Trial reportBMC public health2013
Anticipated regret to increase uptake of colorectal cancer screening in Scotland (ARTICS): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.
Trial report in BMC public health, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 2 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.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
9 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Does advance contact with research participants increase response to questionnaires: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC medical research methodology · 2021Pooled it
- Implementation Strategies for Interventions Aiming to Increase Participation in Mail-Out Bowel Cancer Screening Programs: A Realist Review.Frontiers in oncology · 2020Pooled it
- Anticipated regret to increase uptake of colorectal cancer screening (ARTICS): A randomised controlled trial.Social science & medicine (1982) · 2015Trial
- A pilot telephone intervention to increase uptake of breast cancer screening in socially deprived areas in Scotland (TELBRECS): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial.BMC public health · 2014Trial
- Article
- Development of an evidence-based brief 'talking' intervention for non-responders to bowel screening for use in primary care: stakeholder interviews.BMC family practice · 2018Article
- Exploring the Potential of Anticipated Regret as an Emotional Cue to Improve Bowel Cancer Screening Uptake.BioMed research international · 2017Article
- Reasons for non-participation in the Northern Ireland Bowel Cancer Screening Programme: a qualitative study.BMJ open · 2015Article
- Patients' perspectives on providing a stool sample to their GP: a qualitative study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundColorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer deaths in the UK. Screening is key to early detection. The Scottish programme of colorectal cancer screening is running successfully, and involves all adults aged between 50 and 74 years being invited to post back a faecal sample for testing every 2 years. However, screening uptake is sub-optimal: for example rates for the period November 2009 to October 2011 ranged from just 39% for males living in the most deprived areas to 67% for least deprived females. Recent research has shown that asking people to consider the emotional consequences of not participating in screening (anticipated regret) can lead to a significant increase in screening uptake. METHODS/
designWe will test a simple anticipated regret manipulation, in a large randomised controlled trial with 60,000 members of the general public. They will be randomly allocated to one of 3 arms, no questionnaire, control questionnaire or anticipated regret questionnaire. The primary outcome will be screening test kit return. Results will also be examined by demographic variables (age, gender, deprivation) as these are currently related to screening kit return. DISCUSSION: If this anticipated regret intervention leads to a significant increase in colorectal cancer screening kit returns, this would represent a rare example of a theoretically-driven, simple intervention that could result in earlier detection of colorectal cancer and many more lives saved.
trial registrationCurrent Controlled trials: ISRCTN74986452.
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.