Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38909999›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2024

Comparing the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of text-message reminders and telephone patient navigation to improve the uptake of faecal immunochemical test screening among non-responders in London: a randomised controlled trial protocol.

Thomas Duffy, Natalie Gil, Benzeer Siddique, Stephen Duffy, Andrew Prentice, Sarah Marshall, Natasha K Djedovic, Michael Lewis, Josephine Ruwende, Christian von Wagner and 1 more

Abstract readClinical Trial Protocol
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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.

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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
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.

Thomas DuffyUniversity College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-3565-6590
Natalie GilDepartment of Behavioural Science & Health, University College London, London, UK n.gil@surrey.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-3137-2870
Benzeer SiddiqueNHS England, Redditch, UK.
Stephen DuffyCRUK Department of EMS, Woflson Institute of Preventive Medicine, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-4901-7922
Andrew PrenticeSt Mark's Bowel Cancer Screening Centre, London North West Healthcare NHS Trust, Harrow, UK.
Sarah MarshallSt Mark's Bowel Cancer Screening Centre, London North West Healthcare NHS Trust, London, UK.
Natasha K DjedovicNorthwick Park Hospital, NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme London Hub, London, UK.
Michael LewisUniversity of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK.
Josephine RuwendeNHS England, Redditch, UK.
Christian von WagnerDepartment of Behavioural Science & Health, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-7971-0691
Robert KerrisonDepartment of Behavioural Science & Health, University College London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8900-749X

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionParticipation in bowel cancer screening is lower in regions where there is high ethnic diversity and/or socioeconomic deprivation. Interventions, such as text message reminders and patient navigation (PN), have the potential to increase participation in these areas. As such, there is interest in the comparative effectiveness of these interventions to increase bowel cancer screening participation, as well as their relative cost-effectiveness. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study will use a three-arm randomised controlled trial design to compare the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of text message reminders and PN to increase the uptake of bowel cancer screening in London. Participants will be individuals who have not returned a completed faecal immunochemical test kit within 13 weeks of receiving a routine invitation from the London bowel cancer screening hub. Participants will be randomised (in a 1:1:1 ratio) to receive either (1) usual care (ie, 'no intervention'), (2) a text message reminder at 13 weeks, followed by repeated text message reminders at 15, 17 and 19 weeks (in the event of non-response) or (3) a text message reminder at 13 weeks, followed by PN telephone calls at 15, 17 and 19 weeks in the event of non-response. The primary endpoint will be participation in bowel cancer screening, defined as 'the return of a completed kit by week 24'. Statistical analysis will use multivariate logistic regression and will incorporate pairwise comparisons of all three groups, adjusted for multiple testing. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Approvals to conduct the research have been obtained from University College London's Joint Research Office (Ref: 150666), the Screening Research, Innovation and Development Advisory Committee ('RIDAC', Ref: 2223 014 BCSP Kerrison), the Health Research Authority (Ref: 22/WM/0212) and the Confidentiality Advisory Group (Ref: 22/CAG/0140). Results will be conveyed to stakeholders, notably those managing the screening programme and published in peer-reviewed journals/presented at academic conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN17245519.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsCost-Benefit AnalysisEarly Detection of CancerOccult BloodPatient NavigationReminder SystemsTelephoneText MessagingHumansLondonRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicMass ScreeningPatient NavigationRandomized Controlled Trial

Identifiers

PMID38909999
PMCPMC11328611

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.