Literature DB >> 27997965

Improving uptake of flexible sigmoidoscopy screening: a randomized trial of nonparticipant reminders in the English Screening Programme.

Robert S Kerrison1, Lesley M McGregor1, Sarah Marshall2, John Isitt3, Nicholas Counsell4, Colin J Rees5, Christian von Wagner1.   

Abstract

Background and study aims Uptake of flexible sigmoidoscopy screening in the English Bowel Scope Screening (BSS) Programme is low. The aim of this study was to test the impact of a nonparticipant reminder and theory-based leaflet to promote uptake among former nonresponders (previously did not confirm their appointment) and nonattenders (previously confirmed their appointment but did not attend). Patients and methods Eligible adults were men and women in London who had not attended a BSS appointment within 12 months of their invitation. Individuals were randomized (1:1:1) to receive no reminder (control), a 12-month reminder plus standard information booklet (TMR-SIB), or a 12-month reminder plus bespoke theory-based leaflet (TMR-TBL) designed to address barriers to screening. The primary outcome of the study was the proportion of individuals screened within each group 12 weeks after the delivery of the reminder. Results A total of 1383 men and women were randomized and analyzed as allocated (n = 461 per trial arm). Uptake was 0.2 % (n = 1), 10.4 % (n = 48), and 15.2 % (n = 70) in the control, TMR-SIB, and TMR-TBL groups, respectively. Individuals in the TMR-SIB and TMR-TBL groups were significantly more likely to attend screening than individuals in the control group (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 53.7, 95 % confidence interval [CI] 7.4 - 391.4, P < 0.001 and OR 89.0, 95 %CIs 12.3 - 645.4, P < 0.01, respectively). Individuals in the TMR-TBL group were also significantly more likely to attend screening than individuals in the TMR-SIB group (OR 1.7, 95 %CIs 1.1 - 2.5, P = 0.01). Across all groups, former nonattenders were more likely to participate in screening than former nonresponders (uptake was 14.2 % and 8.0 %, respectively; OR 2.5, 95 %CIs 1.4 - 4.4, P < 0.01). The adenoma detection rate among screened adults was 7.6 %, which is comparable to the rate in initial attenders. Conclusions Reminders targeting former nonparticipants can improve uptake and are effective for both former nonresponders and nonattenders. Theory-based information designed to target barriers to screening added significantly to this strategy. © Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27997965      PMCID: PMC6193284          DOI: 10.1055/s-0042-118452

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Endoscopy        ISSN: 0013-726X            Impact factor:   10.093


  36 in total

1.  The Next Step Trial: impact of a worksite colorectal cancer screening promotion program.

Authors:  B C Tilley; S W Vernon; R Myers; K Glanz; M Lu; K Hirst; A R Kristal
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  1999-03       Impact factor: 4.018

2.  Pre-notification increases uptake of colorectal cancer screening in all demographic groups: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Gillian Libby; Jane Bray; Jennifer Champion; Linda A Brownlee; Janice Birrell; Dermot R Gorman; Emilia M Crighton; Callum G Fraser; Robert J C Steele
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  2011       Impact factor: 2.136

3.  The relative importance of patient-reported barriers to colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  Resa M Jones; Steven H Woolf; Tina D Cunningham; Robert E Johnson; Alex H Krist; Stephen F Rothemich; Sally W Vernon
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2010-03-28       Impact factor: 5.043

4.  Invitation strategies for colorectal cancer screening programmes: The impact of an advance notification letter.

Authors:  Carlo Senore; Andrea Ederle; Giovanni DePretis; Corrado Magnani; Debora Canuti; Silvia Deandrea; Manuel Zorzi; Alessandra Barca; Piero Bestagini; Katia Faitini; Luigi Bisanti; Coralba Casale; Antonio Ferro; Paolo GiorgiRossi; Francesco Quadrino; Giorgia Fiorina; Arianna Capuano; Nereo Segnan; Alberto Fantin
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2015-01-17       Impact factor: 4.018

5.  A comparison of methods for increasing compliance within a general practitioner based screening project for colorectal cancer and the effect on practitioner workload.

Authors:  G Pye; M Christie; J O Chamberlain; S M Moss; J D Hardcastle
Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health       Date:  1988-03       Impact factor: 3.710

6.  Interventions that increase use of adult immunization and cancer screening services: a meta-analysis.

Authors:  Erin G Stone; Sally C Morton; Marlies E Hulscher; Margaret A Maglione; Elizabeth A Roth; Jeremy M Grimshaw; Brian S Mittman; Lisa V Rubenstein; Laurence Z Rubenstein; Paul G Shekelle
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2002-05-07       Impact factor: 25.391

7.  Relationships among health perceptions vary depending on stage of readiness for colorectal cancer screening.

Authors:  Rebecca A Ferrer; Kara L Hall; David B Portnoy; Bruce S Ling; Paul K J Han; William M P Klein
Journal:  Health Psychol       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 4.267

8.  Primary care endorsement letter and a patient leaflet to improve participation in colorectal cancer screening: results of a factorial randomised trial.

Authors:  P Hewitson; A M Ward; C Heneghan; S P Halloran; D Mant
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2011-08-09       Impact factor: 7.640

9.  A randomised trial of the effect of postal reminders on attendance for breast screening.

Authors:  Prue C Allgood; Anthony J Maxwell; Sue Hudson; Judith Offman; Gillian Hutchison; Cathryn Beattie; Raquel Tuano-Donnelly; Anthony Threlfall; Tina Summersgill; Lesley Bellis; Collette Robinson; Samantha Heaton; Julietta Patnick; Stephen W Duffy
Journal:  Br J Cancer       Date:  2016-01-19       Impact factor: 7.640

10.  The uptake and effect of a mailed multi-modal colon cancer screening intervention: a pilot controlled trial.

Authors:  Carmen L Lewis; Alison T Brenner; Jennifer M Griffith; Michael P Pignone
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2008-06-02       Impact factor: 7.327

View more
  10 in total

Review 1.  Interventions to improve adherence to surveillance guidelines in survivors of childhood cancer: a systematic review.

Authors:  Veda Zabih; Alyssa Kahane; Natalya E O'Neill; Noah Ivers; Paul C Nathan
Journal:  J Cancer Surviv       Date:  2019-07-24       Impact factor: 4.442

2.  Time-saving polyp detection in colon capsule endoscopy: evaluation of a novel software algorithm.

Authors:  Johannes Hausmann; Jan-Peter Linke; Jörg G Albert; Johannes Masseli; Andrea Tal; Alica Kubesch; Natalie Filmann; Michael Philipper; Michael Farnbacher
Journal:  Int J Colorectal Dis       Date:  2019-09-13       Impact factor: 2.571

3.  Likely uptake of a future a lung cancer screening programme in Hodgkin lymphoma survivors: a questionnaire study.

Authors:  Rachel Broadbent; Christopher J Armitage; Philip Crosbie; John Radford; Kim Linton
Journal:  BMC Pulm Med       Date:  2022-04-28       Impact factor: 3.320

4.  Use of a GP-endorsed 12 months' reminder letter to promote uptake of bowel scope screening: protocol for a randomised controlled trial in a hard-to-reach population.

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

5.  The impact of descriptive norms on motivation to participate in cancer screening - Evidence from online experiments.

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

6.  Feasibility of an implementation intervention to increase attendance at diabetic retinopathy screening: protocol for a cluster randomised pilot trial.

Authors:  Fiona Riordan; Emmy Racine; Susan M Smith; Aileen Murphy; John Browne; Patricia M Kearney; Colin Bradley; Mark James; Mark Murphy; Sheena M McHugh
Journal:  Pilot Feasibility Stud       Date:  2020-05-12

7.  Implementation of long-term non-participant reminders for flexible sigmoidoscopy screening.

Authors:  R S Kerrison; A Prentice; S Marshall; S Choglay; S Stoffel; C Rees; C von Wagner
Journal:  Prev Med Rep       Date:  2021-01-04

8.  Use of Two Self-referral Reminders and a Theory-Based Leaflet to Increase the Uptake of Flexible Sigmoidoscopy in the English Bowel Scope Screening Program: Results From a Randomized Controlled Trial in London.

Authors:  Robert S Kerrison; Lesley M McGregor; Nicholas Counsell; Sarah Marshall; Andrew Prentice; John Isitt; Colin J Rees; Christian von Wagner
Journal:  Ann Behav Med       Date:  2018-10-22

9.  Barriers to bowel scope (flexible sigmoidoscopy) screening: a comparison of non-responders, active decliners and non-attenders.

Authors:  Christian von Wagner; Bernardette Bonello; Sandro Stoffel; Hanna Skrobanski; Madeleine Freeman; Robert S Kerrison; Lesley M McGregor
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2018-10-05       Impact factor: 3.295

10.  Use of a GP-endorsed non-participant reminder letter to promote uptake of bowel scope screening: A randomised controlled trial in a hard-to-reach population.

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

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.