Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31685010›Full record

SynthesisSystematic reviews2019

Strategies for increasing participation in mail-out colorectal cancer screening programs: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Belinda C Goodwin, Michael J Ireland, Sonja March, Larry Myers, Fiona Crawford-Williams, Suzanne K Chambers, Joanne F Aitken, Jeff Dunn

2 registry-linked trialsAbstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to 2 registered trials, which are not on this map. Cited by 43 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing 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.

NCT04348058 naunknown statusnot on this mapstarted 2020, after this paper: background citation

Telephone Services for Participation Improvement in Colorectal Cancer Screening: a Randomized Health Services Study

TypeinterventionalSponsorMaria Sklodowska-Curie National Research Institute of OncologyRan2020 to 2021Enrolled6,300ConditionsParticipation Rate, PatientArmsTelephone recruitment to screening colonoscopy, Combined methods recruitment to screening colonoscopy
NCT05903885 narecruitingnot on this mapstarted 2023, after this paper: background citation

Using a Cross-sectional Partnership to Improve Prevention and Health Equity Among African Americans

TypeinterventionalSponsorUniversity of NebraskaRan2023 to 2026Enrolled1,200ConditionsColorectal Cancer, PreventionArmsOn-site Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) Kit Distribution, On-site With Social Media Advertising Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) Kit Distribution
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Effectiveness and Cost of an Enhanced Mailed Fecal Test Outreach Colorectal Cancer Screening Program: Findings from the PROMPT Stepped-Wedge Trial.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2023
    Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Randomized Controlled Trial of Advance Notification Phone Calls vs Text Messages Prior to Mailed Fecal Test Outreach.Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · 2021
    Trial
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

8 authors.

Belinda C GoodwinInstitute for Resilient Regions, University of Southern Queensland, Springfield Central, QLD, 4300, Australia. belinda.goodwin@usq.edu.au.ORCID 0000-0002-3425-4848
Michael J IrelandInstitute for Resilient Regions, University of Southern Queensland, Springfield Central, QLD, 4300, Australia.
Sonja MarchInstitute for Resilient Regions, University of Southern Queensland, Springfield Central, QLD, 4300, Australia.
Larry MyersSchool of Psychology and Counselling, University of Southern Queensland, Springfield Central, QLD, Australia.
Fiona Crawford-WilliamsInstitute for Resilient Regions, University of Southern Queensland, Springfield Central, QLD, 4300, Australia.
Suzanne K ChambersCancer Research Centre, Cancer Council Queensland, Fortitude Valley, QLD, Australia.
Joanne F AitkenCancer Research Centre, Cancer Council Queensland, Fortitude Valley, QLD, Australia.
Jeff DunnInstitute for Resilient Regions, University of Southern Queensland, Springfield Central, QLD, 4300, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundPopulation mail-out bowel screening programs are a convenient, cost-effective and sensitive method of detecting colorectal cancer (CRC). Despite the increased survival rates associated with early detection of CRC, in many countries, 50% or more of eligible individuals do not participate in such programs. The current study systematically reviews interventions applied to increase fecal occult blood test (FOBT) kit return, specifically in population mail-out programs.

methodsFive electronic databases (PubMed, PsycINFO, Scopus, CINAHL, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses) were searched for articles published before the 10th of March 2018. Studies were included if they reported the results of an intervention designed to increase the return rate of FOBT kits that had been mailed to individuals' homes. PRISMA systematic review reporting methods were applied and each study was assessed using Cochrane's Risk of Bias tool. Pooled effect sizes were calculated for each intervention type and the risk of bias was tested as a moderator for sensitivity analysis.

resultsThe review identified 53 interventions from 30 published studies from which nine distinct intervention strategy types emerged. Sensitivity analysis showed that the risk of bias marginally moderated the overall effect size. Pooled risk ratios and confidence intervals for each intervention type revealed that telephone contact RR = 1.23, 95% CI (1.08-1.40), GP endorsement RR = 1.19, 95% CI (1.10-1.29), simplified test procedures RR = 1.17, 95% CI (1.09-1.25), and advance notifications RR = 1.09, 95% CI (1.07-1.11) were effective intervention strategies with small to moderate effect sizes. Studies with a high risk of bias were removed and pooled effects remained relatively unchanged.

conclusionsInterventions that combine program-level changes incorporating the issue of advance notification and alternative screening tools with the involvement of primary health professionals through endorsement letters and telephone contact should lead to increases in kit return in mail-out CRC screening programs. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: This review is registered with PROSPERO; registration number CRD42017064652.

Indexed as

Patient CompliancePostal ServiceColorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerHumansOccult BloodBowel cancer screeningColorectal cancer screeningFecal occult blood testInterventionPopulation screeningSystematic review, meta-analysis

Identifiers

PMID31685010
PMCPMC6827213

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

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.