Dataset Information

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

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?P?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?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.

SUBMITTER: Kerrison RS

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6193284 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Jan

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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

Kerrison Robert S RS McGregor Lesley M LM Marshall Sarah S Isitt John J Counsell Nicholas N Rees Colin J CJ von Wagner Christian C

Endoscopy 20161220 1

<b>Background and study aims</b> 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). <b>Patients and methods</b> Eligible adults were men and women in London who had not attended ...[more]

PMID: 27997965

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundWe previously initiated a randomized controlled trial to test the effectiveness of two self-referral reminders and a theory-based leaflet (sent 12 and 24 months after the initial invitation) to increase participation within the English Bowel Scope Screening program.PurposeThis study reports the results following the second reminder.MethodsMen and women included in the initial sample (n = 1,383) were re-assessed for eligibility 24 months after their invitation (12 months after the first reminder) and excluded if they had attended screening, moved away, or died. Eligible adults received the same treatment they were allocated 12 months previous, that is, no reminder ("control"), or a self-referral reminder with either the standard information booklet ("Reminder and Standard Information Booklet") or theory-based leaflet designed using the Behavior Change Wheel ("Reminder and Theory-Based Leaflet"). The primary outcome was the proportion screened within each group 12 weeks after the second reminder.ResultsIn total, 1,218 (88.1%) individuals were eligible. Additional uptake following the second reminder was 0.4% (2/460), 4.8% (19/399), and 7.9% (29/366) in the control, Reminder and Standard Information Booklet, and Reminder and Theory-Based Leaflet groups, respectively. When combined with the first reminder, the overall uptake for each group was 0.7% (3/461), 14.5% (67/461), and 21.5% (99/461). Overall uptake was significantly higher in the Reminder and Standard Information Booklet and Reminder and Theory-Based Leaflet groups than in the control (odds ratio [OR] = 26.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 8.1-84.0, p < .001 and OR = 46.9, 95% CI = 14.7-149.9, p < .001, respectively), and significantly higher in the Reminder and Theory-Based Leaflet group than in the Reminder and Standard Information Booklet group (OR = 1.8, 95% CI = 1.3-2.6, p < .001).ConclusionA second reminder increased uptake among former nonparticipants. The added value of the theory-based leaflet highlights a potential benefit to reviewing the current information booklet.Trials registry numberISRCTN44293755.

Project description:IMPORTANCE:Colorectal cancer is a major health burden. Screening is recommended in many countries. OBJECTIVE:To estimate the effectiveness of flexible sigmoidoscopy screening on colorectal cancer incidence and mortality in a population-based trial. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:Randomized clinical trial of 100,210 individuals aged 50 to 64 years, identified from the population of Oslo city and Telemark County, Norway. Screening was performed in 1999-2000 (55-64-year age group) and in 2001 (50-54-year age group), with follow-up ending December 31, 2011. Of those selected, 1415 were excluded due to prior colorectal cancer, emigration, or death, and 3 could not be traced in the population registry. INTERVENTIONS:Participants randomized to the screening group were invited to undergo screening. Within the screening group, participants were randomized 1:1 to receive once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy or combination of once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy and fecal occult blood testing (FOBT). Participants with positive screening test results (cancer, adenoma, polyp ?10 mm, or positive FOBT) were offered colonoscopy. The control group received no intervention. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES:Colorectal cancer incidence and mortality. RESULTS:A total of 98,792 participants were included in the intention-to-screen analyses, of whom 78,220 comprised the control group and 20,572 comprised the screening group (10,283 randomized to receive a flexible sigmoidoscopy and 10,289 to receive flexible sigmoidoscopy and FOBT). Adherence with screening was 63%. After a median of 10.9 years, 71 participants died of colorectal cancer in the screening group vs 330 in the control group (31.4 vs 43.1 deaths per 100,000 person-years; absolute rate difference, 11.7 [95% CI, 3.0-20.4]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.73 [95% CI, 0.56-0.94]). Colorectal cancer was diagnosed in 253 participants in the screening group vs 1086 in the control group (112.6 vs 141.0 cases per 100,000 person-years; absolute rate difference, 28.4 [95% CI, 12.1-44.7]; HR, 0.80 [95% CI, 0.70-0.92]). Colorectal cancer incidence was reduced in both the 50- to 54-year age group (HR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.49-0.94) and the 55- to 64-year age group (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.71-0.96). There was no difference between the flexible sigmoidoscopy only vs the flexible sigmoidoscopy and FOBT screening groups. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:In Norway, once-only flexible sigmoidoscopy screening or flexible sigmoidoscopy and FOBT reduced colorectal cancer incidence and mortality on a population level compared with no screening. Screening was effective both in the 50- to 54-year and the 55- to 64-year age groups. TRIAL REGISTRATION:clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00119912.

Project description:BackgroundColorectal cancer is the third most common cancer worldwide. Previous analyses have only reported follow-up after flexible sigmoidoscopy for a maximum of 12 years. We aimed to examine colorectal cancer incidence and mortality after a single flexible sigmoidoscopy screening and 17 years of follow-up.MethodsIn this multicentre randomised trial (UK Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Screening Trial), done between Nov 14, 1994, and March 30, 1999, 170 432 eligible men and women, who had indicated on a previous questionnaire that they would probably attend screening if invited, were randomly assigned (1:2) to an intervention group (offered flexible sigmoidoscopy screening) or a control group (not contacted). Randomisation was done centrally in blocks of 12, and stratified by trial centre, general practice, and household type. The nature of the intervention did not allow the staff to be masked to arm of the trial; however, randomisation was done in batches so that the control group and participants not yet randomised were unaware of their allocation status. The primary outcomes were incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer. Hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% CIs for colorectal cancer incidence and mortality were estimated for intention-to-treat and per-protocol analyses. The trial is registered with ISRCTN, number 28352761.FindingsOur cohort analysis included 170 034 people: 112 936 in the control group and 57 098 in the intervention group, 40 621 (71%) of whom were screened and 16 477 (29%) were not screened. During screening and a median of 17·1 years' follow-up, colorectal cancer was diagnosed in 1230 individuals in the intervention group and 3253 in the control group, and 353 individuals in the intervention group versus 996 individuals in the control group died from colorectal cancer. In intention-to-treat analyses, colorectal cancer incidence was reduced by 26% (HR 0·74 [95% CI 0·70-0·80]; p<0·0001) in the intervention group versus the control group and colorectal cancer mortality was reduced by 30% (0·70 [0·62-0·79]; p<0·0001) in the intervention group versus the control group. In per-protocol analyses, adjusted for non-compliance, colorectal cancer incidence and mortality were 35% (HR 0·65 [95% CI 0·59-0·71]) and 41% (0·59 [0·49-0·70]) lower in the screened group.InterpretationA single flexible sigmoidoscopy continues to provide substantial protection from colorectal cancer diagnosis and death, with protection lasting at least 17 years.FundingNational Institute for Health Research Efficacy and Mechanism Evaluation.

Project description:BackgroundColorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most prevalent type of cancer in Europe. A single flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) screening at around the age of 60 years prevents about one-third of CRC cases. However, FS screens only the distal colon, and thus mortality from proximal CRC is unaffected. Computed tomography colonography (CTC) is a highly accurate examination that allows assessment of the entire colon. However, the benefit of CTC testing as a CRC screening test is uncertain. We designed a randomized trial to compare participation rate, detection rates, and costs between CTC (with computer-aided detection) and FS as primary tests for population-based screening.Methods/designAn invitation letter to participate in a randomized screening trial comparing CTC versus FS will be mailed to a sample of 20,000 people aged 58 or 60 years, living in the Piedmont region and the Verona district of Italy. Individuals with a history of CRC, adenomas, inflammatory bowel disease, or recent colonoscopy, or with two first-degree relatives with CRC will be excluded from the study by their general practitioners. Individuals responding positively to the invitation letter will be then randomized to the intervention group (CTC) or control group (FS), and scheduled for the screening procedure. The primary outcome parameter of this part of the trial is the difference in advanced neoplasia detection between the two screening tests. Secondary outcomes are cost-effectiveness analysis, referral rates for colonoscopy induced by CTC versus FS, and the expected and perceived burden of the procedures. To compare participation rates for CTC versus FS, 2,000 additional eligible subjects will be randomly assigned to receive an invitation for screening with CTC or FS. In the CTC arm, non-responders will be offered fecal occult blood test (FOBT) as alternative screening test, while in the FS arm, non-responders will receive an invitation letter to undergo screening with either FOBT or CTC. Data on reasons for participation and non-participation will also be collected.DiscussionThis study will provide reliable information concerning benefits and risks of the adoption of CTC as a mass screening intervention in comparison with FS. The trial will also evaluate the role of computer-aided detection in a screening setting.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01739608.

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the feasibility of specialist screening practitioners (SSPs) offering patient navigation (PN) to facilitate uptake of bowel scope screening (BSS) among patients who do not confirm or attend their appointment.DesignA single-stage phase II trial.SettingSouth Tyneside District Hospital, Tyne and Wear, England, UK.ParticipantsIndividuals invited for BSS at South Tyneside District Hospital during the 6-month recruitment period were invited to participate in the study.InterventionConsenting individuals were randomly assigned to either the PN intervention or usual care group in a 4:1 ratio. The intervention involved BSS non-attenders receiving a phone call from an SSP to elicit their reasons for non-attendance and offer educational, practical and emotional support as required. If requested by the patient, another BSS appointment was then scheduled.Primary outcome measureThe number of non-attenders in the intervention group who were navigated and then rebooked and attended their new BSS appointment.Secondary outcome measuresBarriers to BSS attendance, patient-reported outcomes including informed choice and satisfaction with BSS and the PN intervention, reasons for study non-participation, SSPs' evaluation of the PN process and a cost analysis.ResultsOf those invited to take part (n=1050), 152 (14.5%) were randomised into the study: PN intervention=109; usual care=43. Most participants attended their BSS appointment (PN: 79.8%; control: 79.1%) leaving 22 eligible for PN: only two were successfully contacted. SSPs were confident in delivering PN, but were concerned that low BSS awareness and information overload may have deterred patients from taking part in the study. Difficulty contacting patients was reported as a burden to their workload.ConclusionsPN, as implemented, was not a feasible intervention to increase BSS uptake in South Tyneside. Interventions to increase BSS awareness may be better suited to this population.Trial registration numberISRCTN13314752; Results.

Dataset Information

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

Publications

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets