Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30772850›Full record

Trial reportBMJ open2019

Using specialist screening practitioners (SSPs) to increase uptake of bowel scope (flexible sigmoidoscopy) screening: results of a feasibility single-stage phase II randomised trial.

Lesley M McGregor, Hanna Skrobanski, Mary Ritchie, Lindy Berkman, Hayley Miller, Madeleine Freeman, Nishma Patel, Stephen Morris, Colin Rees, Christian von Wagner

Abstract readClinical Trial, Phase IIRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ open, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. 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

10 authors.

Lesley M McGregorResearch Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK.
Hanna SkrobanskiResearch Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK.
Mary RitchieSouth of Tyne Bowel Cancer Screening Centre, Gateshead Health NHS Foundation Trust, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Gateshead, UK.
Lindy BerkmanPatient Representative, London, UK.
Hayley MillerSouth of Tyne Bowel Cancer Screening Centre, Gateshead Health NHS Foundation Trust, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Gateshead, UK.
Madeleine FreemanResearch Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK.
Nishma PatelDepartment of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, UK.
Stephen MorrisDepartment of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, UK.
Colin ReesSouth Tyneside NHS Foundation Trust, South Tyneside District Hospital, Tyne and Wear, UK.
Christian von WagnerResearch Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK.

Funding

Department of Health PB-PG-0613-31021
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo determine the feasibility of specialist screening practitioners (SSPs) offering patient navigation (PN) to facilitate uptake of bowel scope screening (BSS) among patients who do not confirm or attend their appointment.

designA single-stage phase II trial.

settingSouth Tyneside District Hospital, Tyne and Wear, England, UK.

participantsIndividuals invited for BSS at South Tyneside District Hospital during the 6-month recruitment period were invited to participate in the study.

interventionConsenting individuals were randomly assigned to either the PN intervention or usual care group in a 4:1 ratio. The intervention involved BSS non-attenders receiving a phone call from an SSP to elicit their reasons for non-attendance and offer educational, practical and emotional support as required. If requested by the patient, another BSS appointment was then scheduled. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: The number of non-attenders in the intervention group who were navigated and then rebooked and attended their new BSS appointment. SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Barriers to BSS attendance, patient-reported outcomes including informed choice and satisfaction with BSS and the PN intervention, reasons for study non-participation, SSPs' evaluation of the PN process and a cost analysis.

resultsOf those invited to take part (n=1050), 152 (14.5%) were randomised into the study: PN intervention=109; usual care=43. Most participants attended their BSS appointment (PN: 79.8%; control: 79.1%) leaving 22 eligible for PN: only two were successfully contacted. SSPs were confident in delivering PN, but were concerned that low BSS awareness and information overload may have deterred patients from taking part in the study. Difficulty contacting patients was reported as a burden to their workload.

conclusionsPN, as implemented, was not a feasible intervention to increase BSS uptake in South Tyneside. Interventions to increase BSS awareness may be better suited to this population. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN13314752; Results.

Indexed as

Patient Acceptance of Health CareAdultColorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerFeasibility StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMass ScreeningPatient NavigationPatient SatisfactionReminder SystemsSigmoidoscopybowel scopecolorectal cancerfeasibilitypatient navigationscreening

Identifiers

PMID30772850
PMCPMC6398706

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.