Ian T Zajac1, Amy C Duncan2, Ingrid Flight3, Gary A Wittert4, Stephen R Cole5, Graeme P Young5, Carlene J Wilson6, Deborah A Turnbull7. 1. CSIRO Health & Biosecurity, South Australia, Australia. Electronic address: Ian.zajac@csiro.au. 2. School of Psychology, University of Adelaide, South Australia, Australia. 3. CSIRO Health & Biosecurity, South Australia, Australia; Flinders Centre for Innovation in Cancer, Flinders University, South Australia, Australia. 4. Freemasons Foundation Centre for Men's Health, School of Medicine, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia. 5. Flinders Centre for Innovation in Cancer, Flinders University, South Australia, Australia. 6. Flinders Centre for Innovation in Cancer, Flinders University, South Australia, Australia; Cancer Council South Australia, Australia. 7. School of Psychology, University of Adelaide, South Australia, Australia; Freemasons Foundation Centre for Men's Health, School of Medicine, The University of Adelaide, Adelaide, Australia.
Abstract
RATIONALE: Male participation in screening for bowel cancer is sub-optimal. Theory-based interventions provide a means of improving screening uptake. OBJECTIVE: To test the efficacy of modifying consumer invitation material in line with continuum and stage theories of health behaviour on screening participation. METHODS: N = 9216 Australian men aged 50-74 years were randomised to one of four trial arms in a 2 × 2 factorial design randomised controlled trial. Participants received either standard invitation material (control group), or combinations of modified advance-notification and invitation letters. A subsample completed baseline and endpoint behavioural surveys. RESULTS:Participants who received the modified advance notification letter were 12% more likely to screen than those who received the standard version (RR = 1.12, χ(2)(1) = 10.38, p = 0.001). The modified invitation letter did not impact screening uptake (RR = 0.97, χ(2)(1) = 0.63, p = 0.424). No significant changes in psychological variables due to the intervention were observed. CONCLUSION: Modifications to advance notification letters in line with health behaviour theories significantly improves screening uptake in men. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12612001122842 https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=362688.
RCT Entities:
RATIONALE: Male participation in screening for bowel cancer is sub-optimal. Theory-based interventions provide a means of improving screening uptake. OBJECTIVE: To test the efficacy of modifying consumer invitation material in line with continuum and stage theories of health behaviour on screening participation. METHODS: N = 9216 Australian men aged 50-74 years were randomised to one of four trial arms in a 2 × 2 factorial design randomised controlled trial. Participants received either standard invitation material (control group), or combinations of modified advance-notification and invitation letters. A subsample completed baseline and endpoint behavioural surveys. RESULTS:Participants who received the modified advance notification letter were 12% more likely to screen than those who received the standard version (RR = 1.12, χ(2)(1) = 10.38, p = 0.001). The modified invitation letter did not impact screening uptake (RR = 0.97, χ(2)(1) = 0.63, p = 0.424). No significant changes in psychological variables due to the intervention were observed. CONCLUSION: Modifications to advance notification letters in line with health behaviour theories significantly improves screening uptake in men. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12612001122842 https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=362688.
Authors: Christian von Wagner; Yasemin Hirst; Sara Tookey; Robert S Kerrison; Sarah Marshall; Andrew Prentice; Daniel Vulkan; Una Macleod; Stephen Duffy Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-05-05 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Joanne M Osborne; Ingrid Flight; Carlene J Wilson; Gang Chen; Julie Ratcliffe; Graeme P Young Journal: Patient Prefer Adherence Date: 2018-09-18 Impact factor: 2.711
Authors: Alan White; Lucy Ironmonger; Robert J C Steele; Nick Ormiston-Smith; Carina Crawford; Amanda Seims Journal: BMC Cancer Date: 2018-09-20 Impact factor: 4.430
Authors: Aradhna Kaushal; Yasemin Hirst; Sara Tookey; Robert S Kerrison; Sarah Marshall; Andrew Prentice; Daniel Vulkan; Stephen Duffy; Christian von Wagner Journal: Prev Med Date: 2020-10-03 Impact factor: 4.018