review aims to describe the observed pandemic-related changes in clinical and health services outcomes for breast screening and diagnosis. Methods: Seven databases (January 2020–March 2021) were searched to identify studies of breast cancer screening or diagnosis that reported observed outcomes before and related to the pandemic. Findings were presented using a descriptive and narrative approach. Results: Seventy-four studies were included in this systematic review; all compared periods before and after (or fluctuations during) the pandemic. None were assessed as being at low risk of bias. A reduction in screening volumes during the pandemic was found with over half of studies reporting reductions of ≥49%. A majority (66%) of studies reported reductions of ≥25% in the number of breast cancer diagnoses, and there was a higher proportion of symptomatic than screen-detected cancers. The distribution of cancer stage at diagnosis during the pandemic showed lower proportions of early-stage (stage 0–1/I-II, or Tis and T1) and higher proportions of relatively more advanced cases than that in the pre-pandemic period, however population rates were generally not reported. Conclusions: Evidence of substantial reductions in screening volume and number of diagnosed breast cancers, and higher proportions of advanced stage cancer at diagnosis were found during the pandemic. However, these findings reflect short term outcomes, and higher-quality research examining the long-term impact of the pandemic is needed.

Background: Breast density has become a topic of international discussion due to its associated risk of breast cancer. As online is often a primary source of women's health information it is therefore essential that breast density information it is understandable, accurate and reflects the best available evidence. This study aimed to systematically assess online international breast density information including recommendations to women. Methods: Searches were conducted from five different English-speaking country-specific Google locations. Relevant breast density information was extracted from the identified websites. Readability was assessed using the SHeLL Editor, and understandability and actionability using the Patient Education Materials Assessment Tool (PEMAT). A content analysis of specific recommendations to women was also conducted. Results: Forty-two eligible websites were identified and systematically assessed. The included informational content varied across websites. The average grade reading level across all websites was 12.4 (range 8.9–15.4). The mean understandability was 69.9% and the mean actionability was 40.1%, with 18/42 and 39/42 websites respectively scoring lower than adequate (70%). Thirty-six (85.7%) of the websites had breast density-related recommendation to women, with ‘talk to your doctor’ (n = 33, 78.6%) the most common. Conclusions: Online information about breast density varies widely and is not generally presented in a way that women can easily understand and act on, therefore greatly reducing the ability for informed decision-making. International organisations and groups disseminating breast density information need to ensure that women are presented with health literacy-sensitive and balanced information, and be aware of the impact that recommendations may have on practice.

BackgroundPolymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing for COVID-19 was crucial in Australia’s prevention strategy in the first 2 years of the pandemic, including required testing for symptoms, contact with cases, travel, and certain professions. However, several months into the pandemic, half of Australians were still not getting tested for respiratory symptoms, and little was known about the drivers of and barriers to COVID-19 PCR testing as a novel behavior at that time. ObjectiveWe aimed to identify and address COVID-19 testing barriers, and test the effectiveness of multiple eHealth interventions on knowledge for people with varying health literacy levels. MethodsThe intervention was developed in 4 phases. Phase 1 was a national survey conducted in June 2020 (n=1369), in which testing barriers were coded using the capability-opportunity-motivation-behavior framework. Phase 2 was a national survey conducted in November 2020 (n=2034) to estimate the prevalence of testing barriers and health literacy disparities. Phase 3 was a randomized experiment testing health literacy–sensitive written information for a wide range of barriers between February and March 2021 (n=1314), in which participants chose their top 3 barriers to testing to view a tailored intervention. Phase 4 was a randomized experiment testing 2 audio-visual interventions addressing common testing barriers for people with lower health literacy in November 2021, targeting young adults as a key group endorsing misinformation (n=1527). ResultsIn phase 1, barriers were identified in all 3 categories: capability (eg, understanding which symptoms to test for), opportunity (eg, not being able to access a PCR test), and motivation (eg, not believing the symptoms are those of COVID-19). Phase 2 identified knowledge gaps for people with lower versus higher health literacy. Phase 3 found no differences between the intervention (health literacy–sensitive text for top 3 barriers) and control groups. Phase 4 showed that a fact-based animation or a TikTok-style video presenting the same facts in a humorous style increased knowledge about COVID-19 testing compared with government information. However, no differences were found for COVID-19 testing intentions. ConclusionsThis study identified a wide range of barriers to a novel testing behavior, PCR testing for COVID-19. These barriers were prevalent even in a health system where COVID-19 testing was free and widely available. We showed that key capability barriers, such as knowledge gaps, can be improved with simple videos targeting people with lower health literacy. Additional behavior change strategies are required to address motivational issues to support testing uptake. Future research will explore health literacy strategies in the current context of self-administered rapid antigen tests. The findings may inform planning for future COVID-19 variant outbreaks and new public health emergencies where novel testing behaviors are required. Trial RegistrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12621000876897, https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=382318 ; Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12620001355965, https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=380916&isReview=true

Background: Ductal carcinoma in situ (DCIS) is an in-situ (pre-cancerous) breast malignancy whereby malignant cells are contained within the basement membrane of the breast ducts. Increasing awareness that some low-risk forms of DCIS might remain indolent for many years has led to concern about overtreatment, with at least 3 clinical trials underway internationally assessing the safety of active monitoring for low-risk DCIS. This study aimed to understand healthcare professionals’ (HCPs) views on the management options for patients with DCIS. Methods: Qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with HCPs involved in the diagnosis and management of DCIS in Australia and New Zealand. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and analysed thematically using Framework Analysis method. Results: Twenty-six HCPs including 10 breast surgeons, 3 breast physicians, 6 radiation oncologists, and 7 breast care nurses participated. There was a strong overall consensus that DCIS requires active treatment. HCPs generally felt uncomfortable recommending active monitoring as a management option for low-risk DCIS as they viewed this as outside current standard care. Overall, HCPs felt that active monitoring was an unproven strategy in need of an evidence base; however, many acknowledged that active monitoring for low-risk DCIS could be appropriate for patients with significant co-morbidities or limited life expectancy. They believed that most patients would opt for surgery wherever possible. Conclusions: This study highlights the important need for robust randomised controlled trial data about active monitoring for women with low-risk DCIS, to provide HCPs with confidence in their management recommendations and decision-making.

Background: The Anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) test is promoted to women as a way to find out how long they have left to have children. However, data consistently show the test is a poor predictor of natural fertility potential for an individual woman. As fertility clinic websites are often a primary source of information for reproductive information, it is essential the information provided is accurate and reflects the available evidence. Aim: To systematically record and categorise information about the AMH test found on Australian and New Zealand fertility clinic websites. Method: Data were extracted from accredited Australian and New Zealand fertility clinic websites between April and June 2020. Any webpage that mentioned the AMH test, including blogs specifically about the AMH test posted since 2015, were analysed and the content categorised. Results: 25 clinic websites included information about the AMH test. The available information embodied four overarching categories; 1) the utility of the AMH test, 2) who the test is suitable for, 3) possible actions in response to the test, and 4) caveats and limitations of the test. Eight specific statements about the utility of the test were identified, many of which are not supported by evidence (e.g. “a good snapshot of current fertility”). Whilst some websites were transparent regarding the test’s limitations, others mentioned no caveats or included persuasive statements actively promoting the test as empowering for a range of women in different circumstances (e.g. “women who would like to conceive in the future”). Conclusion: The quality of information about the AMH test varied considerably. Several websites had statements about the AMH test that are not supported by evidence. This highlights the need for higher standards for information provided on fertility clinic websites to prevent women being misled to believe the test can reliably predict their current or future fertility.

Objectives To understand general practitioners’ (GPs’) awareness and knowledge of mammographic breast density (BD) and their perspectives around information and potential notification of BD for women.Design Qualitative study using semistructured telephone interviews. Interviews were audiorecorded, transcribed and analysed using framework analysis.Setting Australia.Participants Australian GPs (n=30).Results GPs had limited knowledge of BD and little experience discussing BD with women. There were mixed views on notification of BD with some GPs believing this information would help informed decision making about breast health and that women have the right to know any information about their bodies. While others were concerned about causing unnecessary anxiety and were worried about the uncertainty about what to advise women to do with this information, particularly in relation to supplemental breast screening. The need for an equitable system where all women are either notified or not, and also provided with publicly funded supplemental screening was raised by GPs. Overall, there was high interest in education, training and support around the topic of BD.Conclusions Australian GPs require education, support and evidence-based guidelines to have discussions with women with dense breasts and help manage their risk, especially if widespread notification is to be introduced in population-based screening programmes.

Objectives The anti-Mullerian hormone (AMH) test has been promoted as a way to inform women about their future fertility. However, data consistently show the test is a poor predictor of natural fertility potential for an individual woman. As fertility centre websites are often a primary source of information for reproductive information, it is essential the information provided is accurate and reflects the available evidence. We aimed to systematically record and categorise information about the AMH test found on Australian and New Zealand fertility clinic websites.Design Content analysis of online written information about the AMH test on fertility clinic websites.Setting Accredited Australian and New Zealand fertility clinic websites.Methods Data were extracted between April and June 2020. Any webpage that mentioned the AMH test, including blogs specifically about the AMH test posted since 2015, was analysed and the content categorised.Results Of the 39 active accredited fertility clinics’ websites, 25 included information about the AMH test. The amount of information varied widely, and embodied four overarching categories; (1) the utility of the AMH test, (2) who the test is suitable for, (3) possible actions in response to the test and (4) caveats and limitations of the test. Eight specific statements about the utility of the test were identified, many of which are not evidence-based. While some websites were transparent regarding the test’s limitations, others mentioned no caveats or included persuasive statements actively promoting the test as empowering for a range of women in different circumstances.Conclusions Several websites had statements about the utility of the AMH test that are not supported by the evidence. This highlights the need for higher standards for information provided on fertility clinic websites to prevent women being misled to believe the test can reliably predict their fertility.

Objective Promotional media coverage of early detection tests is an important driver of overdiagnosis. Following research evidence that global media coverage presents the benefits of testing healthy people far more frequently than harms, and gives little coverage to overdiagnosis, we sought to examine journalists’ views on media reporting of tests, overdiagnosis, and strategies to improve critical reporting on tests.Design Qualitative study using semistructured telephone interviews. Interviews were conducted between February and March 2020 and were audiorecorded and transcribed verbatim. Framework thematic analysis was used to analyse the data.Participants and setting Twenty-two journalists (mainly specialising in health reporting, average 14.5 years’ experience) based in Australia.Results This sample of journalists acknowledged the potential harms of medical tests but felt that knowledge of harms was low among journalists and the public at large. Most were aware of the term overdiagnosis, but commonly felt that it is challenging to both understand and communicate in light of strong beliefs in the benefits of early detection. Journalists felt that newsworthiness in the form of major public health impact was the key ingredient for stories about medical tests. The journalists acknowledged that factors, like the press release and ‘click bait culture’ in particular, can influence the framing of coverage about tests. Lack of knowledge and training, as well as time pressures, were perceived to be the main barriers to critical reporting on tests. Journalists felt that training and better access to information about potential harms would enable more critical reporting.Conclusions Effectively communicating overdiagnosis is a challenge in light of common beliefs about the benefits of testing and the culture of current journalism practices. Providing journalists with training, support and better access to information about potential harms of tests could aid critical reporting of tests.

BackgroundIn Australia in March 2020 a national public health directive required that non-essential workers stay at home, except for essential activities. These restrictions began easing in May 2020 as community transmission slowed.ObjectivesThis study investigated changes in COVID prevention behaviours from April-July 2020, and psychosocial predictors of these behaviours.MethodsAn Australia-wide (national) survey was conducted in April, with monthly follow-up over four months. Participants who were adults (18+ years), currently residing in Australia and who could read and understand English were eligible. Recruitment was via online social media. Analysis sample included those who provided responses to the baseline survey (April) and at least one subsequent follow-up survey (N = 1834 out of a possible 3216 who completed the April survey). 71.7% of the sample was female (n = 1,322). Principal components analysis (PCA) combined self-reported adherence across seven prevention behaviours. PCA identified two behaviour types: 'distancing' (e.g. staying 1.5m away) and 'hygiene' (e.g. washing hands), explaining 28.3% and 24.2% of variance, respectively. Distancing and hygiene behaviours were analysed individually using multivariable regression models.ResultsOn average, participants agreed with statements of adherence for all behaviours (means all above 4 out of 7). Distancing behaviours declined each month (p's < .001), whereas hygiene behaviours remained relatively stable. For distancing, stronger perceptions of societal risk, self-efficacy to maintain distancing, and greater perceived social obligation at baseline were associated with adherence in June and July (p'sConclusionHigh adherence to COVID prevention behaviours were reported in this social media sample; however, distancing behaviours tended to decrease over time. Belief in social responsibility may be an important aspect to consider in encouraging distancing behaviours. These findings have implications for managing a shift from government-imposed restrictions to individual responsibility.

Objectives: To explore the variation in understanding of, attitudes towards, and uptake of, health advice on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) during the 2020 pandemic stage 3 restrictions (‘lockdown’) by health literacy in the Australian population. Study design: National cross-sectional community survey. Setting: Australian general public. Participants: Adults aged over 18 years (N = 4362). Main outcome measures: Knowledge, attitudes and behaviours related to COVID-19; health literacy and sociodemographic factors. Results: People with inadequate health literacy had poorer understanding of COVID-19 symptoms (49% vs 68%; p < 0.001), were less able to identify behaviours to prevent infection (59% vs 72%; p < 0.001), and experienced more difficulty finding information and understanding government messaging about COVID-19 than people with adequate health literacy. People with inadequate health literacy were less likely to rate social distancing as important (6.1 vs 6.5; p < 0.001) and reported more difficulty with remembering and accessing medicines since lockdown (3.6 vs 2.7; p < 0.001). People with lower health literacy were also more likely to endorse misinformed beliefs about COVID-19 and vaccinations (in general) than those with adequate health literacy. The same pattern of results was observed among people who primarily speak a language other than English at home. Conclusion: Our findings show that there are important disparities in COVID-19–related knowledge, attitudes and behaviours according to people’s health literacy and language. These have the potential to undermine efforts to reduce viral transmission and may lead to social inequalities in health outcomes in Australia. People with the greatest burden of chronic disease are most disadvantaged, and are also most likely to experience severe disease and die from COVID-19. Addressing the health literacy, language and cultural needs of the community in public health messaging about COVID-19 must now be a priority in Australia.

In December 2017, the Australian National Cervical Screening Program (NCSP) changed from 2-yearly cervical cytology to 5-yearly primary human papillomavirus (HPV) testing, starting at age 25 and with an exit test when aged 70–74. Women showed limited awareness of these changes prior to their implementation. We explored women’s preferences for how similar cancer screening changes could be communicated to the public in the future, including when, how, and using what methods. Six focus groups including 49 women aged 18–74 were conducted in November 2017. Focus groups were guided by information available on the NCSP website and information developed by the researchers. Generally, women suggested that communication of changes to cancer screening programs would ideally occur between 6 and 12 months ahead of their implementation and that they would like the opportunity to be involved in consultation about the changes. The NCSP website was described as answering basic questions, but also raising further questions for which there were no answers provided. Most groups preferred information which included evidence behind the changes and wanted an option of more information. Similar suggestions were made across all focus groups about how communications could be delivered, with recognition that the mode of delivery should differ by age. Women were still seeking information about the test itself and a symptom list, in order to be aware of these over the five-year period. These findings make an important and timely contribution which could help inform other countries considering making changes to their cancer screening programs in the future.

N/A

Objectives The use of more medicalised labels can increase both concern about illness and the desire for more invasive treatment. This study analyses the media’s coverage of an Analysis article in The BMJ which generated a large amount of high-profile international media coverage. It aims to understand how to better communicate messages about low-risk cancers and overdiagnosis to the public.Design Content analysis of media coverage.Setting Media was identified by Isentia Media Portal, searched in Google News and cross-checked in Factiva and Proquest databases from August 2018.Methods Media headlines, full text and open access public comments responding to the coverage on the article proposing to ‘rename low-risk conditions currently labelled as cancer’ were analysed to determine the main themes.Results 45 original media articles and their associated public comments (n=167) were identified and included in the analysis. Overall, headlines focused on cancer generally and there was little mention of ‘low-risk’, ‘overdiagnosis’ or ‘overtreatment’. The full text generally presented a more balanced view of the evidence and were supportive of the proposal, however, public responses tended to be more negative towards the idea of renaming low-risk cancers and indicated confusion. Comments seemed to focus on the headlines rather than the full article.Conclusions This study offers a novel insight into media coverage of the complex and counterintuitive problem of overdiagnosis. Continued deliberation on how to communicate similar topics to the public through the mainstream media is needed. Future work in the area of low-risk cancer communication should consider the powerful impact of people’s previous experience with a cancer diagnosis and the criticism about being paternalistic and concealing the truth from patients.

Abstract Background In recent years management practices in relation to low-risk papillary microcarcinoma (PMC) have been evolving with increased awareness of the potential overdiagnosis and overtreatment of PMCs, and guidelines recommendations for non-surgical management options such as active surveillance. This study aimed to develop an in-depth understanding of patients’ experiences of the communication of their PMC diagnosis, their treatment preferences and decision making. Methods Semi-structured qualitative interviews with 25 patients diagnosed pre-operatively with PMC

Direct international comparisons which aim to understand how factors associated with human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine initiation and attitudes towards the HPV vaccination in parents differ are scarce. Parents (n=179) of daughters aged 9–17years in the US, UK and Australia completed an online survey in 2011 with questions measuring daughters' HPV vaccination status, HPV knowledge, HPV vaccination knowledge, and statements assessing attitude towards the HPV vaccine. The strongest factor associated with vaccination status across all countries was parental HPV knowledge (p

Despite evidence about the "modern epidemic" of overdiagnosis, and expanding disease definitions that medicalize more people, data are lacking on public views about these issues. Our objective was to measure public perceptions about overdiagnosis and views about financial ties of panels setting disease definitions.We conducted a 15 minute Computer Assisted Telephone Interview with a randomly selected community sample of 500 Australians in January 2014. We iteratively developed and piloted a questionnaire, with a convenience sample (n=20), then with participants recruited by a research company (n=20). Questions included whether respondents had been informed about overdiagnosis; opinions on informing people; and views about financial ties among panels writing disease definitions.Our sample was generally representative, but included a higher proportion of females and seniors, typical of similar surveys. American Association for Public Opinion Research response rate was 20% and cooperation rate was 44%. Only 10% (95% CI 8%-13%) of people reported ever being told about overdiagnosis by a doctor. 18% (95% CI 11%-28%) of men who reported having prostate cancer screening, and 10% (95% CI 6%-15%) of women who reported having mammography said they were told about overdiagnosis. 93% (95% CI 90%-95%) agreed along with screening benefits, people should be informed about overdiagnosis. On panels setting disease definitions, 78% (95% CI 74%-82%) felt ties to pharmaceutical companies inappropriate, and 91% (95% CI 82%-100%) believed panels should have a minority or no members with ties. Limitations included questionnaire novelty and complexity.A small minority of Australians surveyed, including those reporting being screened for prostate or breast cancer, reported being informed of overdiagnosis; most believed people should be informed; and a majority felt it inappropriate that doctors with ties to pharmaceutical companies write disease definitions. Results suggest strategies to better inform people about overdiagnosis, and review disease definition processes, have significant public sympathy.