Does the Invitation by the General Practitioner Improve Patients’ Participation in Colorectal Cancer Screening?
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
DISEASE(S): Colorectal Cancer,Colorectal Neoplasms
PROVIDER: 2101012 | ecrin-mdr-crc |
REPOSITORIES: ECRIN MDR
Similar Datasets
Project description:The propose of this study is to assess the effect of general practitioner’s involvement in the stimulus invitation letter in colorectal cancer screening compared to sending the patient home test (stimulus 2 of reference as contained in the specifications).
| 2101016 | ecrin-mdr-crc
Project description:BackgroundParticipation of general practitioners is crucial for health care studies. However, recruiting them is an ongoing challenge and participation rates of general practitioners around the globe are often low. One feasible and cost-efficient approach to potentially enhance participation rates among general practitioners are personalized invitation letters, since they may increase one's attention to and appreciation of a study. Still, evidence whether this method actually affects participation is scarce and ambiguous in relation to physicians.MethodsWe undertook a randomized trial in a sample of general practitioners from three German states in the context of a large, observational study on physicians' coordination and uptake of recommended cardiovascular ambulatory care. An intervention group (n = 757 general practitioners) received a personalized invitation to participate in the observational study, the control group (n = 754 general practitioners) received a generic invitation. Both groups were blinded to group assignment. Eventual participation rates as well as the number and types of responses overall were compared between arms. Besides the main intervention, sociodemographic and geographical context factors were considered as well.ResultsThe overall participation rate among physicians was 2.6% (2.8% in the intervention group and 2.4% in the control group). No statistically significant effect of personalization on participation of physicians was found (relative risk to participate when receiving a personalized invitation of 1.17 [95%-CI: 0.62, 2.21]). However, the number of responses to the invitation varied significantly between the geographical regions.ConclusionsPersonalization of first written contact alone did not improve research participation among general practitioners, which was overall very low.Trial registrationThe study in which the trial was embedded has been registered prospectively at the German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS) under registration number DRKS00019219 .
| S-EPMC8590365 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Adherence rate to screening colonoscopy (TC) in the average-risk general population is still unclear. Aim of this study was to compare the uptake of TC screening with that of fecal occult blood (FOBT) in the general population of different Italian areas.
| 2065608 | ecrin-mdr-crc
Project description:Study hypothesis: Implementation of colorectal cancer screening with Faecal Occult Blood Test (FOBT) in the Netherlands is feasible.
Please note that the follow-up study to this randomised controlled trial can be found at ISRCTN94861265: Screening Or NO Screening: differences in survival during follow-up after random colorectal cancer screening with faecal occult blood test or no screening.
Primary outcome(s): Response rate per FOBT, measured at T2.
| 2420163 | ecrin-mdr-crc
Project description:Interventions: There are two intervention arms: Intervention arm 1 is an ‘SMS-only’ sent from general practice to patients, Intervention arm 2 is an ‘SMS-bundle’ - an SMS with additional video material sent from general practice to patients. The study is a cluster randomised controlled trial with the cluster unit being individual general practices. The intervention will be sent from general practices using an SMS service ‘GoShare’ depending on the cluster that the general practice has been randomised into. The SMS-only/SMS-bundle will be sent to eligible patients two weeks prior to when their National Bowel Cancer Screening Program (NBCSP) kit is due to arrive. The participants will only be sent one SMS-only or SMS-bundle.
1. The SMS-only is sent from a patient s general practice is to prompt patients to do the NBCSP kit. The SMS contains a greeting and the patient s first name, general practice name and telephone number, a GP endorsement of the NBCSP and the option to ‘opt-out’ of receiving future SMS.
The wording in the SMS is: ‘Hi [insert patient first name]. Your free bowel cancer screening kit will arrive in the post soon. [insert general practice name] strongly encourages you to do this test. Call us on [insert general practice telephone number] if you have any questions. Reply STOP to opt out’.
2. The SMS-bundle is the SMS as described above, but with an web link to a GP message with the general practice logo and endorsing the NBCSP, a video of relatable people talking about why it is important to do the kit (approx 30 seconds long), an instructional video on how to do the kit (approx 45 seconds long), and a link to more information about the NBCSP.
The wording is: ‘Hi [insert patient first name]. Your free bowel cancer screening kit will arrive in the
Primary outcome:
The primary outcome will be the difference in the proportion of patients who have a faecal occult blood test (FOBT) result recorded by the National Cancer Screening Register between the control arms and both interventions.
This will be analysed by sex, age and location.[ The time point will be 6 months after the intervention phase is completed (SMS has been sent to patients). ]
Study Design: Purpose: Prevention; Allocation: Randomised controlled trial; Masking: Blinded (masking used);Assignment: Parallel;Type of endpoint: Efficacy
| 23128 | ecrin-mdr-crc
Project description:Interventions: The intervention is a SMS personalised message from the general practice sent to the patient’s smartphone with links to:
1. A message from the general practitioners (GPs) at the general practice (e.g. Hello. xxx
This is a health message from the GPs at xxx Medical Practice.
Your free bowel cancer screening kit will arrive in the post soon.
We strongly encourage you to do this test. If cancer is detected early over 90% of bowel cancers are successfully treated. We recommend that you watch the videos below.)
2. A video of a person talking about their positive experience of doing the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program (NBCSP) Immunochemical Faecal Occult Blood Test (IFOBT) test
3. A animated video demonstrating how to complete the test
4. Links to information from Cancer Council Australia
The SMS is sent from the general practice one month prior to patients 50th, 52nd, 54th, 56th, 58th and 60th birthdays. The intervention period is six months long, there will be 6 rounds of SMS sent during that time to any active patient due to receive their NBCSP kit. Patients will only receive one SMS. The number of patients due to be sent the SMS will be recorded in PEN CAT4 clinical audit software and the number of SMS sent is recorded on the GoShare Plus platform. Data, the number of patients due to receive the SMS and the number of SMS sent is recorded at the general practice. This data is collected by the project manager.
Primary outcome(s): The primary outcome will be the proportion of patients who complete the NBCSP after six months from the total number of eligible patients who are about to have their 50th, 52nd, 54th, 56th, 58th, or 60th birthdays. This outcome will be measured by the number of FOBT results sent to the general practice for patients in this age group. Aggregate data (number of FOBTs returned in each age group) will be collected from the electronic medical records. [From commencement of the 6 month intervention period to 6 months after completion of the intervention period. ]
Study Design: Purpose: Prevention; Allocation: Randomised controlled trial; Masking: Blinded (masking used);Assignment: Parallel;Type of endpoint: Efficacy
| 2471237 | ecrin-mdr-crc
Project description:Cancer is the most common disease around the world and colorectal cancer is the second most common cancer. The early diagnosis of colorectal cancer is difficult and relies on invasive diag-nostic tools such as colonoscopy and tissue biopsy. Other non-invasive techniques such as fecal occult blood screening test (FOBT) are less sensitive and accurate. The advantage of FOBT together with high throughput technology such as metabolomics could provide the advantages of non-invasive tool and the effectiveness of detecting novel colorectal cancer markers. In this way, this work focuses on the novelty of using FOBT as samples to perform metabolomics analysis and its application on colorectal cancer population.
2022-12-09 | ST002468 | MetabolomicsWorkbench
Project description:Interventions: 1. Faecal occult blood testing (FOBT). Participants will perform FOBT following enrolment. This involves using a patient kit to sample their own stools for the presence of blood, mailing their testing kit in to a central lab once it is completed. Testing will be conducted once but may involve sampling several stools.
2. Colonoscopy. All participants will also undergo colonoscopy following the completion of FOBT, regardless of the result. This will be performed within a target of 3 months post enrolment.
Primary outcome(s): Sensitivity and specificity of faecal occult blood testing for colorectal cancer and colorectal neoplasia, using colonscopy as the gold standard procedure.[One-off screening with both FOBT and colonoscopy, with a completion target of 3 months post enrolment.]
Study Design: Purpose: Screening;Duration: Cross-sectional;Selection: Defined population;Timing: Prospective
| 2453871 | ecrin-mdr-crc
Project description:Study hypothesis: The efficacy of colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) using faecal occult blood test (FOBT) in reducing colorectal cancer (CRC) mortality in a population at generic risk, has been shown in several large randomized trials.
The screening programs need to contact the whole target population and involve as many people as possible in order to be actually effective. The scientific literature about the reasons for non-compliance have generated few definitive operational recommendations.
Two types of FOBT are now available: the Guaiac and the Immunochemical test. The sensitivity and specificity of the two tests are similar and do not clearly indicate which one is better for screening. The price of the immunochemical test is actually about 1.5 times higher than the Guaiac, but there are no data about the costs per person screened. The Guaiac test recommends three different evacuations, and requires the patient to store the samples, and follow dietary restrictions. The immunochemical test is recommended on a single evacuation and does not require dietary restrictions. The discomfort and embarrassment of faecal sampling and the dietary restrictions have been hypothesized to be determinants of non-compliance. This background may determine lower compliance to the Guaiac test.
Several guidelines for screening programme implementation recommend the involvement of general practitioners (GP) and family practitioners (FP); nevertheless the role of the GPs and FPs varies between countries and health service organizations, making this recommendation hard to implement. The Agency for Public Health of Lazio, Italy, decided to design a trial phase in order to plan an evidence-based implementation of the CRCS program. The aim of this approach is to guarantee that the efficacy of CRCS can be translated to effectiveness in a public health intervention. The screening strategy adopted was: yearly FOB testing for 5074 year olds and, for positives, colonoscopy. A special focus was how to obtain a high compliance to screening; the topics studied were: GPs attitudes and practices, type of FOBT, test provider, and the individual reasons.
Studies included: a survey, a randomized factorial trial nested in the survey, and a casecontrol study nested in the trial.
Primary outcome(s): Compliance to screening: (number of returned faeces samples)/(total number of invited subjects)
| 2424493 | ecrin-mdr-crc