Trial reportBritish journal of cancer2016
Impact of general practice endorsement on the social gradient in uptake in bowel cancer screening.
Trial report in British journal of cancer, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 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
25 citing papers in PubMed, 37 citations in OpenAlex.
- Testing behavioral economics principles in mailed FIT outreach: a randomized trial.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2026Trial
- Use of a GP-endorsed non-participant reminder letter to promote uptake of bowel scope screening: A randomised controlled trial in a hard-to-reach population.Preventive medicine · 2020Trial
- Trial
- Trial
- Breast cancer screening in Europe and the role of general practitioners: A 32-country comparative survey.The European journal of general practice · 2026Article
- Estimating Eligibility for Lung Cancer Screening in Ireland: A Dynamic Modelling Study of Smoking Trends.PharmacoEconomics - open · 2026Article
- Colorectal cancer screening barriers and facilitators among Jordanians: A cross-sectional study.Preventive medicine reports · 2023Article
- Optimizing the implementation of lung cancer screening in Scotland: Focus group participant perspectives in the LUNGSCOT study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022Article
- Effectiveness of behavioural economics-based interventions to improve colorectal cancer screening participation: A rapid systematic review of randomised controlled trials.Preventive medicine reports · 2022Review
- Aspects of colorectal cancer screening, methods, age and gender.Journal of internal medicine · 2021Review
- Implementation of long-term non-participant reminders for flexible sigmoidoscopy screening.Preventive medicine reports · 2021Article
- Assessing the implementation of interventions addressing socioeconomic inequalities in cancer screening in high-income countries.Journal of public health research · 2020Article
- The Impact of a Comprehensive Risk Prediction Model for Colorectal Cancer on a Population Screening Program.JNCI cancer spectrum · 2020Article
- The impact of interventions addressing socioeconomic inequalities in cancer-related outcomes in high-income countries: A systematic review.Journal of public health research · 2020Article
- Access to health care for older people with intellectual disability: a modelling study to explore the cost-effectiveness of health checks.BMC public health · 2019Article
- Geospatial analysis of the influence of family doctor on colorectal cancer screening adherence.PloS one · 2019Article
- 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
- 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
- Colorectal Cancer Screening: The Role of Psychological, Social and Background Factors in Decision-making Process.Clinical practice and epidemiology in mental health : CP & EMH · 2018Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
22 authors at 11 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThere is a socioeconomic gradient in the uptake of screening in the English NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP), potentially leading to inequalities in outcomes. We tested whether endorsement of bowel cancer screening by an individual's general practice (GP endorsement; GPE) reduced this gradient.
methodsA cluster-randomised controlled trial. Over 20 days, individuals eligible for screening in England from 6480 participating general practices were randomly allocated to receive a GP-endorsed or the standard invitation letter. The primary outcome was the proportion of people adequately screened and its variation by quintile of Index of Multiple Deprivation.
resultsWe enrolled 265,434 individuals. Uptake was 58.2% in the intervention arm and 57.5% in the control arm. After adjusting for age, sex, hub and screening episode, GPE increased the overall odds of uptake (OR=1.07, 95% CI 1.04-1.10), but did not affect its socioeconomic gradient. We estimated that implementing GPE could result in up to 165 more people with high or intermediate risk colorectal adenomas and 61 cancers detected, and a small one-off cost to modify the standard invitation (£78,000).
conclusionsAlthough GPE did not improve its socioeconomic gradient, it offers a low-cost approach to enhancing overall screening uptake within the NHS BCSP.
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.