ArticleBMC public health2024
Co-designing planning interventions to facilitate participation in mail-out bowel cancer screening.
Article in BMC public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Community Co-Design of a Quick Guide to Inform Digital Health Promotion Strategies for Asymptomatic Women at Risk of Chronic Disease.Health promotion journal of Australia : official journal of Australian Association of Health Promotion Professionals · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPopulation mail-out bowel cancer screening programs save lives through prevention and early detection; however, their effectiveness is constrained by low participation rates. Many non-participants are "intenders"; that is, they intend to screen but fail to do so, often forgetting or procrastinating. This study aimed to co-design interventions to increase screening participation among intenders in the Australian National Bowel Cancer Screening Program.
methodsThree semi-structured interviews, and one online cross-sectional survey, were conducted between August 2021 and December 2022. Interviews with people who had completed and returned their latest screening kit ("completers") were first conducted to identify the planning strategies they had used. Using survey data, logistic regressions were conducted to analyse strategies predictive of participants having returned their latest bowel cancer screening kit. Then, intenders were interviewed to explore their opinions of these strategies and worked with researchers to adapt these strategies into prototype interventions to facilitate screening participation. All interviews were analysed using the framework approach of codebook thematic analysis.
resultsInterview participants who returned their kit shared their effective planning strategies, such as putting the kit in a visible place or by the toilet, planning a time at home to complete the kit, and using reminders. Survey participants who reported using such strategies were more likely to have completed their screening kit compared to those who did not. Prototype interventions developed and endorsed by intenders included providing a prompt to place the kit or a sticker near the toilet as a reminder, a deadline for kit return, the option to sign up for reminders, and a bag to store the sample in the fridge.
conclusionsThese novel, consumer-led interventions that are built upon the needs and experience of screening invitees provide potential solutions to improve participation in population bowel cancer screening.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
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.