Abstract 1564P
Background
With over 2 million cases diagnosed annually, breast cancer is a leading cause of cancer-related disability and mortality worldwide. Despite global efforts to implement screening programs, uptake rates vary widely across settings due to socioeconomic factors and accessibility challenges. In 2022 in Flanders (Belgium), breast cancer screening participation in municipalities with income below the poverty line was 15% lower than average.
Methods
To tackle the limited participation of low-SES women in the breast cancer screening program in Flanders, a culturally sensitive approach was used to realize a tailored reminder letter.
33 women (of which 29 non-native Dutch speakers) aged 50-69 with low-SES were identified with the assistance of community organizations to conduct Focus Group Discussions (FGDs). Through a series of 4 FGDs and 3 rounds of Delphi-consultations involving sector experts, valuable insights were gathered.
Results
Analysis of the standard invitation letter employed in the program revealed several challenges related to readability and comprehension. These included the excessive length of the text, the use of complex vocabulary and grammar beyond an A2 level, the inclusion of contextual sentences unrelated to the mammography appointment (“We do it. And what do you do?”), and the use of generic visuals (eg. a picture of women).
At the same time, simplifying the vocabulary to A1-A2 levels (“cancer”, “doctor”, “appointment”, “check”, “free”), employing straightforward sentence structures, and incorporating relevant visuals (e.g. image of a mammography machine) enhanced understandability and fostered interest in breast cancer prevention. Additionally, utilizing a color palette associated with breast cancer and featuring logos of local authorities instilled a sense of credibility and trustworthiness.
Conclusions
Based on feedback from sector experts and insights from the FGDs, a revised reminder letter was developed. The final communication was concise and included essential details such as time and place for screening, as well as a QR code providing translation into 12 languages.
To assess its efficacy in increasing participation rates, a RCT with 3,430 participants per arm is currently being conducted.
Clinical trial identification
Editorial acknowledgement
Legal entity responsible for the study
The authors.
Funding
Stichting tegen Kanker.
Disclosure
All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.
Resources from the same session
1553P - Access to EMA approved drugs in Europe, disparities across a border
Presenter: Orla Fitzpatrick
Session: Poster session 10
1554P - Co payments in cancer patients: Analysis and estimating OOP
Presenter: Krishnamani Kalpathi
Session: Poster session 10
1555P - Estimating the social value of immuno-oncology (IO) therapies in Japan
Presenter: Tomoya Ohno
Session: Poster session 10
1556P - Current landscape of drug approvals for genitourinary (GU) cancers in North America and Europe
Presenter: Jose Tapia
Session: Poster session 10
1557P - The use of patient experience in UK NICE decision making in oncology
Presenter: Noemi Muszbek
Session: Poster session 10
1558P - Independent validation of the Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool (Gail model) for predicting breast cancer risk in Egyptian population
Presenter: Elaria Yacoub
Session: Poster session 10
1559P - Equity of access and clinical impact of genomic testing in patients with cancer in a UK early phase clinical trials unit
Presenter: Jonathan Poon
Session: Poster session 10
1560P - Optimal age versus real age in breast and gynaecological risk reducing surgery in BRCA1/2 carriers
Presenter: Alberta Ferrari
Session: Poster session 10
1561P - Targeted screening methodologies to select high risk individuals: LungFlag performance in Estonia Lung Cancer Screening Pilot
Presenter: Tanel Laisaar
Session: Poster session 10
1562P - The feasibility of polygenic risk score-based population screening for breast cancer: The experience from the BRIGHT study in Estonia
Presenter: Anni Lepland
Session: Poster session 10