Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31500594›Full record

Trial reportBMC public health2019

A targeted promotional DVD fails to improve Māori and Pacific participation rates in the New Zealand bowel screening pilot: results from a pseudo-randomised controlled trial.

Karen Bartholomew, Lifeng Zhou, Sue Crengle, Elizabeth Buswell, Anne Buckley, Peter Sandiford

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

Trial report in BMC public health, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 4 pooled it
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 37% 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, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 18 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  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

6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.

Karen BartholomewWaitematā District Health Board, 15 Shea Terrace, Takapuna, Auckland, 0740, New Zealand.
Lifeng ZhouWaitematā District Health Board, 15 Shea Terrace, Takapuna, Auckland, 0740, New Zealand.
Sue CrengleDepartment of Preventive and Social Medicine, Dunedin School of Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin, 9054, New Zealand.
Elizabeth BuswellWaitematā District Health Board, 15 Shea Terrace, Takapuna, Auckland, 0740, New Zealand.
Anne BuckleyWaitematā District Health Board, 15 Shea Terrace, Takapuna, Auckland, 0740, New Zealand.
Peter SandifordWaitematā District Health Board, 15 Shea Terrace, Takapuna, Auckland, 0740, New Zealand. Peter.Sandiford@Waitematadhb.govt.nz.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1823-2462
Waitemata District Health Board · NZUniversity of Auckland · NZUniversity of Otago · NZ

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundNew Zealand's Bowel Screening Pilot (BSP) used a mailed invitation to return a faecal immunochemical test. As a pilot it offered opportunities to test interventions for reducing ethnic inequities in colorectal cancer screening prior to nationwide programme introduction. Small media interventions (e.g. educational material and DVDs) have been used at both community and participant level to improve uptake. We tested whether a DVD originally produced to raise community awareness among the Māori population would have a positive impact on participation and reduce the proportion of incorrectly performed tests (spoiled kits) if mailed out with the usual reminder letter.

methodsThe study was a parallel groups pseudo-randomised controlled trial. Over 12 months, all Māori and Pacific ethnicity non-responders four weeks after being mailed the test kit were allocated on alternate weeks to be sent, or not, the DVD intervention with the usual reminder letter. The objective was to determine changes in participation and spoiled kit rates in each ethnic group, determined three months from the date the reminder letter was sent. Participants and those recording the outcomes (receipt of a spoiled or non-spoiled test kit) were blinded to group assignment.

results2333 Māori and 2938 Pacific people participated (11 withdrew). Those who were sent the DVD (1029 Māori and 1359 Pacific) were less likely to participate in screening than those who were not (1304 Māori and 1579 Pacific). Screening participation was reduced by 12.3% (95% CI 9.1-15.5%) in Māori (13.6% versus 25.9%) and 8.3% (95% CI 5.8-10.8%) in Pacific (10.1% versus 18.4%). However, spoiled kit rates (first return) were significantly higher among those not sent the DVD (33.1% versus 12.4% in Māori and 42.1% versus 21.9% in Pacific).

conclusionThe DVD sent with the reminder letter to BSP non-responders reduced screening participation to an extent that more than offset the lower rate of spoiled kits.

trial registrationAustralia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12612001259831 . Registered 30 November 2013.

Indexed as

Video RecordingAgedColorectal NeoplasmsFemaleHealth PromotionHumansMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedNew ZealandPilot ProjectsProgram EvaluationBowel cancer screeningColorectal cancerEquityEthnic inequalitiesFaecal immunochemical testMāoriPacificScreening participationSmall media interventions

Identifiers

PMID31500594
PMCPMC6734461
OpenAlexW2972890997

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.