Dataset Information

Effect of invitation letter in language of origin on screening attendance: randomised controlled trial in BreastScreen Norway.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To explore attendance at organised mammographic screening among immigrant groups that received an invitation letter and information leaflet (invitation) in their language of origin and Norwegian compared with Norwegian only.

Design

Randomised controlled trial.

Setting

Population based screening programme for breast cancer in Norway (BreastScreen Norway), which invites women aged 50-69 to two-view mammographic screening biennially.

Participants

All women invited to BreastScreen Norway in the study period April 2021 to June 2022 whose language of origin was Arabic (women born in Algeria, Egypt, Lebanon, Iraq, Palestine, Sudan, Syria, Tunisia, or Morocco), English (women born in the Philippines), Polish (women born in Poland), Somali (women born in Somalia), or Urdu (women born in Pakistan) (n=11 347).

Intervention

The study group received an invitation to screening in their language of origin and in Norwegian, whereas the control group received an invitation in Norwegian only during the study period.

Main outcome measure

Attendance at BreastScreen Norway during the study period.

Results

Overall attendance was 46.5% (2642/5683) in the study group and 47.4% (2682/5664) in the control group. No statistical differences in attendance were observed after stratification by language of invitation, age at invitation, or years since immigration.

Conclusions

No difference in attendance was observed between immigrant women invited to BreastScreen Norway in their language of origin and in Norwegian compared with Norwegian only. Several barriers to cancer screening may exist among immigrants, and translating the invitation is probably only a part of a complex explanation.

Trial registration

NCT04672265.

Clinicaltrials

gov NCT04672265.

SUBMITTER: Hofvind S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10507477 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effect of invitation letter in language of origin on screening attendance: randomised controlled trial in BreastScreen Norway.

Hofvind Solveig S Iqbal Nadia N Thy Jonas E JE Mangerud Gunhild G Bhargava Sameer S Zackrisson Sophia S Berstad Paula P

BMJ (Clinical research ed.) 20230919

<h4>Objective</h4>To explore attendance at organised mammographic screening among immigrant groups that received an invitation letter and information leaflet (invitation) in their language of origin and Norwegian compared with Norwegian only.<h4>Design</h4>Randomised controlled trial.<h4>Setting</h4>Population based screening programme for breast cancer in Norway (BreastScreen Norway), which invites women aged 50-69 to two-view mammographic screening biennially.<h4>Participants</h4>All women inv ...[more]

PMID: 37726122

Similar Datasets

Project description:Despite their low cost, the use of email invitations to distribute surveys to medical practitioners have been associated with lower response rates. This research compares the difference in response rates from using email approach plus online completion rather than a mailed invitation letter plus a choice of online or paper completion. A parallel randomised controlled trial was conducted during the 11th annual wave of the nationally representative Medicine in Australia: Balancing Employment and Life (MABEL) longitudinal survey of doctors. The control group was invited using a mailed paper letter (including a paper survey plus instructions to complete online) and three mailed paper reminders. The intervention group was approached in the same way apart from the second reminder when they were approached by email only. The primary outcome is the response rate and the statistical analysis was blinded. 18,247 doctors were randomly allocated to the control (9,125) or intervention group (9,127), with 9,108 and 9,107 included in the analysis. Using intention to treat analysis, the response rate in the intervention group was 35.92% compared to 37.59% in the control group, a difference of -1.66 percentage points (95% CI: -3.06 to -0.26). The difference was larger for General Practitioners (-2.76 percentage points, 95% CI: -4.65 to -0.87) compared to other specialists (-0.47 percentage points, 95% CI: -2.53 to 1.60). For those who supplied an email address, the average treatment effect on the treated was higher at -2.63 percentage points (95% CI: -4.50 to -0.75) for all physicians, -3.17 percentage points (95% CI: -5.83 to -0.53) for General Practitioners, and -2.1 percentage points (95% CI: -4.75 to 0.56) for other specialists. For qualified physicians, using email to invite participants to complete a survey leads to lower response rates compared to a mailed letter. Lower response rates need to be traded off with the lower costs of using email rather than mailed letters.

Project description:BackgroundRobust evidence regarding the benefits and harms of notifying Australian women when routine breast screening identifies that they have dense breasts is needed for informing future mammography population screening practice and policy.ObjectivesTo assess the psychosocial and health services use effects of notifying women participating in population-based breast cancer screening that they have dense breasts; to examine whether the mode of communicating this information about its implications (print, online formats) influences these effects.Methods and analysisThe study population comprises women aged 40 years or older who attend BreastScreen Queensland Sunshine Coast services for mammographic screening and are found to have dense breasts (BI-RADS density C or D). The randomised controlled trial includes three arms (952 women each): standard BreastScreen care (no notification of breast density; control arm); notification of dense breasts in screening results letter and print health literacy-sensitive information (intervention arm 1) or a link or QR code to online video-based health literacy-sensitive information (intervention arm 2). Baseline demographic data will be obtained from BreastScreen Queensland. Outcomes data will be collected in questionnaires at baseline and eight weeks, twelve months, and 27 months after breast screening. Primary outcomes will be psychological outcomes and health service use; secondary outcomes will be supplemental screening outcomes, cancer worry, perceived breast cancer risk, knowledge about breast density, future mammographic screening intentions, and acceptability of notification about dense breasts.Ethics approvalGold Coast Hospital and Health Service Ethics Committee (HREC/2023/QGC/89770); Sunshine Coast Hospital and Health Service Research Governance and Development (SSA/2023/QSC/89770).Dissemination of findingsFindings will be reported in peer-reviewed journals and at national and international conferences. They will also be reported to BreastScreen Queensland, BreastScreen Australia, Cancer Australia, and other bodies involved in cancer care and screening, including patient and support organisations.Trial registrationAustralian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12623000001695p (prospective: 9 January 2023).

Project description:ObjectiveTo compare the effect of an invitation promoting informed choice for screening with a standard invitation on attendance and motivation to engage in preventive action.DesignRandomised controlled trial.SettingFour English general practices.Participants1272 people aged 40-69 years, at risk for diabetes, identified from practice registers using a validated risk score and invited to attend for screening.InterventionIntervention was a previously validated invitation to inform the decision to attend screening, presenting diabetes as a serious potential problem, and providing details of possible costs and benefits of screening and treatment in text and pie charts. This was compared with a brief, standard invitation simply describing diabetes as a serious potential problem.Main outcome measuresThe primary end point was attendance for screening. The secondary outcome measures were intention to make changes to lifestyle and satisfaction with decisions made among attenders.ResultsThe primary end point was analysed for all 1272 participants. 55.8% (353/633) of those in the informed choice group attended for screening, compared with 57.6% (368/639) in the standard invitation group (mean difference -1.8%, 95% confidence interval -7.3% to 3.6%; P=0.51). Attendance was lower among the more deprived group (most deprived third 47.5% v least deprived third 64.3%; P<0.001). Interaction between deprivation and effect of invitation type on attendance was not significant. Among attenders, intention to change behaviour was strong and unaffected by invitation type.ConclusionsProviding information to support choice did not adversely affect attendance for screening for diabetes. Those from more socially deprived groups were, however, less likely to attend, regardless of the type of invitation received. Further attention to invitation content alone is unlikely to achieve equity in uptake of preventive services.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN 73125647.

Project description:ObjectivesTo compare results of selected performance measures in mammographic screening for an artificial intelligence (AI) system versus independent double reading by radiologists.MethodsIn this retrospective study, we analyzed data from 949 screen-detected breast cancers, 305 interval cancers, and 13,646 negative examinations performed in BreastScreen Norway during the period from 2010 to 2018. An AI system scored the examinations from 1 to 10, based on the risk of malignancy. Results from the AI system were compared to screening results after independent double reading. AI score 10 was set as the threshold. The results were stratified by mammographic density.ResultsA total of 92.7% of the screen-detected and 40.0% of the interval cancers had an AI score of 10. Among women with a negative screening outcome, 9.1% had an AI score of 10. For women with the highest breast density, the AI system scored 100% of the screen-detected cancers and 48.6% of the interval cancers with an AI score of 10, which resulted in a sensitivity of 80.9% for women with the highest breast density for the AI system, compared to 62.8% for independent double reading. For women with screen-detected cancers who had prior mammograms available, 41.9% had an AI score of 10 at the prior screening round.ConclusionsThe high proportion of cancers with an AI score of 10 indicates a promising performance of the AI system, particularly for women with dense breasts. Results on prior mammograms with AI score 10 illustrate the potential for earlier detection of breast cancers by using AI in screen-reading.Key points• The AI system scored 93% of the screen-detected cancers and 40% of the interval cancers with AI score 10. • The AI system scored all screen-detected cancers and almost 50% of interval cancers among women with the highest breast density with AI score 10. • About 40% of the screen-detected cancers had an AI score of 10 on the prior mammograms, indicating a potential for earlier detection by using AI in screen-reading.

Dataset Information

Effect of invitation letter in language of origin on screening attendance: randomised controlled trial in BreastScreen Norway.

Objective

Design

Setting

Participants

Intervention

Main outcome measure

Results

Conclusions

Trial registration

Clinicaltrials

Publications

Effect of invitation letter in language of origin on screening attendance: randomised controlled trial in BreastScreen Norway.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets