Identifying factors to improve oral cancer screening uptake: a qualitative study

PLoS One. 2012;7(10):e47410. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0047410. Epub 2012 Oct 24.

Abstract

Aims: To engage with high risk groups to identify knowledge and awareness of oral cancer signs and symptoms and the factors likely to contribute to improved screening uptake.

Methods: Focus group discussions were undertaken with 18 males; 40+ years of age; smokers and/or drinkers (15+ cigarettes per day and/or 15+ units of alcohol per week), irregular dental attenders living in economically deprived areas of Teesside.

Results: There was a striking reported lack of knowledge and awareness of oral cancer and its signs and symptoms among the participants. When oral/mouth cancer leaflets produced by Cancer Research UK were presented to the participants, they claimed that they would seek help on noticing such a condition. There was a preference to seek help from their general practitioner rather than their dentist due to perceptions that a dentist is 'inaccessible' on a physical and psychological level, costly, a 'tooth specialist' not a 'mouth specialist', and also not able to prescribe medication and make referrals to specialists. Interestingly, none of the 18 participants who were offered a free oral cancer examination at a dental practice took up this offer.

Conclusions: The uptake of oral cancer screening may be improved by increasing knowledge of the existence and signs and symptoms of oral cancer. Other factors that may increase uptake are increased awareness of the role of dentists in diagnosing oral cancer, promotion of oral cancer screening by health professionals during routine health checks, and the use of a "health" screening setting as opposed to a "dental" setting for such checks.

Publication types

  • Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

  • Adult
  • Focus Groups
  • Humans
  • Male
  • Mouth Neoplasms / diagnosis*
  • Qualitative Research
  • United Kingdom

Grants and funding

Funding provided by Teesside University Research Fund and Stockton Primary Care Trust. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.