Dataset Information

Using specialist screening practitioners (SSPs) to increase uptake of bowel scope (flexible sigmoidoscopy) screening: results of a feasibility single-stage phase II randomised trial.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To 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.

Design

A single-stage phase II trial.

Setting

South Tyneside District Hospital, Tyne and Wear, England, UK.

Participants

Individuals invited for BSS at South Tyneside District Hospital during the 6-month recruitment period were invited to participate in the study.

Intervention

Consenting 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 measure

The number of non-attenders in the intervention group who were navigated and then rebooked and attended their new BSS appointment.

Secondary outcome measures

Barriers 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.

Results

Of 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.

Conclusions

PN, 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 number

ISRCTN13314752; Results.

SUBMITTER: McGregor LM

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6398706 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Using specialist screening practitioners (SSPs) to increase uptake of bowel scope (flexible sigmoidoscopy) screening: results of a feasibility single-stage phase II randomised trial.

McGregor Lesley M LM Skrobanski Hanna H Ritchie Mary M Berkman Lindy L Miller Hayley H Freeman Madeleine M Patel Nishma N Morris Stephen S Rees Colin C von Wagner Christian C

BMJ open 20190215 2

<h4>Objective</h4>To 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.<h4>Design</h4>A single-stage phase II trial.<h4>Setting</h4>South Tyneside District Hospital, Tyne and Wear, England, UK.<h4>Participants</h4>Individuals invited for BSS at South Tyneside District Hospital during the 6-month recruitment period were invited to ...[more]

PMID: 30772850

Similar Datasets

Project description:In March 2013, NHS England extended its national Bowel Cancer Screening Programme to include 'one-off' Flexible Sigmoidoscopy screening (NHS Bowel Scope Screening, BSS) for men and women aged 55. With less than one in two people currently taking up the screening test offer, there is a strong public health mandate to develop system-friendly interventions to increase uptake while the programme is rolling out. This study aimed to assess the feasibility of sending a reminder to previous BSS non-responders, 12 months after the initial invitation, with consideration for its potential impact on uptake.This study was conducted in the ethnically diverse London Boroughs of Brent and Harrow, where uptake is below the national average. Between September and November 2014, 160 previous non-responders were randomly selected to receive a reminder of the opportunity to self-refer 12 months after their initial invitation. The reminder included instructions on how to book an appointment, and provided options for the time and day of the appointment and the gender of the endoscopist performing the test. To address barriers to screening, the reminder was sent with a brief locally tailored information leaflet designed specifically for this study. Participants not responding within 4 weeks were sent a follow-up reminder, after which there was no further intervention. Self-referral rates were measured 8 weeks after the delivery of the follow-up reminder and accepted as final.Of the 155 participants who received the 12 months' reminder (returned to sender, n=5), 30 (19.4%) self-referred for an appointment, of which 24 (15.5%) attended and were successfully screened. Attendance rates differed by gender, with significantly more women attending an appointment than men (20.7% vs 8.8%, respectively; OR=2.73, 95% CI=1.02-7.35, P=0.05), but not by area (Brent vs Harrow) or area-level deprivation. Of the 30 people who self-referred for an appointment, 27 (90%) indicated a preference for a same-sex practitioner, whereas three (10%) gave no preference. Preference for a same-sex practitioner was higher among women than men (?(2)=7.78, P<0.05), with only 67% of men (six of nine) requesting a same-sex practitioner, compared with 100% of women (n=21).Sending previous non-responders a 12 months' reminder letter with a brief information leaflet is a feasible and efficacious intervention, which merits further investigation in a randomised controlled trial.

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: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.

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:BACKGROUND:The benefits of endoscopic testing for colorectal-cancer screening are uncertain. We evaluated the effect of screening with flexible sigmoidoscopy on colorectal-cancer incidence and mortality. METHODS:From 1993 through 2001, we randomly assigned 154,900 men and women 55 to 74 years of age either to screening with flexible sigmoidoscopy, with a repeat screening at 3 or 5 years, or to usual care. Cases of colorectal cancer and deaths from the disease were ascertained. RESULTS:Of the 77,445 participants randomly assigned to screening (intervention group), 83.5% underwent baseline flexible sigmoidoscopy and 54.0% were screened at 3 or 5 years. The incidence of colorectal cancer after a median follow-up of 11.9 years was 11.9 cases per 10,000 person-years in the intervention group (1012 cases), as compared with 15.2 cases per 10,000 person-years in the usual-care group (1287 cases), which represents a 21% reduction (relative risk, 0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72 to 0.85; P<0.001). Significant reductions were observed in the incidence of both distal colorectal cancer (479 cases in the intervention group vs. 669 cases in the usual-care group; relative risk, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.64 to 0.80; P<0.001) and proximal colorectal cancer (512 cases vs. 595 cases; relative risk, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.76 to 0.97; P=0.01). There were 2.9 deaths from colorectal cancer per 10,000 person-years in the intervention group (252 deaths), as compared with 3.9 per 10,000 person-years in the usual-care group (341 deaths), which represents a 26% reduction (relative risk, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.63 to 0.87; P<0.001). Mortality from distal colorectal cancer was reduced by 50% (87 deaths in the intervention group vs. 175 in the usual-care group; relative risk, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.64; P<0.001); mortality from proximal colorectal cancer was unaffected (143 and 147 deaths, respectively; relative risk, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.77 to 1.22; P=0.81). CONCLUSIONS:Screening with flexible sigmoidoscopy was associated with a significant decrease in colorectal-cancer incidence (in both the distal and proximal colon) and mortality (distal colon only). (Funded by the National Cancer Institute; PLCO ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00002540.).

Dataset Information

Using specialist screening practitioners (SSPs) to increase uptake of bowel scope (flexible sigmoidoscopy) screening: results of a feasibility single-stage phase II randomised trial.

Objective

Design

Setting

Participants

Intervention

Primary outcome measure

Secondary outcome measures

Results

Conclusions

Trial registration number

Publications

Using specialist screening practitioners (SSPs) to increase uptake of bowel scope (flexible sigmoidoscopy) screening: results of a feasibility single-stage phase II randomised trial.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets