Search PubMed⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Anne Miles

Publications and source records attributed to Anne Miles.

6 recordsLinked to original sources

A perspective from countries using organized screening programs.

Cancer screening may be offered to a population opportunistically, as part of an organized program, or as some combination of the preceding two options. Organized screening is distinguished from opportunistic screening primarily on the basis of how invitations to screening are extended. In organized screening, invitations are issued from centralized population registers. In opportunistic screening, however, due to the lack of central registers, invitations to screening depend on the individual's decision or on encounters with health care providers. The current article outlines key differences between organized and opportunistic screening. In the current study, literature searches were performed using PubMed and MEDLINE. Additional data were assembled from interviews with health officials in the five countries investigated and from the authors' personal files. Opportunistic screening was found to be distinguishable from organized screening on the basis of whether screening invitations were issued from centralized population registers. Organized screening programs also assumed centralized responsibility for other key elements of screening, such as eligibility requirements, quality assurance, follow-up, and evaluation. Organized programs focused on reducing mortality and morbidity at the level of the population rather than at the level of the individual. Thus, programs did not necessarily offer the most sensitive screening test for a particular cancer, and tests sometimes were offered at suboptimal intervals with respect to individual-level protection. Nonetheless, organized systems paid greater attention to the quality of screening, as measured by factors such as cancer detection rates, tumor characteristics, and false-positive biopsy rates. As a result, participants in organized screening programs received greater protection from the harmful effects associated with screening. In addition, organized programs worked more systematically toward providing value for money in an inevitably resource-limited environment. Although organized and opportunistic models of screening can yield similar uptake rates, organized programs exhibited greater potential ability to reduce cancer incidence and mortality, because of the higher levels of population coverage and centralized commitment to quality and monitoring; were more likely to be cost-effective; and offered greater protection against the harmful effects associated with poor quality or overly frequent screening.

Cost-Benefit Analysis↗

Subjective and objective risk of colorectal cancer (UK).

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to see whether individuals who perceive their risk for developing colorectal cancer (CRC) as lower than average are found to be at lower risk as determined by findings at flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) screening. METHODS: Participants (n = 10,551) were men and women aged 55-64 years from a subset of participants in the UK FS Trial. Self-report questionnaires assessed perceived comparative risk of developing bowel cancer prior to participants being invited to attend FS screening. Objective risk was judged from polyp status during the FS test. RESULTS: A very modest relationship was found between risk judgments and actual risk with 77% of 'optimists' having negative findings compared to 71% of 'pessimists'. More pessimists (14%) had an adenoma compared to optimists (11%). Compared to pessimists the odds of optimists actually being at lower risk of CRC equaled 0.70 (0.57, 0.86). CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that people may have a limited ability to assess their risk of developing CRC. Health professionals should not assume that individuals have an accurate perception of their risk for cancer. Increasing people's ability to accurately perceive their risk may encourage more appropriate cancer preventive behavior.

Colorectal Neoplasms↗

Demographic and psychosocial factors associated with perceived risk for colorectal cancer.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of this study was to investigate demographic and psychosocial predictors of perceptions of risk for colorectal cancer (CRC) in a population-based sample. METHODS: The study was a cross-sectional survey of 18,447 men and women aged 55-64 years. A mailed questionnaire assessed perceived comparative risk for CRC along with demographic characteristics (age, gender, ethnicity, marital status, and socioeconomic status), health-related factors (family history, subjective health and bowel symptoms, and health behaviors), and emotional state (anxiety). RESULTS: Being male and older were associated with lower perceived risk. Having a family history of CRC, poorer subjective health, more symptoms, and higher levels of anxiety were all associated with increased perceived risk of CRC. Smokers and nonexercisers perceived their risk as higher. CONCLUSIONS: Misperceptions surrounding the effects of age and gender on CRC risk, as well as the genetic link and pathogenesis of CRC, need to be addressed in risk communications.

Age Factors↗

Receiving a screen-detected diagnosis of cancer: the experience of participants in the UK flexible sigmoidoscopy trial.

The experience of receiving a screen-detected diagnosis of colorectal cancer was explored using open-ended interviews. Twenty four people who had been diagnosed with cancer at flexible sigmoidoscopy screening were interviewed at their homes over the telephone. Thematic analysis of the transcripts showed that the experience of gaining a diagnosis of cancer through screening was characterised by a lack of prior expectation that cancer would be detected and feelings of shock. This was largely because of the absence of symptoms and current feelings of well-being. Some interviewees expressed feelings of relief and gratitude at having cancer diagnosed at an early enough stage that 'something could be done about it'. The experience of receiving a screen-detected diagnosis could be summarised as one of 'moderated shock' whereby the shock of the unexpected diagnosis was often moderated by the news that the cancer had been caught early. Whilst these screen-detected cancers were diagnosed relatively rapidly, a significant number of interviewees had a period in which they were effectively 'symptomatic' (e.g. knew they had an adenoma but did not know whether it was malignant or benign). However, they did not use this period to prepare themselves for a possible cancer diagnosis. Raising awareness of the adenoma-carcinoma sequence may help reduce the shock of a screen-detected diagnosis. However, any interventions aimed at reducing the distress of a screen-detected cancer would need to consider the overall benefit to screening attenders, most of whom will have benign polyps detected.

Adenoma↗

Outpatient cognitive behavioral pain management programs: a randomized comparison of a group-based multidisciplinary versus an individual therapy model.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of 2 models of chronic pain management. DESIGN: Randomized comparative trial with 2 active treatment arms. SETTING: Outpatient pain management clinics. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 113 adults with chronic pain of 0.5 to 38 years duration in (mean, 8.8y). INTERVENTIONS: Cognitive behavioral therapy (including education, relaxation, use of cognitive coping strategies, pacing, exercise) delivered in group-based multidisciplinary program or in an individual therapy program. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Self-report of interference with daily activities and sense of control over pain (West Haven-Yale Multidimensional Pain Inventory [WHYMPI]) and depression (Beck Depression Inventory). Secondary outcome measures were state anxiety (Spielberger State-Trait Anxiety conventory), analgesic medication consumption, general activity, and pain severity (WHYMPI). Measurement points were 0 (before treatment), 2 months (end of treatment), and 3, 6 and 12 months (follow-up). RESULTS: No significant differences were found between the 2 modes of treatment at any of the major time points (0, 2, 12mo). Both treatment conditions made significant and sustained improvements on all primary outcome measures, although sense of control over pain tended to decline by 1 year. Individually treated participants made slower gains in some areas, but showed a lesser tendency to rebound at the end of treatment. CONCLUSION: The 2 programs appear to be equally efficacious for pain management in adults with chronic pain. In practical terms, the choice of model for service provision may rest more on local issues such as the availability of space and staff time.

Activities of Daily Living↗