ArticleBritish journal of cancer2017
GP participation in increasing uptake in a national bowel cancer screening programme: the PEARL project.
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 15 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
15 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
- 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
- Breast cancer screening in Europe and the role of general practitioners: A 32-country comparative survey.The European journal of general practice · 2026Article
- Inequalities in Gastrointestinal Care Provision in the United Kingdom.Digestive diseases and sciences · 2026Review
- Perceptions and beliefs of general practitioners on their role in the cancer screening programmes in the Netherlands: a mixed-methods study.BMC primary care · 2024Article
- Managing Colorectal Cancer from Ethology to Interdisciplinary Treatment: The Gains and Challenges of Modern Medicine.International journal of molecular sciences · 2024Review
- Application of the 'online assessment + FOBT at home' to improve participation and the efficacy of opportunistic screening for colorectal cancer: a retrospective cohort study.BMC public health · 2023Article
- Uptake of invitations to a lung health check offering low-dose CT lung cancer screening among an ethnically and socioeconomically diverse population at risk of lung cancer in the UK (SUMMIT): a prospective, longitudinal cohort study.The Lancet. Public health · 2023Article
- A health action process approach for developing invitee endorsed interventions to increase mail-out bowel cancer screening.Applied psychology. Health and well-being · 2022Article
- The Impact of a Comprehensive Risk Prediction Model for Colorectal Cancer on a Population Screening Program.JNCI cancer spectrum · 2020Article
- Non-maleficence and the ethics of consent to cancer screening.Journal of medical ethics · 2020Article
- Colorectal Cancer in Brunei Darussalam: An Overview and Rationale for National Screening Programme.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2019Review
- Article
- Geospatial analysis of the influence of family doctor on colorectal cancer screening adherence.PloS one · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) in England does not involve general practitioners (GPs). Uptake is ∼58%. The Practice Endorsed Additional Reminder Letter (PEARL) study piloted a GP-endorsed reminder letter.
methodsGeneral practices in Wessex with uptake <55% (prevalent invitations) were invited to participate. Subjects who had been invited for screening, sent a standard 28-day BCSP reminder letter but had not returned a test kit within 30 days of the standard reminder were sent a second reminder letter bearing the GP's letterhead and signature. Uptake was compared between PEARL and non-PEARL practices by standardised uptake ratio (standardised for prior prevalent uptake and other confounders). In addition, 25 non-PEARL practices were matched with PEARL practices for prior prevalent uptake and number of invitees.
resultsTwenty-five practices agreed to participate. A total of 3149 GP-endorsed reminders were sent. Uptake in the PEARL practices was 54% compared with 51% in the matched-control practices. The adjusted RR for uptake was 1.08 (95% CI: 1.05, 1.11, P<0.001) for all invitees and 2.18 (1.79, 2.66, P<0.001) for invitees who had not returned a kit following the standard reminder.
conclusionsThe GP-endorsed reminder was associated with significantly increased uptake among subjects not responding to the standard reminder letter.
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.