Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33505841›Full record

ArticlePreventive medicine reports2021

Implementation of long-term non-participant reminders for flexible sigmoidoscopy screening.

R S Kerrison, A Prentice, S Marshall, S Choglay, S Stoffel, C Rees, C von Wagner

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Preventive medicine reports, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.2field-weighted citation impact, top 49% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. 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

7 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

R S KerrisonResearch Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, London WC1E 7HB, United Kingdom.
A PrenticeSt Mark's Bowel Cancer Screening Centre, St Mark's Hospital, Watford Road, Harrow, Middlesex HA1 3UJ, United Kingdom.
S MarshallSt Mark's Bowel Cancer Screening Centre, St Mark's Hospital, Watford Road, Harrow, Middlesex HA1 3UJ, United Kingdom.
S ChoglayPublic Health England, Skipton House, London SE1 6LH, United Kingdom.
S StoffelResearch Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, London WC1E 7HB, United Kingdom.
C ReesPopulation Health Sciences Institute, Newcastle University Centre for Cancer, Newcastle University, Newcastle Upon Tyne, United Kingdom.
C von WagnerResearch Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, 1-19 Torrington Place, London WC1E 7HB, United Kingdom.
St Mark's Hospital · GBUniversity College London · GBNewcastle University · GBPublic Health England · GBUniversity of Basel · CH

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The clinical effectiveness of screening is highly dependent on uptake. Previous randomised controlled trials suggest that non-participant reminders, which highlight the opportunity to re-book an appointment, can improve participation. The present analysis examines the impact of implementing these reminders within the English Flexible Sigmoidoscopy (FS) Screening Programme, which offers once-only FS screening to adults aged 55-59 years. We assessed the screening status of 26,339 individuals invited for once-only FS screening in England. A total of 10,952 (41.6%) had attended screening, and were subsequently ineligible. The remaining 15,387 had not attended screening, and were selected to receive a reminder, 1-2 years after their invitation. Descriptive statistics were used to assess the increase in uptake and the adenoma detection rate (ADR) of those who self-referred, six months after the delivery of the final reminder. Pearson's Chi-Square was used to compare the ADR between those who attended when invited and those who self-referred. Of the 15,387 adults eligible to receive a reminder, 13,626 (88.6%) were sent a reminder as intended (1,761 were not sent a reminder, due to endoscopy capacity). Of these, 8.0% (n = 1,086) booked and attended an appointment, which equated to a 4.1% increase in uptake from 41.6% at baseline, to 45.7% at follow-up. The ADR was significantly higher for those who self-referred, compared with those who attended when invited (13.3% and 9.5%, respectively;

Indexed as

Bowel scope screeningColorectal cancer screeningFlexible sigmoidoscopy screeningRemindersUptake

Identifiers

PMID33505841
PMCPMC7815459
OpenAlexW3118436178

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.