ArticleBMJ open2014
Using physician-linked mailed invitations in an organised colorectal cancer screening programme: effectiveness and factors associated with response.
Article in BMJ open, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 16 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Experience and Attitude of Colorectal Screening Pilot Program Participants Regarding Screening and Screening Programs in Hungary.Iranian journal of public health · 2022Article
- Directly Mailing gFOBT Kits to Previous Responders Being Recalled for Colorectal Cancer Screening Increases Participation.Journal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2020Article
- What is the effectiveness of various invitation methods to a colonoscopy in the early detection and prevention of colorectal cancer? Protocol of a systematic review.Systematic reviews · 2020Article
- Do Primary Care Provider Strategies Improve Patient Participation in Colorectal Cancer Screening?The American journal of gastroenterology · 2017Article
- Barriers to Colorectal Cancer Screening in a Primary Care Setting in Turkey.Journal of community health · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 4 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesA central tenet of organised cancer screening is that all persons in a target population are invited. The aims of this study were to identify participant and physician factors associated with response to mailed physician-linked invitations (study 1) and to evaluate their effectiveness in an organised colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programme (study 2). DESIGN AND
setting2 studies (study 1-cohort design and study 2-matched cohort design, comprising study 1 participants and a matched control group) were conducted in the context of Ontario's organised province-wide CRC screening programme.
participants102 family physicians and 11 302 associated eligible patients from a technical evaluation ('the Pilot') of large-scale mailed invitations for CRC screening were included. Matched controls were randomly selected using propensity scores from among eligible patients associated with family physicians in similar practice types as the Pilot physicians.
interventionPhysician-linked mailed invitation to have CRC screening. OUTCOMES: Uptake of faecal occult blood test (FOBT) within 6 months of mailed invitation (primary) and uptake of FOBT or colonoscopy within 6 months of mailed invitation (secondary).
resultsFactors significantly associated with uptake of FOBT included prior FOBT use, older participant age, greater participant comorbidity and having a female physician. In the matched analysis, Pilot participants were more likely to complete an FOBT (22% vs 8%, p<0.0001) or an FOBT or colonoscopy (25% vs 11%, p<0.0001) within 6 months of mailed invitation than matched controls. The number needed to invite to screen one additional person was 7.
conclusionsCentralised large-scale mailing of physician-linked invitations is feasible and effective in the context of organised CRC screening.
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.