Trial reportBritish journal of cancer2016
Use of a 12 months' self-referral reminder to facilitate uptake of bowel scope (flexible sigmoidoscopy) screening in previous non-responders: a London-based feasibility study.
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. It is linked to trial NCT05609396 (Interventions to Improve Bowel Cancer Screening Uptake in Ireland), which is not on this 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.
Interventions to Improve Bowel Cancer Screening Uptake in Ireland: a 2x2 Factorial Trial
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed.
- 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
- Testing active choice for screening practitioner's gender in endoscopy among disinclined women: An online experiment.Journal of medical screening · 2019Trial
- Use of Two Self-referral Reminders and a Theory-Based Leaflet to Increase the Uptake of Flexible Sigmoidoscopy in the English Bowel Scope Screening Program: Results From a Randomized Controlled Trial in London.Annals of behavioral medicine : a publication of the Society of Behavioral Medicine · 2018Trial
- Trial
- Improving uptake of flexible sigmoidoscopy screening: a randomized trial of nonparticipant reminders in the English Screening Programme.Endoscopy · 2017Trial
- Through the scope, not the ceiling: Gender distribution among endoscopy sessions at the German Visceral Medicine Congress.Endoscopy international open · 2026Article
- Sex/gender differences in gastrointestinal endoscopy from the perspective of patients and gastroenterologists.Clinical endoscopy · 2023Review
- Implementation of long-term non-participant reminders for flexible sigmoidoscopy screening.Preventive medicine reports · 2021Article
- The impact of descriptive norms on motivation to participate in cancer screening - Evidence from online experiments.Patient education and counseling · 2019Article
- The effects of reminders for colorectal cancer screening: participation and inequality.International journal of colorectal disease · 2019Article
- Barriers to bowel scope (flexible sigmoidoscopy) screening: a comparison of non-responders, active decliners and non-attenders.BMC public health · 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
- The NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Program: current perspectives on strategies for improvement.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2017Review
- Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundIn March 2013, NHS England extended its national Bowel Cancer Screening Programme to include 'one-off' Flexible Sigmoidoscopy screening (NHS Bowel Scope Screening, BSS) for men and women aged 55. With less than one in two people currently taking up the screening test offer, there is a strong public health mandate to develop system-friendly interventions to increase uptake while the programme is rolling out. This study aimed to assess the feasibility of sending a reminder to previous BSS non-responders, 12 months after the initial invitation, with consideration for its potential impact on uptake.
methodThis study was conducted in the ethnically diverse London Boroughs of Brent and Harrow, where uptake is below the national average. Between September and November 2014, 160 previous non-responders were randomly selected to receive a reminder of the opportunity to self-refer 12 months after their initial invitation. The reminder included instructions on how to book an appointment, and provided options for the time and day of the appointment and the gender of the endoscopist performing the test. To address barriers to screening, the reminder was sent with a brief locally tailored information leaflet designed specifically for this study. Participants not responding within 4 weeks were sent a follow-up reminder, after which there was no further intervention. Self-referral rates were measured 8 weeks after the delivery of the follow-up reminder and accepted as final.
resultsOf the 155 participants who received the 12 months' reminder (returned to sender, n=5), 30 (19.4%) self-referred for an appointment, of which 24 (15.5%) attended and were successfully screened. Attendance rates differed by gender, with significantly more women attending an appointment than men (20.7% vs 8.8%, respectively; OR=2.73, 95% CI=1.02-7.35, P=0.05), but not by area (Brent vs Harrow) or area-level deprivation. Of the 30 people who self-referred for an appointment, 27 (90%) indicated a preference for a same-sex practitioner, whereas three (10%) gave no preference. Preference for a same-sex practitioner was higher among women than men (χ(2)=7.78, P<0.05), with only 67% of men (six of nine) requesting a same-sex practitioner, compared with 100% of women (n=21).
conclusionsSending previous non-responders a 12 months' reminder letter with a brief information leaflet is a feasible and efficacious intervention, which merits further investigation in a randomised controlled trial.
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.