Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39019622›Full record

Trial reportBMJ open gastroenterology2024

Recruitment strategies and consent rates in a national prospective colorectal cancer screening cohort: results from year 1 of the Voyage Study.

Kathleen J Yost, Rachel E Carlson, Christine R Kirt, Emily J Kirsch, Bonny Kneedler, Jennifer J Laffin, Jennifer L St Sauver, Lila J Finney Rutten, Jessica A Grimm, Janet E Olson

Registry-linked trialAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in BMJ open gastroenterology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. It is linked to trial NCT04124406 (Voyage), which is not on this map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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.

NCT04124406 active not recruitingnot on this map

Voyage: Real-World Impact of the Multi-target Stool DNA Test on CRC Screening and Mortality

TypeobservationalSponsorExact Sciences CorporationRan2019 to 2025Enrolled150,000ConditionsColon CancerArmsCologuard
3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  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

10 authors.

Kathleen J YostDepartment of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA Yost.Kathleen@mayo.edu.
Rachel E CarlsonDepartment of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Christine R KirtDepartment of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Emily J KirschDepartment of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Bonny KneedlerExact Sciences Corporation, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
Jennifer J LaffinExact Sciences Corporation, Madison, Wisconsin, USA.
Jennifer L St SauverDepartment of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Lila J Finney RuttenDepartment of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.
Jessica A GrimmDepartment of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-1807-7404
Janet E OlsonDepartment of Quantitative Health Sciences, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo identify the optimal incentive protocol for maximising participation while managing study costs during the Voyage trial.

designProspective cohort (Voyage trial) of colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality outcomes in individuals screened with multitarget stool DNA (mt-sDNA) served as the population. A subset was randomised to receive postage stamps as a pre-consent incentive, or as a post-consent incentive after completion of the consent and questionnaire. Descriptive statistics from year 1 are reported.

resultsDuring year 1 of the Voyage trial, a total of 600 258 individuals with mt-sDNA orders received at Exact Sciences Laboratories were randomly selected and invited to participate. Of those, 26 429 (4.4%) opted in, 14 365 of whom (54.3%) consented. The opt-in and consent samples were similar to the target population with respect to sex but differed by geographic residence and age (p<0.001). For the embedded incentive experiment, 2333 were randomised to the pre-incentive arm, while 2342 were randomised to the post-incentive arm. Overall consent rate in the incentive trial was 56.4% (60.9% for the pre-consent incentive arm (1421/2333) vs 52.0% for the post-consent incentive arm (1217/2342), p<0.001). Cost reduction was observed for the pre-consent incentive group, and higher response rates were seen among older versus younger individuals.

conclusionsPre-consent incentive option was associated with a higher participation rate and lower costs and was used for the remainder of study recruitment. CRC incidence and mortality vary with age; thus, adjusting for differential participation by age and region will be important in analyses of Voyage data. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04124406.

Indexed as

Colorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerPatient SelectionAgedFecesFemaleHumansIncidenceInformed ConsentMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedMotivationProspective StudiesSurveys and QuestionnairesCOLORECTAL CANCERCOLORECTAL CANCER SCREENINGSTOOL MARKERS

Identifiers

PMID39019622
PMCPMC11288143

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.