Search

Your search keyword '"Robb, Katie"' showing total 21 results
Start Over Author "Robb, Katie"
21 results on '"Robb, Katie"'

1. 162 The LungScot study: overview of findings from a feasibility and acceptability of lung screening in Scotland

Author

Cavers, Debbie, primary, van Beek, Edwin, additional, Akram, Ahsan R, additional, Dickie, Graeme, additional, Campbell, Christine, additional, Robb, Katie A, additional, Sullivan, Frank, additional, Mackean, Melanie, additional, Neilson, Aileen, additional, Steele, Robert C, additional, Brown, Lynsey, additional, and Weller, David, additional

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

2. Population-based cancer incidence and mortality rates and ratios among adults with intellectual disabilities in Scotland

Author

Ward, Laura McKernan, primary, Cooper, Sally-Ann, additional, Sosenko, Filip, additional, Morrison, David, additional, Fleming, Mike, additional, McCowan, Colin, additional, Robb, Katie, additional, Hanna, Catherine, additional, Hughes-McCormack, Laura, additional, Dunn, Kirsty, additional, Conway, David, additional, Henderson, Angela, additional, Smith, Gill, additional, Truesdale, Maria, additional, and Cairns, Deborah, additional

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

9. What are common barriers and helpful solutions to colorectal cancer screening? A cross-sectional survey to develop intervention content for a planning support tool

Author

Kotzur, Marie, MacDonald, Sara, O'Carroll, Ronan E., O'Connor, Rory C., Irvine, Audrey, Steele, Robert J. C., and Robb, Katie A.

Subjects
General Medicine
Abstract

ObjectiveColorectal screening using faecal immunochemical tests (FITs) can save lives if the people invited participate. In Scotland, most people intend to complete a FIT but this is not reflected in uptake rates. Planning interventions can bridge this intention-behaviour gap. To develop a tool supporting people willing to do colorectal screening with planning to complete a FIT, this study aimed to identify frequently experienced barriers and solutions to these barriers.DesignThis is a cross-sectional study.SettingParticipants were recruited through the Scottish Bowel Screening Programme to complete a mailed questionnaire.ParticipantsThe study included 2387 participants who had completed a FIT (mean age 65 years, 40% female) and 359 participants who had not completed a FIT but were inclined to do so (mean age 63 years, 39% female).Outcome measuresThe questionnaire assessed frequency of endorsement of colorectal screening barriers and solutions.ResultsParticipants who had not completed a FIT endorsed significantly more barriers than those who had completed a FIT, when demographic, health and behavioural covariates were held constant (F(1,2053)=13.40, p2=0.01). Participants who completed a FIT endorsed significantly more solutions than those who did not (U=301 585.50, z=−3.21, pConclusionThis survey identified six barriers and seven solutions as key content to include in the development of a planning tool for colorectal screening using the FIT. Participatory research is required to codesign an engaging and accessible planning tool.

Published
2022

17. SymposiaSymposium: Maximising engagement with and impact of digital health behaviour change interventions1. Measuring engagement in eHealth and mHealth behaviour change interventions: viewpoint of methodologies2. The development of Wrapped: Lessons learnt about the benefits of stakeholder involvement and the challenges of implementation3. Balancing stakeholder involvement with theory, evidence and design in the development of a family weight management app4. Increasing stop smoking service access: Harnessing commissioning and service infrastructure in the development of stopappTMSymposium: Understanding inequalities in access to, engagement with and experience of cancer screening1. Impact of long-term disorders on cancer screening behaviour: A mixed methods approach2. Engagement barriers and service inequities in the NHS Breast Screening Programme: Views from British-Pakistani women3. How do women experience a false positive test result from breast screening? A systematic review and thematic synthesis4. Exploring the acceptability of creating lay-health worker interventions for cancer early diagnosisSymposium: The human behaviour-change project: harnessing AI for evidence synthesis and interpretation1. Revolutionising evidence synthesis and use: The human behaviour-change project2. Ontologies of behaviour change interventions: What, why and how?3. Specifying modes of delivery of behavioural interventions: an ontological approach4. The development of ontologies to specify population and setting in behavioural interventions.

Author

Brown, Katherine, primary, Crutzen, Rik, primary, Newby, Katie, primary, Curtis, Kristina, primary, Fulton, Emmie, primary, Long, Hannah, primary, Robb, Katie, primary, Woof, Victoria, primary, McWilliams, Lorna, primary, Michie, Susan, primary, Johnston, Marie, primary, Moore, Candice, primary, Zink, Silje, primary, Crutzen, Rik, additional, Newby, Katie, additional, Fulton, Emmie, additional, Curtis, Kristina, additional, Short, Camille, additional, Brown, Katherine, additional, Kwah, Kayleigh, additional, McWilliams, Lorna, additional, Woof, Victoria, additional, Robb, Katie, additional, Kotzur, Marie, additional, Papworth, Richard, additional, McSkimming, Paula, additional, Campbell, Christine, additional, Crighton, Emilia, additional, Macdonald, Sara, additional, Steele, Robert, additional, Weller, David, additional, Wyke, Sally, additional, McCowan, Colin, additional, Donnelly, Louise S., additional, Ruane, Helen, additional, French, David P., additional, Evans, Gareth R., additional, Qureshi, Nadeem, additional, Ulph, Fiona, additional, Brooks, Joanna, additional, Harvie, Michelle, additional, Maxwell, Anthony, additional, Bellhouse, Sarah, additional, Yorke, Janelle, additional, Heaven, Catherine, additional, Cowan, Richard, additional, Thomas, James, additional, Johnston, Marie, additional, Aonghusa, Pol Mac, additional, Shawe-Taylor, John, additional, Kelly, Michael P., additional, Moore, Candice, additional, Zink, Silje, additional, West, Robert, additional, Aonghusa, Pól Mac, additional, Wright, Alison J., additional, Finnerty, Ailbhe N., additional, Norris, Emma, additional, Marques, Marta M., additional, Hastings, Janna, additional, Michie, Susan, additional, Carey, Rachel, additional, and Atha, Kirsty, additional

Published
2019
Full Text
View/download PDF

18. Screening Women in Glasgow: Comparing uptake across cancer screening programmes at an individual patient level

Author

Papworth, Richard, primary, McCowan, Colin, additional, McSkimming, Paula, additional, Kotzur, Marie, additional, McConnachie, Alex, additional, MacDonald, Sara, additional, Wyke, Sally, additional, Crighton, Emilia, additional, Weller, David, additional, Campbell, Christine, additional, Steele, Robert JC, additional, and Robb, Katie, additional

Published
2018
Full Text
View/download PDF

19. Socioeconomic inequalities in attitudes to cancer: an international cancer benchmarking study

Author

Quaife, Samantha L., Winstanley, Kelly, Robb, Katie A., Simon, Alice E., Ramirez, Amanda J., Forbes, Lindsay J.L., Brain, Kate E., Gavin, Anna, and Wardle, Jane

Subjects
RC0254, HC
Abstract

Socioeconomic status (SES) differences in attitudes towards cancer have been implicated in the differential screening uptake and the timeliness of symptomatic presentation. However, the predominant emphasis of this work has been on cancer fatalism, and many studies focus on specific community subgroups. This study aimed to assess SES differences in positive and negative attitudes towards cancer in UK adults. A population-based sample of UK adults (n=6965, age?50 years) completed the Awareness and Beliefs about Cancer scale, including six belief items: three positively framed (e.g. ‘Cancer can often be cured’) and three negatively framed (e.g. ‘A cancer diagnosis is a death sentence’). SES was indexed by education. Analyses controlled for sex, ethnicity, marital status, age, self-rated health, and cancer experience. There were few education-level differences for the positive statements, and overall agreement was high (all>90%). In contrast, there were strong differences for negative statements (all Ps

Published
2015

21. Population-based cancer incidence and mortality rates and ratios among adults with intellectual disabilities in Scotland: a retrospective cohort study with record linkage.

Author

Ward LM, Cooper SA, Sosenko F, Morrison D, Fleming M, McCowan C, Robb K, Hanna CR, Hughes-McCormack L, Dunn K, Conway D, Henderson A, Smith G, Truesdale M, and Cairns D

Subjects
Humans, Scotland epidemiology, Male, Female, Adult, Incidence, Middle Aged, Retrospective Studies, Aged, Registries, Young Adult, Adolescent, Neoplasms mortality, Neoplasms epidemiology, Intellectual Disability epidemiology, Intellectual Disability mortality
Abstract

: Objective : To provide contemporary data on cancer mortality rates within the context of incidence in the population with intellectual disabilities. : Methods : Scotland's 2011 Census was used to identify adults with intellectual disabilities and controls with records linked to the Scottish Cancer Registry and death certificate data (March 2011-December 2019). The control cohort without intellectual disabilities and/or autism were used for indirect standardisation and calculation of crude incident rates/crude mortality rates, and age-sex standardised incident rate ratios/standardised mortality ratios (SIR/SMR), with 95% CIs. : Results : Adults with intellectual disabilities were most likely diagnosed cancers of digestive, specifically colorectal (14.2%), lung (9.3%), breast (female 22.9%), body of the uterus (female 9.3%) and male genital organs (male 17.6%). Higher incident cancers included metastatic cancer of unknown primary origin (female SIR=1.70, male SIR=2.08), body of uterus (female SIR=1.63), ovarian (female SIR=1.59), kidney (female SIR=1.85) and testicular (male SIR=2.49). SMRs were higher, regardless of a higher, similar or lower incidence (female SMR=1.34, male SMR=1.07). Excess mortality risk was found for colorectal (total SMR=1.54, male SMR=1.59), kidney (total SMR=2.01 u, female SMR=2.85 u), female genital organs (SMR=2.34 (ovarian SMR=2.86 u, body of uterus SMR=2.11), breast (female SMR=1.58) and metastatic cancer of unknown primary origin (female SMR=2.50 u, male SMR=2.84). : Conclusions : Adults with intellectual disabilities were more likely to die of cancer than the general population. Reasons for this may include later presentation/diagnosis (so poorer outcomes), poorer treatment/compliance or both. Accessible public health approaches are important for people with intellectual disabilities, and healthcare professionals need to be aware of the different cancer experiences faced by this population., Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.)

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results