This review aimed to synthesize evidence on the effectiveness of shared decision-making (SDM) tools for cancer screening and explored the preferences of vulnerable people and clinicians regarding the specific characteristics of the SDM tools. A mixed-method convergent segregated approach was employed, which involved an independent synthesis of quantitative and qualitative data. Articles were systematically selected and screened, resulting in the inclusion and critical appraisal of 55 studies. Results from the meta-analysis revealed that SDM tools were more effective for improving knowledge, reducing decisional conflict, and increasing screening intentions among vulnerable populations compared to non-vulnerable populations. Subgroup analyses showed minimal heterogeneity for decisional conflict outcomes measured over a six-month period. Insights from the qualitative findings revealed the complexities of clinicians’ and vulnerable populations’ preferences for an SDM tool in cancer screening. Vulnerable populations highly preferred SDM tools with relevant information, culturally tailored content, and appropriate communication strategies. Clinicians, on the other hand, highly preferred tools that can be easily integrated into their medical systems for efficient use and can effectively guide their practice for cancer screening while considering patients’ values. Considering the complexities of patients’ and clinicians’ preferences in SDM tool characteristics, fostering collaboration between patients and clinicians during the creation of an SDM tool for cancer screening is essential. This collaboration may ensure effective communication about the specific tool characteristics that best support the needs and preferences of both parties.

Background: Identification of groups at a high risk of gastric cancer could facilitate targeted screening in countries with a low gastric cancer incidence. Our aim was to identify such high-risk groups based on individual-level population data on migration history and socioeconomic status (SES) in the Netherlands. Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, patient data from the Netherlands Cancer Registry were linked to demographic data of Statistics Netherlands in the period 2010 to 2022. Gastric cancer incidence rates in the 14 largest immigrant populations were compared with those born in the Netherlands. Odds ratios (OR) were computed per birthplace and controlled for age, sex, and SES. Additionally, we investigated gastric cancer risk among second-generation immigrants and by SES. Results: Immigrant populations at a significantly higher gastric cancer risk compared with the general population were identified. Specifically, foreign-born first-generation immigrants from Bosnia–Herzegovina (OR, 2.42), Turkey (OR, 2.22), and China (OR, 1.92) showed elevated risk. Whereas low SES increased the odds of developing gastric cancer, first-generation immigrants remained at higher risk even after controlling for SES. Second-generation immigrants did not have a significantly higher risk of developing gastric cancer. Conclusions: Certain first-generation immigrants remain at an elevated risk for gastric cancer despite migration to a low-risk region. Identification of these high-risk groups should be used to facilitate targeted gastric cancer prevention. Impact: Potential benefits of targeted Helicobacter pylori test-and-treat policy in immigrant populations should be explored in clinical and modeling studies. Primary care physicians should be cognizant of high-risk groups, facilitating the early detection of cancer within these populations.

Background: Accumulating evidence supports the use of virtual reality (VR) in mental health care, with one potential application being its use to assist individuals with relaxation exercises. Despite studies finding support for the potential of VR to effectively aid in relaxation, its implementation remains limited outside of specialized clinics. Known barriers are insufficient knowledge regarding VR operation, lack of availability of VR relaxation apps tailored to local health care systems, and cost concerns. Unfortunately, many VR relaxation apps are designed exclusively for stand-alone headsets, limiting accessibility for a broad audience. Objective: We aimed to design an accessible, smartphone-based VR relaxation app based on user preferences. This paper describes the assessment of 2 stand-alone VR relaxation apps and the resulting smartphone-based VR relaxation app design. Methods: Overall, 30 participants (n=23, 77% women; n=7, 23% men) took part in 2 separate VR sessions, assessing 1 of the 2 VR relaxation apps (Flowborne and Calm Place) in each session. After each session, participants were presented with open-ended questions to assess their experiences via a web-based survey tool. These questions explored positive and negative features, shortcomings, and suggestions for improvements while also allowing space for additional remarks concerning the 2 VR relaxation apps. Three of the authors analyzed the responses using inductive thematic analysis, a process comprising 6 phases. Results: Across both the apps, 5 recurring themes and 13 recurring subthemes were identified in the participants’ answers: audio (music and sounds, guidance), visuals (content, realism, variation and dynamics in the environment), features (language, options, feedback and instructions, duration, exercise), implementation (technical aspects, cybersickness, acceptability and usability), and experience. We analyzed the participants’ findings and conducted a literature review, which served as the basis for developing the app. The resulting app is a Dutch-language, smartphone-based VR relaxation app, with customization options including 3 types of relaxation exercises, 2 guiding voices, and 3 different environments. Efforts have been made to ensure maximum variation and dynamism in the environments. Calming music and nature sounds accompany the exercises. The efficacy and effectiveness of the resulting app design were not assessed. Conclusions: This study provides insights into key features of VR relaxation apps, which were subsequently used for the development of a novel smartphone-based VR relaxation app. Further research concerning the effectiveness of this app, along with a broader evaluation of the efficacy and user feedback for smartphone-based VR relaxation apps, is needed. More generally, there is a clear need for more research on the impact of interactivity, biofeedback, and type of environment in VR relaxation.

Background: Colorectal cancer (CRC) remains a leading cause of cancer-related mortality worldwide. While screening tools such as the fecal immunochemical test (FIT) aid in early detection, they do not provide insights into individual risk factors or strategies for primary prevention. This study aimed to develop and internally validate an interpretable machine learning-based model that estimates an individual’s probability of developing CRC using readily available clinical and lifestyle factors. Methods: We analyzed data from 154,887 adults, aged 55–74 years, who participated in the Prostate, Lung, Colorectal, and Ovarian (PLCO) Cancer Screening Trial. A risk prediction model was built using the Light Gradient Boosting Machine (LightGBM) algorithm. To translate these findings into clinical practice, we implemented the model into a risk estimator that categorizes individuals as average, increased, or high risk, highlighting modifiable risk factors to support patient–clinician discussions on lifestyle changes. Results: The LightGBM model incorporated 12 predictive variables, with age, weight, and smoking history identified as the strongest CRC risk factors, while heart medication use appeared to have a potentially protective effect. The model achieved an area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUROC) of 0.726 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.698–0.753), correctly distinguishing high-risk from average-risk individuals 73 out of 100 times. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that this model could support clinicians and individuals considering screening by guiding informed decision making and facilitating patient–clinician discussions on CRC prevention through personalized lifestyle modifications. However, before clinical implementation, external validation is needed to ensure its reliability across diverse populations and confirm its effectiveness in real-world healthcare settings.