Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24983374›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of cancer2014

Evaluation of a service intervention to improve awareness and uptake of bowel cancer screening in ethnically-diverse areas.

J Shankleman, N J Massat, L Khagram, S Ariyanayagam, A Garner, S Khatoon, S Rainbow, S Rangrez, Z Colorado, W Hu and 2 more

Open access · hybridAbstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of cancer, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

14 citing papers in PubMed, 39 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Evaluation of a Faith-Placed Health Education Service on Bowel Cancer Screening in Mosques in East London.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2024
    Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Observational
  13. Article
  14. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

J ShanklemanPublic Health, London Borough of Tower Hamlets, 4th Floor Mulberry Place, 5 Clove Crescent, London E14 1BY, UK.
N J MassatCentre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London EC1M 6BQ, UK.
L KhagramNHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme Newham, Tower Hamlets and City & Hackney Strategic Commissioning and Community Public Health Partnerships, 4th Floor Westside, Newham Dockside, 1000 Dockside Road, London E16 2QU, UK.
S AriyanayagamNHS England, London Region, Southside, 105 Victoria Street, London SW1E 6QT, UK.
A GarnerNHS City & Hackney Clinical Commissioning Group, Lawson practice, Nuttal Street, London N1 5HZ, UK.
S KhatoonNHS Newham Clinical Commissioning Group, Warehouse K, 2 Western Gateway, London E16 1DR, UK.
S RainbowBowel Cancer Screening Programme London Hub, North West London Hospitals NHS Trust, Watford Road, Harrow HA1 3UJ, UK.
S RangrezNorth East London Bowel Cancer Screening Programme, Homerton University Hospital Trust, Homerton Row, London E9 6SR, UK.
Z ColoradoCommunity Links Trust, 105 Barking Road, London E16 4HQ, UK.
W HuCommunity Links Trust, 105 Barking Road, London E16 4HQ, UK.
D ParmarCentre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London EC1M 6BQ, UK.
S W DuffyCentre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London EC1M 6BQ, UK.
Queen Mary University of London · GBCommunity Link · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUptake of bowel cancer screening is lowest in London, in populations of lower socio-economic status, and in particular ethnic or religious groups.

methodsWe report on the evaluation of two interventions to improve uptake in an area including populations of low socio-economic status and considerable ethnic diversity. The interventions were face-to-face health promotion on bowel cancer screening at invitees' general practice and health promotion delivered by telephone only. Nine large general practices in East London were chosen at random to offer face-to-face health promotion, and nine other large practices to offer telephone health promotion, with 24 practices of similar size as comparators. Data at practice level were analysed by Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon tests and grouped-logistic regression.

resultsThere were 2034 invitees in the telephone intervention practices, 1852 in the face-to-face intervention practices and 5227 in the comparison practices. Median gFOBt kit uptake in the target population (aged 59-70) was 46.7% in the telephone practices, 43.8% in the face-to-face practices and 39.1% in the comparison practices. Significant improvements in the odds of uptake were observed following telephone intervention in both males (OR=1.39, 95% CI=1.20-1.61, P<0.001) and females (OR=1.49, 95% CI=1.29-1.73, P<0.001), while the face-to-face intervention mainly impacted uptake in males (OR=1.23, 95% CI=1.10-1.36), P<0.001) but did not lead to a significant increase in females (OR=1.12, 95% CI=0.96-1.29, P=0.2).

conclusionsPersonally delivered health promotion improved uptake of bowel cancer screening in areas of low socio-economic status and high ethnic diversity. The intervention by telephone appears to be the most effective method.

Indexed as

Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeAgedColorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansInformation DisseminationLondonMaleMiddle AgedPoverty AreasTelephone

Identifiers

PMID24983374
PMCPMC4183836
OpenAlexW2138490049

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-SA
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.