OBJECTIVES: To assess whether pre-notification is effective in increasing uptake of colorectal cancer screening for all demographic groups. SETTING: Scottish national colorectal cancer screening programme. METHODS:Males and females aged 50-74 years received a faecal occult blood test by post to complete at home. They were randomized to receive in addition: the pre-notification letter, the pre-notification letter + information booklet, or the usual invitation. Overall, 59,953 subjects were included in the trial between 13/04/09 and 29/05/09 and followed to 27/11/09. Pre-notification letters were posted two weeks ahead of the screening test kit. Uptake was defined as the return of a screening test and chi-squared tests compared uptake between the trial arms. Logistic regression assessed the impact of the letter and letter + booklet on uptake independently of gender, age, deprivation and screening round. RESULTS:Uptake was higher with both the letter (59.0%) and the letter + booklet (58.5%) compared with the usual invitation (53.9%, p < 0.0001). This increased uptake was seen for males, females, all age groups and all deprivation categories including least deprived females (letter 69.9%, usual invitation 66.6%) and most deprived males (42.6% vs. 36.1%), the groups with the highest and lowest levels of uptake respectively in the pilot screening rounds conducted prior to the roll out of the programme. Uptake with the pre-notification letter compared with the usual invitation was higher both unadjusted and adjusted for demographic factors (odds ratio 1.24, 95% CI 1.193-1.294). CONCLUSIONS: Pre-notification is an effective method of increasing uptake in colorectal cancer screening for both genders and all age and deprivation groups.
RCT Entities:
OBJECTIVES: To assess whether pre-notification is effective in increasing uptake of colorectal cancer screening for all demographic groups. SETTING: Scottish national colorectal cancer screening programme. METHODS: Males and females aged 50-74 years received a faecal occult blood test by post to complete at home. They were randomized to receive in addition: the pre-notification letter, the pre-notification letter + information booklet, or the usual invitation. Overall, 59,953 subjects were included in the trial between 13/04/09 and 29/05/09 and followed to 27/11/09. Pre-notification letters were posted two weeks ahead of the screening test kit. Uptake was defined as the return of a screening test and chi-squared tests compared uptake between the trial arms. Logistic regression assessed the impact of the letter and letter + booklet on uptake independently of gender, age, deprivation and screening round. RESULTS: Uptake was higher with both the letter (59.0%) and the letter + booklet (58.5%) compared with the usual invitation (53.9%, p < 0.0001). This increased uptake was seen for males, females, all age groups and all deprivation categories including least deprived females (letter 69.9%, usual invitation 66.6%) and most deprived males (42.6% vs. 36.1%), the groups with the highest and lowest levels of uptake respectively in the pilot screening rounds conducted prior to the roll out of the programme. Uptake with the pre-notification letter compared with the usual invitation was higher both unadjusted and adjusted for demographic factors (odds ratio 1.24, 95% CI 1.193-1.294). CONCLUSIONS: Pre-notification is an effective method of increasing uptake in colorectal cancer screening for both genders and all age and deprivation groups.
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: Samantha L Quaife; Mamta Ruparel; Jennifer L Dickson; Rebecca J Beeken; Andy McEwen; David R Baldwin; Angshu Bhowmik; Neal Navani; Karen Sennett; Stephen W Duffy; Jane Wardle; Jo Waller; Samuel M Janes Journal: Am J Respir Crit Care Med Date: 2020-04-15 Impact factor: 21.405
Authors: Robert S Kerrison; Lesley M McGregor; Sarah Marshall; John Isitt; Nicholas Counsell; Colin J Rees; Christian von Wagner Journal: Endoscopy Date: 2016-12-20 Impact factor: 10.093
Authors: Nicola J Hall; Greg P Rubin; Christina Dobson; David Weller; Jane Wardle; Mary Ritchie; Colin J Rees Journal: Health Expect Date: 2013-11-25 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Paul Ritvo; Ronald E Myers; Lawrence Paszat; Mardie Serenity; Daniel F Perez; Linda Rabeneck Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2013-05-24 Impact factor: 3.295