ArticleBritish journal of cancer2014
Evaluation of a service intervention to improve awareness and uptake of bowel cancer screening in ethnically-diverse areas.
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.
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
14 citing papers in PubMed, 39 citations in OpenAlex.
- A randomised trial of the effect of postal reminders on attendance for breast screening.British journal of cancer · 2016Trial
- Lifestyle Habits and Adherence to Cancer Screening Programs Among Italian Teachers: A Cross-Sectional Study.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- 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 · 2024Article
- Evaluation of the Call for a Kit intervention to increase bowel cancer screening uptake in Lancashire, England.Journal of medical screening · 2022Article
- Recognising Colorectal Cancer in Primary Care.Advances in therapy · 2021Article
- Article
- Uptake of the English Bowel (Colorectal) Cancer Screening Programme: an update 5 years after the full roll-out.European journal of cancer (Oxford, England : 1990) · 2018Article
- Article
- Article
- Rapid review of evaluation of interventions to improve participation in cancer screening services.Journal of medical screening · 2017Article
- GP participation in increasing uptake in a national bowel cancer screening programme: the PEARL project.British journal of cancer · 2017Article
- Observational
- An ongoing case-control study to evaluate the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme.BMC cancer · 2014Article
- Structuring Health in Colorectal Cancer Screening Conversations: An Analysis of Intersecting Activity Systems.Southern communication journalArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
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.