Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28806955›Full record

Trial reportBMC cancer2017

Reducing the socioeconomic gradient in uptake of the NHS bowel cancer screening Programme using a simplified supplementary information leaflet: a cluster-randomised trial.

Samuel G Smith, Jane Wardle, Wendy Atkin, Rosalind Raine, Lesley M McGregor, Gemma Vart, Steve Morris, Stephen W Duffy, Susan Moss, Allan Hackshaw and 11 more

Open access · goldAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMC cancer, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.4field-weighted citation impact, top 10% of its field
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 34 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Health Literacy Interventions in Cancer: a Systematic Review.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2021
    Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Lessons Learned to Promote Lung Cancer Screening and Preempt Worsening Lung Cancer Disparities.American journal of respiratory and critical care medicine · 2020
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

21 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.

Samuel G SmithLeeds Institute of Health Sciences, University of Leeds, Leeds, LS2 9LB, UK.
Jane WardleDepartment of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, WC1E 7HB, UK.
Wendy AtkinFaculty of Medicine, Department of Surgery & Cancer, Imperial College London, London, W2 1NY, UK.
Rosalind RaineDepartment of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, WC1E 7HB, UK.
Lesley M McGregorDepartment of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, WC1E 7HB, UK.
Gemma VartDepartment of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, WC1E 7HB, UK.
Steve MorrisDepartment of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, WC1E 7HB, UK.
Stephen W DuffyWolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, EC1M 6BQ, UK.
Susan MossWolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, EC1M 6BQ, UK.
Allan HackshawCancer Research UK & UCL Cancer Trials Centre, University College London, London, WC1E 7HB, UK.
Stephen HalloranBowel Cancer Screening Southern Programme Hub, Guildford, GU2 7XX, UK.
Ines Kralj-HansAcademic Neuroscience Centre, King's College London, London, SE5 8AF, UK.
Rosemary HoweFaculty of Medicine, Department of Surgery & Cancer, Imperial College London, London, W2 1NY, UK.
Julia SnowballBowel Cancer Screening Southern Programme Hub, Guildford, GU2 7XX, UK.
Graham HandleyNorth East Bowel Cancer Screening Hub, Gateshead, NE9 6SX, UK.
Richard F LoganEastern Hub of the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme, Nottingham, NG7 2UH, UK.
Sandra RainbowBowel Cancer Screening Programme London Programme Hub, London, HA1 3UJ, UK.
Steve SmithMidlands & North West Bowel Cancer Screening Programme Hub, Rugby, CV22 5PX, UK.
Mary ThomasDepartment of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, WC1E 7HB, UK.
Nicholas CounsellCancer Research UK & UCL Cancer Trials Centre, University College London, London, WC1E 7HB, UK.
Christian von WagnerDepartment of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, WC1E 7HB, UK. c.wagner@ucl.ac.uk.
Bowel Cancer UK · GBUniversity College London · GBCRUK Lung Cancer Centre of Excellence · GBImperial College London · GBQueen Mary University of London · GBKing's College London · GBRoyal Holloway University of London · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 16894Department of Health RP-PG-0609-10106
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUptake of colorectal cancer screening is low in the English NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP). Participation in screening is strongly associated with socioeconomic status. The aim of this study was to determine whether a supplementary leaflet providing the 'gist' of guaiac-based Faecal Occult Blood test (gFOBt) screening for colorectal cancer could reduce the socioeconomic status (SES) gradient in uptake in the English NHS BCSP.

methodsThe trial was integrated within routine BCSP operations in November 2012. Using a cluster randomised controlled design all adults aged 59-74 years who were being routinely invited to complete the gFOBt were randomised based on day of invitation. The Index of Multiple Deprivation was used to create SES quintiles. The control group received the standard information booklet ('SI'). The intervention group received the SI booklet and the Gist leaflet ('SI + Gist') which had been designed to help people with lower literacy engage with the invitation. Blinding of hubs was not possible and invited subjects were not made aware of a comparator condition. The primary outcome was the gradient in uptake across IMD quintiles.

resultsIn November 2012, 163,525 individuals were allocated to either the 'SI' intervention (n = 79,104) or the 'SI + Gist' group (n = 84,421). Overall uptake was similar between the intervention and control groups (SI: 57.3% and SI + Gist: 57.6%; OR = 1.02, 95% CI: 0.92-1.13, p = 0.77). Uptake was 42.0% (SI) vs. 43.0% (SI + Gist) in the most deprived quintile and 65.6% vs. 65.8% in the least deprived quintile (interaction p = 0.48). The SES gradient in uptake was similar between the study groups within age, gender, hub and screening round sub-groups.

conclusionsProviding supplementary simplified information in addition to the standard information booklet did not reduce the SES gradient in uptake in the NHS BCSP. The effectiveness of the Gist leaflet when used alone should be explored in future research.

trial registrationISRCTN74121020 , registered: 17/20/2012.

Indexed as

PamphletsSocial ClassAgedColorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOccult BloodCancer; oncology; socioeconomic inequalitiesColorectal cancer screeningFuzzy trace theoryGist

Identifiers

PMID28806955
PMCPMC5556676
OpenAlexW2749467743

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.