OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effect of general practice (GP) and general practitioner (GPR) endorsement for faecal occult blood test (FOBT)-based screening on maintenance of participation in screening over four successive screening rounds. SETTING: South Australian residents aged > or = 50 years. METHODS: Random selection of four groups (n = 600 per group): one from the Commonwealth electoral roll (ER) and three from the combined patient lists of two collaborating GPs (GP1, GP2, GP3). Subjects were mailed offers to screen using a faecal immunochemical test over four successive rounds, spaced approximately 18 months apart. The GP1 and ER groups were invited to screen without any endorsement from a GPR or medical practice; GP2 invitees received an invitation indicating support for screening from their medical practice; and GP3 invitations were printed on practice letterhead and were signed by a GPR. RESULTS: Multivariate analyses indicated that initial participation as well as re-participation over four successive rounds was significantly enhanced in the GP2 (39%, 42%, 45% and 44%) and GP3 groups (42%, 47%, 48% and 49%) relative to the ER group (33%, 37%, 40% and 36%). The analyses also indicated that 60-69 year olds were most likely to participate in all rounds (relative risk [RR] 1.49, 1.39, 1.43 and 1.25), and men were generally less likely to participate than women in all screening rounds (RR 0.86, 0.84, 0.80 and 0.83). CONCLUSIONS: Associating a GPR or medical practice of recent contact with an invitation to screen achieves better participation and re-participation than does an invitation from a centralized screening unit. Furthermore, enhanced participation can be achieved by practice endorsement alone without requiring actual GPR involvement.
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effect of general practice (GP) and general practitioner (GPR) endorsement for faecal occult blood test (FOBT)-based screening on maintenance of participation in screening over four successive screening rounds. SETTING: South Australian residents aged > or = 50 years. METHODS: Random selection of four groups (n = 600 per group): one from the Commonwealth electoral roll (ER) and three from the combined patient lists of two collaborating GPs (GP1, GP2, GP3). Subjects were mailed offers to screen using a faecal immunochemical test over four successive rounds, spaced approximately 18 months apart. The GP1 and ER groups were invited to screen without any endorsement from a GPR or medical practice; GP2 invitees received an invitation indicating support for screening from their medical practice; and GP3 invitations were printed on practice letterhead and were signed by a GPR. RESULTS: Multivariate analyses indicated that initial participation as well as re-participation over four successive rounds was significantly enhanced in the GP2 (39%, 42%, 45% and 44%) and GP3 groups (42%, 47%, 48% and 49%) relative to the ER group (33%, 37%, 40% and 36%). The analyses also indicated that 60-69 year olds were most likely to participate in all rounds (relative risk [RR] 1.49, 1.39, 1.43 and 1.25), and men were generally less likely to participate than women in all screening rounds (RR 0.86, 0.84, 0.80 and 0.83). CONCLUSIONS: Associating a GPR or medical practice of recent contact with an invitation to screen achieves better participation and re-participation than does an invitation from a centralized screening unit. Furthermore, enhanced participation can be achieved by practice endorsement alone without requiring actual GPR involvement.
Authors: Jason A Dominitz; Douglas J Robertson; Dennis J Ahnen; James E Allison; Margaret Antonelli; Kathy D Boardman; Maria Ciarleglio; Barbara J Del Curto; Grant D Huang; Thomas F Imperiale; Meaghan F Larson; David Lieberman; Theresa O'Connor; Timothy J O'Leary; Peter Peduzzi; Dawn Provenzale; Aasma Shaukat; Shahnaz Sultan; Amy Voorhees; Robert Wallace; Peter D Guarino Journal: Am J Gastroenterol Date: 2017-10-10 Impact factor: 10.864
Authors: Stefan Groth; Horst Krause; Rainer Behrendt; Helge Hill; Michael Börner; Murat Bastürk; Nora Plathner; Friedrich Schütte; Ulrich Gauger; Jürgen Ferdinand Riemann; Lutz Altenhofen; Thomas Rösch Journal: BMC Gastroenterol Date: 2012-06-26 Impact factor: 3.067
Authors: Richard F A Logan; Julietta Patnick; Claire Nickerson; Lynn Coleman; Matt D Rutter; Christian von Wagner Journal: Gut Date: 2011-12-07 Impact factor: 23.059
Authors: Ryan J Courtney; Christine L Paul; Robert W Sanson-Fisher; Finlay A Macrae; Mariko L Carey; John Attia; Mark McEvoy Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2013-03-20 Impact factor: 3.295