ArticleJournal of medical screening2016
Effectiveness of timed and non-timed second appointments in improving uptake in breast cancer screening.
Article in Journal of medical screening, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Barriers to breast and cervical cancer screening uptake among Black, Asian, and Minority Ethnic women in the United Kingdom: evidence from a mixed-methods systematic review.BMC health services research · 2023Pooled it
- The use of text messages as an alternative invitation method for breast cancer screening: A randomized controlled trial (M-TICS study).PloS one · 2024Trial
- Lung Screen Uptake Trial (LSUT): Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial Testing Targeted Invitation Materials.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2020Trial
- Effect of second timed appointments for non-attenders of breast cancer screening in England: a randomised controlled trial.The Lancet. Oncology · 2017Trial
- Improving uptake of flexible sigmoidoscopy screening: a randomized trial of nonparticipant reminders in the English Screening Programme.Endoscopy · 2017Trial
- Impact of scheduled appointments on cervical screening participation in Norway: a randomised intervention.BMJ open · 2016Trial
- Enhancing Breast Cancer Screening Uptake: A Community-based Intervention in Southeast Wolverhampton, UK.Cureus · 2025Article
- Participation in lung cancer screening.Translational lung cancer research · 2021Review
- Impact of pre-appointment contact and short message service alerts in reducing 'Did Not Attend' (DNA) rate on rapid access new patient breast clinics: a DGH perspective.BMC health services research · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo estimate the effect on breast screening uptake of delayed, targeted, second timed appointments in women who did not take up an initial breast cancer screening appointment offer.
methodsNon-attending women received a four-month delayed second timed appointment following non-response to the initial invitation and the normal open invitation sent to non-attenders. A comparison group was sent a four-month delayed additional open invitation.
resultsResponse to the second timed appointments (percentage of re-invited women eventually attending in this episode) was 20%, corresponding to an estimated increase on total uptake of 6%. Response was highest in women who had previously attended screens. Response in the women offered an additional delayed open invitation was 7.5%, corresponding to an estimated 2.3% increase in overall uptake.
conclusionsSecond timed appointments were almost three times as effective as additional open invitation. They should be targeted at women most likely to attend. A randomized study of second timed appointments versus open invitations should be conducted.
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.