ArticleBritish journal of cancer2017
Adherence to colorectal cancer screening: four rounds of faecal immunochemical test-based screening.
Article in British journal of cancer, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 40 papers, 4 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
40 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Multilevel factors influencing colorectal cancer screening adherence: A systematic literature review.PloS one · 2026Pooled it
- Association Between Socioeconomic Status and Adherence to Fecal Occult Blood Tests in Colorectal Cancer Screening Programs: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Observational Studies.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2023Pooled it
- Selection of patients for large mailed fecal immunochemical test colorectal cancer screening outreach programs: A systematic review.Journal of medical screening · 2021Pooled it
- A Systematic Review of Repeat Fecal Occult Blood Tests for Colorectal Cancer Screening.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2020Pooled it
- Trial
- A Centralized Program with Stepped Support Increases Adherence to Colorectal Cancer Screening Over 9 Years: a Randomized Trial.Journal of general internal medicine · 2022Trial
- Trial
- Trial
- Evaluating the predictive value of multiple rounds of faecal haemoglobin measurement for the prediction of advanced neoplasia and colorectal cancer: an analysis of data from the Dutch national colorectal cancer screening programme.BMJ open gastroenterology · 2026Article
- Article
- Fecal Immunochemical Test and Multitarget Stool DNA Testing for Colorectal Cancer Screening in Real-World Practice: A Literature Review.Journal of clinical medicine · 2026Review
- Fecal Occult Blood Tests for Colorectal Cancer Screening in Routine Medical Care: A Longitudinal Analysis From Germany.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2025Article
- Longitudinal retrospective study of real-world adherence to colorectal cancer screening before and after the COVID-19 pandemic in the USA.BMJ public health · 2025Article
- Colorectal cancer screening with faecal immunochemical test: Patterns of participation.Journal of medical screening · 2024Article
- Focusing on colorectal cancer in young adults (Review).Molecular and clinical oncology · 2024Review
- Sociodemographic variations in the uptake of faecal immunochemical tests in primary care: a retrospective study.The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners · 2023Article
- Outcomes From More Than 1 Million People Screened for Lung Cancer With Low-Dose CT Imaging.Chest · 2023Article
- Subsequent participation in organized FIT based screening following screen-derived colonoscopyPreventive medicine reports · 2023Article
- Lifestyle predictors for inconsistent participation to fecal based colorectal cancer screening.BMC cancer · 2022Article
- Second-generation colon capsule endoscopy for detection of colorectal polyps: Systematic review and meta-analysis of clinical trials.Endoscopy international open · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe effectiveness of faecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based screening programs is highly dependent on consistent participation over multiple rounds. We evaluated adherence to FIT screening over four rounds and aimed to identify determinants of participation behaviour.
methodsA total of 23 339 randomly selected asymptomatic persons aged 50-74 years were invited for biennial FIT-based colorectal cancer screening between 2006 and 2014. All were invited for every consecutive round, except for those who had moved out of the area, passed the upper age limit, or had tested positive in a previous screening round. A reminder letter was sent to non-responders. We calculated participation rates per round, response rates to a reminder letter, and differences in participation between subgroups defined by age, sex, and socioeconomic status (SES).
resultsOver the four rounds, participation rates increased significantly, from 60% (95% CI 60-61), 60% (95% CI 59-60), 62% (95% CI 61-63) to 63% (95% CI 62-64; P for trend<0.001) with significantly higher participation rates in women in all rounds (P<0.001). Of the 17 312 invitees eligible for at least two rounds of FIT screening, 12 455 (72%) participated at least once, whereas 4857 (28%) never participated; 8271 (48%) attended all rounds when eligible. Consistent participation was associated with older age, female sex, and higher SES. Offering a reminder letter after the initial invite in the first round increased uptake with 12%; in subsequent screening rounds this resulted in an additional uptake of up to 10%.
conclusionsIn four rounds of a pilot biennial FIT-screening program, we observed a consistently high and increasing participation rate, whereas sending reminders remain effective. The substantial proportion of inconsistent participants suggests the existence of incidental barriers to participation, which, if possible, should be identified and removed.
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.