ArticleBioMed research international2015
Piloting the Impact of Three Interventions on Guaiac Faecal Occult Blood Test Uptake within the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme.
Article in BioMed research international, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Implementation Strategies for Interventions Aiming to Increase Participation in Mail-Out Bowel Cancer Screening Programs: A Realist Review.Frontiers in oncology · 2020Pooled it
- Strategies for increasing participation in mail-out colorectal cancer screening programs: a systematic review and meta-analysis.Systematic reviews · 2019Pooled it
- Text-message Reminders in Colorectal Cancer Screening (TRICCS): a randomised controlled trial.British journal of cancer · 2017Trial
- Evaluating changes to home bowel cancer screening kits: an end-user perspective study.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2023Article
- Disparities in Compliance with Colorectal Cancer Screening: Evidence from Two US National Surveys.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2023Article
- Pathways to a cancer-free future: a protocol for modelled evaluations to minimise the future burden of colorectal cancer in Australia.BMJ open · 2020Article
- Faecal haemoglobin can define risk of colorectal neoplasia at surveillance colonoscopy in patients at increased risk of colorectal cancer.United European gastroenterology journal · 2020Observational
- 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
- A review of sex-related differences in colorectal cancer incidence, screening uptake, routes to diagnosis, cancer stage and survival in the UK.BMC cancer · 2018Article
- Rapid review of evaluation of interventions to improve participation in cancer screening services.Journal of medical screening · 2017Article
- Understanding the heterogeneity of cervical cancer screening non-participants: Data from a national sample of British women.European journal of cancer (Oxford, England : 1990) · 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.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study evaluated the impact of three interventions on uptake of the guaiac faecal occult blood test (gFOBT) in Greater London. The interventions were designed to improve awareness and understanding of the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) and assist stool sampling. Logistic regression analysis of BCSP London data (N = 205,541 invitees aged 60-74) compared uptake at 12 weeks between intervention groups and a control group, sent kits as usual between January-April 2013 and January-April 2014. An endorsement flyer, included with gFOBT kits, had no impact on uptake (P = 0.68). In 60-69-year-olds, there was a small but significant increase in modelled uptake amongst invitees sent both the flyer and a kit enhancement pack compared with controls (45.1% versus 43.4%, OR = 1.07, P = 0.047). In North East London, the flyer together with outdoor advertising was associated with a small but significant increase (45.6% versus 43.4%, OR = 1.09, P = 0.027). The largest increases were seen when all three interventions (flyer, pack, and advertising) were combined (49.5% versus 43.4%, OR = 1.28, P < 0.001). The increased uptake in the intervention groups was largest in "first-timers" and smaller amongst previous nonresponders and previously screened invitees.
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.