Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35410541›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical screening2022

Evaluation of the Call for a Kit intervention to increase bowel cancer screening uptake in Lancashire, England.

Sandro T Stoffel, Lesley McGregor, Yasemin Hirst, Sahida Hanif, Lorraine Morris, Christian von Wagner

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical screening, 2022. 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 48% 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, 3 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

6 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Sandro T StoffelResearch Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK.
Lesley McGregorDivision of Psychology, Faculty of Natural Sciences, 7622University of Stirling, Stirling, UK.
Yasemin HirstResearch Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK.
Sahida Hanif1756Blackpool Teaching Hospitals, NHS Foundation Trust, Blackpool, UK.
Lorraine Morris1756Blackpool Teaching Hospitals, NHS Foundation Trust, Blackpool, UK.
Christian von WagnerResearch Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7971-0691
Blackpool Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust · GBUniversity College London · GBUniversity of Basel · CHUniversity of Stirling · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo evaluate the 'Call for a Kit' health promotion intervention that was initiated in Lancashire, England to improve bowel cancer screening uptake.

methodsWithin the intervention, screening non-responders are called and invited to attend a consultation with a health promotion team member at their primary care practice. In this audit, we analysed the proportion of those contacted who attended the in-person clinic versus those who received a phone consultation, the number returning a test kit from in-person versus phone consultations, and the extent to which test kit return was moderated by sociodemographic characteristics.

resultsIn 2019, 68 practices participated in the intervention which led to 10,772 individuals being contacted; 2464 accepted the invitation to an in-person consultation, of whom 1943 attended. A further 1065 agreed to and attended a consultation over the phone. The 3008 consultations resulted in 2890 test kits being ordered, of which 1608 (55.6%) were returned. The intervention therefore yielded a 14.9% response rate in the total cohort; 71.5% of test kits came from individuals attending the in-person consultation. Women and those registered with a practice in socioeconomically deprived areas were less likely to return the test kit. Individuals with a black, mixed or a non-Indian/Pakistani Asian ethnic background were significantly more likely to accept the offer of an in-person consultation and return the test kit.

conclusionOur analysis demonstrated the strong likelihood of people returning a test kit after an in-person appointment but also the usefulness of using phone consultations as a safety net for people unable or unwilling to attend in-person clinics.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerEnglandFemaleHumansMass ScreeningReferral and ConsultationBlack and minority ethnic groupsCancer screeningfaecal occult blood testhealth promotion

Identifiers

PMID35410541
PMCPMC9381688
OpenAlexW4223455199

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.