Literature DB >> 22348399

Evaluating the effectiveness of GP endorsement on increasing participation in the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme in England: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

Sarah Damery1, Steve Smith, Alison Clements, Roger Holder, Linda Nichols, Heather Draper, Sue Clifford, Laura Parker, Richard Hobbs, Sue Wilson.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The success and cost-effectiveness of bowel cancer screening depends on achieving and maintaining high screening uptake rates. The involvement of GPs in screening has been found to improve patient compliance. Therefore, the endorsement of screening by GPs may increase uptake rates amongst non-responders. METHODS/
DESIGN: A two-armed randomised controlled trial will evaluate the effectiveness of a GP endorsed reminder in improving patient participation in the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (NHSBCSP). Up to 30 general practices in the West Midlands with a screening uptake rate of less than 50% will be recruited and patients identified from the patient lists of these practices. Eligible patients will be those aged 60 to 74, who have previously been invited to participate in bowel screening but who have been recorded by the Midlands and North West Bowel Cancer Screening Hub as non-responders. Approximately 4,380 people will be randomised in equal numbers to either the intervention (GP letter and duplicate FOBt kit) or control (no additional contact) arms of the trial. The primary outcome measure will be the difference in the uptake rate of FOBt screening for bowel cancer between the intervention and control groups at 13 weeks after the GP endorsed reminder and duplicate FOBt kit are sent. Secondary outcome measures will be subgroup analyses of uptake according to gender, age and deprivation quartile, and the validation of methods for collecting GP, NHSBCSP and patient costs associated with the intervention. Qualitative work (30 to 40 semi-structured interviews) will be undertaken with individuals in the intervention arm who return a FOBt kit, to investigate the relative importance of the duplicate FOBt kit, reminder to participate, and GP endorsement of that reminder in contributing to individuals' decisions to participate in screening. DISCUSSION: Implementing feasible, acceptable and cost-effective strategies to improve screening uptake amongst non-responders to invitations to participate is fundamentally important for the success of screening programmes. If this feasibility study demonstrates a significant increase in uptake of FOBt screening in individuals receiving the intervention, a definitive, appropriately powered future trial will be designed. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN: ISRCTN86784060.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22348399      PMCID: PMC3305373          DOI: 10.1186/1745-6215-13-18

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Trials        ISSN: 1745-6215            Impact factor:   2.279


  20 in total

Review 1.  Adherence with colorectal cancer screening guidelines: a review.

Authors:  Sujha Subramanian; Michelle Klosterman; Mayur M Amonkar; Timothy L Hunt
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 4.018

2.  Does informed consent alter elderly patients' preferences for colorectal cancer screening? Results of a randomized trial.

Authors:  A M Wolf; J B Schorling
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 3.  Screening for colorectal cancer using the faecal occult blood test, Hemoccult.

Authors:  P Hewitson; P Glasziou; L Irwig; B Towler; E Watson
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2007-01-24

4.  Colorectal cancer: current care, future innovations and economic considerations.

Authors:  David A L Macafee; Elizabeth H Gemmill; John N Lund
Journal:  Expert Rev Pharmacoecon Outcomes Res       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 2.217

5.  The effect on compliance of a health education leaflet in colorectal cancer screening in general practice in central England.

Authors:  A R Hart; T L Barone; S P Gay; A Inglis; L Griffin; C A Tallon; J F Mayberry
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  1997-04       Impact factor: 3.710

6.  Randomized controlled trial of the impact of intensive patient education on compliance with fecal occult blood testing.

Authors:  Charlene L Stokamer; Craig T Tenner; Jhuma Chaudhuri; Eva Vazquez; Edmund J Bini
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 7.  Screening for colorectal cancer using the faecal occult blood test, hemoccult.

Authors:  B P Towler; L Irwig; P Glasziou; D Weller; J Kewenter
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2000

8.  Health care provider-directed intervention to increase colorectal cancer screening among veterans: results of a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  M Rosario Ferreira; Nancy C Dolan; Marian L Fitzgibbon; Terry C Davis; Nicolle Gorby; Lisa Ladewski; Dachao Liu; Alfred W Rademaker; Franklin Medio; Brian P Schmitt; Charles L Bennett
Journal:  J Clin Oncol       Date:  2005-03-01       Impact factor: 44.544

9.  Improving preventive care by prompting physicians.

Authors:  E A Balas; S Weingarten; C T Garb; D Blumenthal; S A Boren; G D Brown
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  2000-02-14

10.  Improving attendance for breast screening among recent non-attenders: a randomised controlled trial of two interventions in primary care.

Authors:  C Bankhead; S H Richards; T J Peters; D J Sharp; F D Hobbs; J Brown; L Roberts; C Tydeman; V Redman; J Formby; S Wilson; J Austoker
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 2.136

View more
  7 in total

1.  GPs' perceptions and experiences of public awareness campaigns for cancer: a qualitative enquiry.

Authors:  Trish Green; Karl Atkin; Una Macleod
Journal:  Health Expect       Date:  2015-03-26       Impact factor: 3.377

2.  Mailed Outreach Is Superior to Usual Care Alone for Colorectal Cancer Screening in the USA: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Authors:  Mark Jager; Josh Demb; Ali Asghar; Kevin Selby; Evelyn Marquez Mello; Karen M Heskett; Alicea J Lieberman; Zhuo Geng; Balambal Bharti; Siddharth Singh; Samir Gupta
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2019-03-26       Impact factor: 3.199

3.  Manually-generated reminders delivered on paper: effects on professional practice and patient outcomes.

Authors:  Tomas Pantoja; Jeremy M Grimshaw; Nathalie Colomer; Carla Castañon; Javiera Leniz Martelli
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2019-12-18

4.  Evaluation of a service intervention to improve awareness and uptake of bowel cancer screening in ethnically-diverse areas.

Authors:  J Shankleman; N J Massat; L Khagram; S Ariyanayagam; A Garner; S Khatoon; S Rainbow; S Rangrez; Z Colorado; W Hu; D Parmar; S W Duffy
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2014-07-01       Impact factor: 7.640

5.  The effect of changing stool collection processes on compliance in nationwide organized screening using a fecal occult blood test (FOBT) in Korea: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Hye Young Shin; Mina Suh; Hyung Won Baik; Kui Son Choi; Boyoung Park; Jae Kwan Jun; Chan Wha Lee; Jae Hwan Oh; You Kyoung Lee; Dong Soo Han; Do-Hoon Lee
Journal:  Trials       Date:  2014-11-26       Impact factor: 2.279

6.  Is an opportunistic primary care-based intervention for non-responders to bowel screening feasible and acceptable? A mixed-methods feasibility study in Scotland.

Authors:  Natalia Calanzani; Debbie Cavers; Gabriele Vojt; Sheina Orbell; Robert J C Steele; Linda Brownlee; Steve Smith; Julietta Patnick; David Weller; Christine Campbell
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2017-10-11       Impact factor: 2.692

7.  Limited health literacy is a barrier to colorectal cancer screening in England: evidence from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing.

Authors:  Lindsay C Kobayashi; Jane Wardle; Christian von Wagner
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2013-11-25       Impact factor: 4.018

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.