Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37202130›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2023

Increasing uptake of FIT colorectal screening: protocol for the TEMPO randomised controlled trial testing a suggested deadline and a planning tool.

Kathyrn A Robb, Marie Kotzur, Ben Young, Colin McCowan, Gareth J Hollands, Audrey Irvine, Sara Macdonald, Alex McConnachie, Ronan E O'Carroll, Rory C O'Connor and 1 more

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
5.7field-weighted citation impact, top 4% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. The acceptability of exercise prehabilitation before cancer surgery among patients, family members and health professionals: a mixed methods evaluation.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2024
    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

11 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Kathyrn A RobbSchool of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK Katie.Robb@glasgow.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0002-1672-0411
Marie KotzurSchool of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-6921-5075
Ben YoungSchool of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Colin McCowanSchool of Medicine, University of St. Andrews, St Andrews, UK.
Gareth J HollandsEPPI Centre, UCL Social Research Institute, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0492-3924
Audrey IrvineScottish Bowel Screening Centre, NHS Tayside, Dundee, Dundee, UK.
Sara MacdonaldSchool of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Alex McConnachieSchool of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Ronan E O'CarrollPsychology, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK.
Rory C O'ConnorSchool of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK.
Robert J C SteeleSchool of Medicine, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK.
University of Glasgow · GBNHS Tayside · GBUniversity College London · GBUniversity of Dundee · GBUniversity of St Andrews · GBUniversity of Stirling · GB

Funding

Cancer Research UK 27877Cancer Research UK C9227/A27877Chief Scientist Office HIPS/17/23
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionScreening can reduce deaths from colorectal cancer (CRC). Despite high levels of public enthusiasm, participation rates in population CRC screening programmes internationally remain persistently below target levels. Simple behavioural interventions such as completion goals and planning tools may support participation among those inclined to be screened but who fail to act on their intentions. This study aims to evaluate the impact of: (a) a suggested deadline for return of the test; (b) a planning tool and (c) the combination of a deadline and planning tool on return of faecal immunochemical tests (FITs) for CRC screening. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A randomised controlled trial of 40 000 adults invited to participate in the Scottish Bowel Screening Programme will assess the individual and combined impact of the interventions. Trial delivery will be integrated into the existing CRC screening process. The Scottish Bowel Screening Programme mails FITs to people aged 50-74 with brief instructions for completion and return. Participants will be randomised to one of eight groups: (1) no intervention; (2) suggested deadline (1 week); (3) suggested deadline (2 weeks); (4) suggested deadline (4 weeks); (5) planning tool; (6) planning tool plus suggested deadline (1 week); (7) planning tool plus suggested deadline (2 weeks); (8) planning tool plus suggested deadline (4 weeks). The primary outcome is return of the correctly completed FIT at 3 months. To understand the cognitive and behavioural mechanisms and to explore the acceptability of both interventions, we will survey (n=2000) and interview (n=40) a subgroup of trial participants. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study has been approved by the National Health Service South Central-Hampshire B Research Ethics Committee (ref. 19/SC/0369). The findings will be disseminated through conference presentations and publication in peer-reviewed journals. Participants can request a summary of the results. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: clinicaltrials.govNCT05408169.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsState MedicineAdultBehavior TherapyEarly Detection of CancerEmotionsHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicSurveys and QuestionnairesGastrointestinal tumoursPREVENTIVE MEDICINEPUBLIC HEALTH

Identifiers

PMID37202130
PMCPMC10201271
OpenAlexW4377093603

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.