ArticleCancer2025
Interventions to increase uptake in a fecal-immunochemical test population-based colorectal cancer screening program: A quasi-experimental study of first-time invitees.
Article in Cancer, 2025. 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.
- Evaluating incidence and mortality trends of early-onset colorectal cancer and adenoma in Belgium.ESMO gastrointestinal oncology · 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundMany countries have established organized colorectal cancer screening programs because they can reduce mortality and incidence from the disease; however, they rely on high participation rates, which are often suboptimal. This study examined the effectiveness of two reminder interventions on uptake rates in Ireland's population-based BowelScreen program.
methodsEmploying a quasi-experimental design, one intervention mailed the fecal-immunochemical test (FIT) directly to clients not responding to an initial invitation; the other mailed a reminder letter modified with behavioral insights. Interventions were tested separately and in combination and compared to the standard reminder letter (1: standard reminder letter [SRL]; 2: modified reminder letter [MRL]; 3: SRL + FIT direct [FITD]; and 4: MRL + FITD). PRIMARY OUTCOME: overall uptake rate (test completion at 5 months); Subgroup outcome: uptake rate among only those receiving reminders. Outcomes were modeled using multivariable logistic regression with group allocation as a fixed effect, adjusted for sex and deprivation.
resultsUptake was significantly higher in the FITD groups (SRL: 48%; MRL: 50%; SRL + FITD: 54%; MRL + FITD: 54%; p < .001). After adjustment, compared to the SRL group, FITD groups had significantly higher odds of uptake (MRL: odds ratio [OR], 1.09; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.96-1.23; SRL + FITD: OR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.14-1.48; MRL + FITD: OR, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.11-1.44). This was also the case for subgroup analysis. The MRL did not result in higher uptake compared to SRL.
conclusionMailing the FIT kit directly to nonresponders resulted in improved FIT uptake. Organized FIT-based screening programs not reaching uptake targets should consider implementing this strategy if not already in place.
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.