Siu Hing Lo1, Anna Good2, Paschal Sheeran3, Gianluca Baio4, Sandra Rainbow5, Gemma Vart1, Christian von Wagner1, Jane Wardle1. 1. Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London. 2. School of Psychology, University of Sussex. 3. Department of Psychology, University of Sheffield. 4. Department of Statistical Science, University College London. 5. Bowel Cancer Screening Programme, London Hub, St. Mark's Hospital.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate an intervention based on implementation intention principles designed to increase uptake of colorectal cancer screening, and to examine differential efficacy by socioeconomic deprivation. METHOD: In England, adults aged between 60 and 69 years are invited for biennial fecal occult blood testing. A test kit and an information leaflet are mailed to each individual by the "Hubs" that deliver the national screening program. In the intervention group, three preformulated implementation intentions, based on known barriers to carrying out the test, were added to the information leaflet. Over a 12-week period, each week was randomly allocated to either the intervention (n = 12,414 invitations) or the control condition (n = 10,768), with uptake recorded at the Hub. Socioeconomic deprivation of each individual's area of residence was categorized into tertiles. RESULTS: There was no overall difference in uptake between control (40.4%) and intervention (39.7%) conditions, odds ratio (OR) = 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.91, 1.04]. There was an interaction with deprivation, OR = 1.11, 95% CI [1.04, 1.18], but the positive effect observed in the lowest socioeconomic status (SES) tertile was small (35.2% vs. 33.0%), OR = 1.103, 95% CI [1.01, 1.21], and offset by a negative effect in the least deprived tertile (45.6% vs. 48.2%), OR = 0.90, 95% CI [0.82, 0.99]. The intervention had no significant effect in the middle tertile (38.9% vs. 40.8%), OR = 0.92, 95% CI [0.81, 1.04]. CONCLUSION: Preformulated implementation intentions did not increase overall colorectal cancer screening uptake and failed to make a sufficiently large impact on uptake among lower SES groups to merit their future use in this context. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2014 APA, all rights reserved).
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate an intervention based on implementation intention principles designed to increase uptake of colorectal cancer screening, and to examine differential efficacy by socioeconomic deprivation. METHOD: In England, adults aged between 60 and 69 years are invited for biennial fecal occult blood testing. A test kit and an information leaflet are mailed to each individual by the "Hubs" that deliver the national screening program. In the intervention group, three preformulated implementation intentions, based on known barriers to carrying out the test, were added to the information leaflet. Over a 12-week period, each week was randomly allocated to either the intervention (n = 12,414 invitations) or the control condition (n = 10,768), with uptake recorded at the Hub. Socioeconomic deprivation of each individual's area of residence was categorized into tertiles. RESULTS: There was no overall difference in uptake between control (40.4%) and intervention (39.7%) conditions, odds ratio (OR) = 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.91, 1.04]. There was an interaction with deprivation, OR = 1.11, 95% CI [1.04, 1.18], but the positive effect observed in the lowest socioeconomic status (SES) tertile was small (35.2% vs. 33.0%), OR = 1.103, 95% CI [1.01, 1.21], and offset by a negative effect in the least deprived tertile (45.6% vs. 48.2%), OR = 0.90, 95% CI [0.82, 0.99]. The intervention had no significant effect in the middle tertile (38.9% vs. 40.8%), OR = 0.92, 95% CI [0.81, 1.04]. CONCLUSION: Preformulated implementation intentions did not increase overall colorectal cancer screening uptake and failed to make a sufficiently large impact on uptake among lower SES groups to merit their future use in this context. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2014 APA, all rights reserved).
Authors: Samuel G Smith; Jane Wardle; Wendy Atkin; Rosalind Raine; Lesley M McGregor; Gemma Vart; Steve Morris; Stephen W Duffy; Susan Moss; Allan Hackshaw; Stephen Halloran; Ines Kralj-Hans; Rosemary Howe; Julia Snowball; Graham Handley; Richard F Logan; Sandra Rainbow; Steve Smith; Mary Thomas; Nicholas Counsell; Christian von Wagner Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2017-08-14 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Christian von Wagner; Yasemin Hirst; Jo Waller; Alex Ghanouni; Lesley M McGregor; Robert S Kerrison; Wouter Verstraete; Ivo Vlaev; Monika Sieverding; Sandro T Stoffel Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2019-04-04
Authors: Belinda C Goodwin; Michael J Ireland; Sonja March; Larry Myers; Fiona Crawford-Williams; Suzanne K Chambers; Joanne F Aitken; Jeff Dunn Journal: Syst Rev Date: 2019-11-04
Authors: Laura F Gruner; Efrat L Amitay; Thomas Heisser; Feng Guo; Tobias Niedermaier; Anton Gies; Michael Hoffmeister; Hermann Brenner Journal: Cancers (Basel) Date: 2021-03-25 Impact factor: 6.639