Interventions to increase uptake in a fecal-immunochemical test population-based colorectal cancer screening program: A quasi-experimental study of first-time invitees

IF 5.1 2区 医学 Q1 ONCOLOGY Cancer Pub Date : 2025-04-01 DOI:10.1002/cncr.35760
Nicholas Clarke PhD, Therese Mooney PhD, Pamela Gallagher PhD, Christian von Wagner PhD, Paul Hanly PhD, Deirdre McNamara MD, Hilary Coffey MBS, Patricia Fitzpatrick MD, Linda Sharp PhD
{"title":"Interventions to increase uptake in a fecal-immunochemical test population-based colorectal cancer screening program: A quasi-experimental study of first-time invitees","authors":"Nicholas Clarke PhD,&nbsp;Therese Mooney PhD,&nbsp;Pamela Gallagher PhD,&nbsp;Christian von Wagner PhD,&nbsp;Paul Hanly PhD,&nbsp;Deirdre McNamara MD,&nbsp;Hilary Coffey MBS,&nbsp;Patricia Fitzpatrick MD,&nbsp;Linda Sharp PhD","doi":"10.1002/cncr.35760","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>Many countries have established organized colorectal cancer screening programs because they can reduce mortality and incidence from the disease; however, they rely on high participation rates, which are often suboptimal. This study examined the effectiveness of two reminder interventions on uptake rates in Ireland’s population-based BowelScreen program.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Employing a quasi-experimental design, one intervention mailed the fecal-immunochemical test (FIT) directly to clients not responding to an initial invitation; the other mailed a reminder letter modified with behavioral insights. Interventions were tested separately and in combination and compared to the standard reminder letter (1: standard reminder letter [SRL]; 2: modified reminder letter [MRL]; 3: SRL + FIT direct [FITD]; and 4: MRL + FITD). Primary outcome: overall uptake rate (test completion at 5 months); Subgroup outcome: uptake rate among only those receiving reminders. Outcomes were modeled using multivariable logistic regression with group allocation as a fixed effect, adjusted for sex and deprivation.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Uptake was significantly higher in the FITD groups (SRL: 48%; MRL: 50%; SRL + FITD: 54%; MRL + FITD: 54%; <i>p</i> &lt; .001). After adjustment, compared to the SRL group, FITD groups had significantly higher odds of uptake (MRL: odds ratio [OR], 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.96–1.23; SRL + FITD: OR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.14–1.48; MRL + FITD: OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.11–1.44). This was also the case for subgroup analysis. The MRL did not result in higher uptake compared to SRL.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Mailing the FIT kit directly to nonresponders resulted in improved FIT uptake. Organized FIT-based screening programs not reaching uptake targets should consider implementing this strategy if not already in place.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":138,"journal":{"name":"Cancer","volume":"131 7","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":5.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cncr.35760","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Cancer","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://acsjournals.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cncr.35760","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

Many countries have established organized colorectal cancer screening programs because they can reduce mortality and incidence from the disease; however, they rely on high participation rates, which are often suboptimal. This study examined the effectiveness of two reminder interventions on uptake rates in Ireland’s population-based BowelScreen program.

Methods

Employing a quasi-experimental design, one intervention mailed the fecal-immunochemical test (FIT) directly to clients not responding to an initial invitation; the other mailed a reminder letter modified with behavioral insights. Interventions were tested separately and in combination and compared to the standard reminder letter (1: standard reminder letter [SRL]; 2: modified reminder letter [MRL]; 3: SRL + FIT direct [FITD]; and 4: MRL + FITD). Primary outcome: overall uptake rate (test completion at 5 months); Subgroup outcome: uptake rate among only those receiving reminders. Outcomes were modeled using multivariable logistic regression with group allocation as a fixed effect, adjusted for sex and deprivation.

Results

Uptake was significantly higher in the FITD groups (SRL: 48%; MRL: 50%; SRL + FITD: 54%; MRL + FITD: 54%; p < .001). After adjustment, compared to the SRL group, FITD groups had significantly higher odds of uptake (MRL: odds ratio [OR], 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.96–1.23; SRL + FITD: OR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.14–1.48; MRL + FITD: OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.11–1.44). This was also the case for subgroup analysis. The MRL did not result in higher uptake compared to SRL.

Conclusion

Mailing the FIT kit directly to nonresponders resulted in improved FIT uptake. Organized FIT-based screening programs not reaching uptake targets should consider implementing this strategy if not already in place.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
在以人群为基础的粪便免疫化学测试结直肠癌筛查项目中增加摄取的干预措施:一项首次受邀的准实验研究
许多国家已经建立了有组织的结直肠癌筛查项目,因为它们可以降低该疾病的死亡率和发病率;然而,它们依赖于高参与率,而这往往不是最理想的。本研究检查了两种提醒干预措施对爱尔兰以人口为基础的肠道筛查计划的吸收率的有效性。方法采用准实验设计,其中一个干预组将粪便免疫化学测试(FIT)直接邮寄给未响应初始邀请的客户;另一个则寄了一封带有行为见解的提醒信。干预措施分别和组合进行测试,并与标准提醒信进行比较(1:标准提醒信[SRL];2:修改提醒函[MRL];3: SRL + FIT直接[FITD];4: MRL + FITD)。主要结局:总体摄取率(5个月时测试完成);分组结果:仅接收提醒者的吸收率。结果采用多变量逻辑回归建模,分组分配作为固定效应,并根据性别和剥夺进行调整。结果FITD组摄取率明显高于对照组(SRL: 48%;推广:50%;Srl + fitd: 54%;mr + find: 54%;p & lt;措施)。校正后,与SRL组相比,FITD组摄取的几率显著高于SRL组(MRL:比值比[OR], 1.09;95%置信区间[CI], 0.96-1.23;Srl + find: or, 1.30;95% ci, 1.14-1.48;mr + find: or, 1.26;95% ci, 1.11-1.44)。亚组分析也是如此。与SRL相比,MRL没有导致更高的摄取。结论直接邮寄FIT试剂盒给无反应者可提高FIT的摄取。有组织的、未达到吸收目标的fitt筛查规划,如果尚未到位,应考虑实施这一战略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Cancer
Cancer 医学-肿瘤学
CiteScore
13.10
自引率
3.20%
发文量
480
审稿时长
2-3 weeks
期刊介绍: The CANCER site is a full-text, electronic implementation of CANCER, an Interdisciplinary International Journal of the American Cancer Society, and CANCER CYTOPATHOLOGY, a Journal of the American Cancer Society. CANCER publishes interdisciplinary oncologic information according to, but not limited to, the following disease sites and disciplines: blood/bone marrow; breast disease; endocrine disorders; epidemiology; gastrointestinal tract; genitourinary disease; gynecologic oncology; head and neck disease; hepatobiliary tract; integrated medicine; lung disease; medical oncology; neuro-oncology; pathology radiation oncology; translational research
期刊最新文献
The myeloma divide: How sex and age shape disease characteristics. Combination of mitoxantrone hydrochloride liposome with cyclophosphamide, vincristine, and prednisone for patients with treatment-naive peripheral T-cell lymphoma: A multicenter, open-label, single-arm, phase 1b trial. Psychosocial factors and the risk of cancer: An individual-participant data meta-analysis. The impact of the patient macroenvironment on molecular subgroups in endometrial cancer. Risks of thrombosis and hemorrhage in concurrent use of anticoagulants and potential interacting prostate cancer agents.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1