SynthesisBMC public health2013
Methods to increase participation in organised screening programs: a systematic review.
Synthesis in BMC public health, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 109 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Telephone Services for Participation Improvement in Colorectal Cancer Screening: a Randomized Health Services Study
Impact of SMS Notifications on the Colorectal Cancer Screening Program
Who cites it
109 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The structural and organizational aspects of human papillomavirus vaccine affecting immunization coverage in Europe: a systematic review.BMC public health · 2025Pooled it
- Barriers and Facilitators to Participation in Health Screening: an Umbrella Review Across Conditions.Prevention science : the official journal of the Society for Prevention Research · 2022Pooled it
- Improving Breast Cancer Outcomes by Enhanced Activities in Early Detection and Diagnosis: An Umbrella Review and Meta-Analyses of Randomised Controlled Trials in High-Income Contexts With Universal Healthcare Coverage.Cancer control : journal of the Moffitt Cancer CenterPooled it
- Using Invitation Letters to Increase HPV Vaccination Among Adult Women.Current oncology (Toronto, Ont.) · 2025Trial
- Increasing coverage in cervical and colorectal cancer screening by leveraging attendance at breast cancer screening: A cluster-randomised, crossover trial.PLoS medicine · 2024Trial
- The effect of a pre-scheduled appointment on attendance in a population-based mammography screening programme.European journal of public health · 2023Trial
- Trial
- Feasibility and success rates of response enhancing strategies in a stepwise prevention program for cardiometabolic diseases in primary care.BMC family practice · 2020Trial
- The Cost-Effectiveness Analysis of Cervical Cancer Screening Using a Systematic Invitation System in Lithuania.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2019Trial
- A targeted promotional DVD fails to improve Māori and Pacific participation rates in the New Zealand bowel screening pilot: results from a pseudo-randomised controlled trial.BMC public health · 2019Trial
- How does information on the harms and benefits of cervical cancer screening alter the intention to be screened?: a randomized survey of Norwegian women.European journal of cancer prevention : the official journal of the European Cancer Prevention Organisation (ECP) · 2019Trial
- The Efficacy of Direct Mail, Patient Navigation, and Incentives for Increasing Mammography and Colonoscopy in the Medicaid Population: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2018Trial
- Trial
- Text-message Reminders in Colorectal Cancer Screening (TRICCS): a randomised controlled trial.British journal of cancer · 2017Trial
- A national cluster-randomised controlled trial to examine the effect of enhanced reminders on the socioeconomic gradient in uptake in bowel cancer screening.British journal of cancer · 2016Trial
- Impact of scheduled appointments on cervical screening participation in Norway: a randomised intervention.BMJ open · 2016Trial
- Alerts in electronic medical records to promote a colorectal cancer screening programme: a cluster randomised controlled trial in primary care.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2016Trial
- Trial
- Effects of evidence-based strategies to reduce the socioeconomic gradient of uptake in the English NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (ASCEND): four cluster-randomised controlled trials.Lancet (London, England) · 2016Trial
- Impact of general practice endorsement on the social gradient in uptake in bowel cancer screening.British journal of cancer · 2016Trial
49 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe European Community recommends the implementation of population-based screening programmes for cervical, breast, and colorectal cancers. This recommendation is supported by many observational studies showing that organised programmes effectively reduce mortality and control the inappropriate use of screening tests. We conducted a systematic review of studies assessing the efficacy of interventions to increase participation in organised population-based screening programs.
methodsWe included all studies on interventions aimed at increasing screening participation published between 1/1999 and 7/2012. For those published before 1999, we considered the Jepson et al. (2000) review (Health Technol Assess 4:1-133, 2000).
resultsIncluding studies from the Jepson review, we found 69 with quantitative information on interventions in organised screening: 19 for cervical, 26 for breast, 20 colorectal cancers, and 4 for cervical and breast cancer together.Effective interventions were: postal (breast RR = 1,37 95% Confidence Interval (95% CI): 1.25-1.51; cervical RR = 1.71 95% CI: 1.60-1.83; colorectal RR = 1.33 95% CI: 1.17-1.51) and telephone reminders (with heterogeneous methods for implementation); GP's signature on invitation letter (breast RR = 1.13 95% CI: 1.11-1.16; cervical RR = 1.20 95% CI: 1.10-1.30; colorectal RR = 1.15 95% CI: 1.07-1.24); scheduled appointment instead of open appointment (breast RR = 1.26 95% CI: 1.02-1.55; cervical RR = 1.49 95% CI: 1.27-1.75; colorectal RR = 1.79 95% CI: 1.65-1.93). Mailing a kit for self-sampling cervical specimens increased participation in non-responders (RR = 2.37 95% CI: 1.44-3.90).
conclusionAlthough some interventions did prove to be effective, some specific variables may influence their effectiveness in and applicability to organised population-based screening programs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.