A national cluster-randomised controlled trial to examine the effect of enhanced reminders on the socioeconomic gradient in uptake in bowel cancer screening

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

INTRODUCTION

Participation 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.

Impact of screening participation on modelled mortality benefits of a multi-cancer early detection test by socioeconomic group in England

BACKGROUND

Cancer burden is higher and cancer screening participation is lower among individuals living in more socioeconomically deprived areas of England, contributing to worse health outcomes and shorter life expectancy. Owing to higher multi-cancer early detection (MCED) test sensitivity for poor-prognosis cancers and greater cancer burden in groups experiencing greater deprivation, MCED screening programmes may have greater relative benefits in these groups. We modelled potential differential benefits of MCED screening between deprivation groups in England at different levels of screening participation.

METHODS

We applied the interception multi-cancer screening model to cancer incidence and survival data made available by the National Cancer Registration and Analysis Service in England to estimate reductions in late-stage diagnoses and cancer mortality from an MCED screening programme by deprivation group across 24 cancer types. We assessed the impact of varying the proportion of people who participated in annual screening in each deprivation group on these estimates.

RESULTS

The modelled benefits of an MCED screening programme were substantial: reductions in late-stage diagnoses were 160 and 274 per 100 000 persons in the least and most deprived groups, respectively. Reductions in cancer mortality were 60 and 99 per 100 000 persons in the least and most deprived groups, respectively. Benefits were greatest in the most deprived group at every participation level and were attenuated with lower screening participation.

CONCLUSIONS

For the greatest possible population benefit and to decrease health inequalities, an MCED implementation strategy should focus on enhancing equitable, informed participation, enabling equal participation across all socioeconomic deprivation groups.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05611632.

Reducing health inequalities through general practice: a realist review and action framework

Background

Socio-economic inequalities in health have been in the public agenda for decades. General practice has an influential role to play in mitigating the impact of inequalities especially regarding chronic conditions. At the moment, general practice is dealing with serious challenges in relation to workforce shortages, increasing workload and the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. It is important to identify effective ways so that general practice can play its role in reducing health inequalities.

Objectives

We explored what types of interventions and aspects of routine care in general practice decrease or increase inequalities in health and care-related outcomes. We focused on cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes and/or chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. We explored for whom these interventions and aspects of care work best, why, and in what circumstances. Our main objective was to synthesise this evidence into specific guidance for healthcare professionals and decision-makers about how best to achieve equitable general practice.

Design

Realist review.

Main outcome measures

Clinical or care-related outcomes by socio-economic group, or other PROGRESS-Plus criteria.

Review methods

Realist review based on Pawson's five steps: (1) locating existing theories, (2) searching for evidence, (3) selecting articles, (4) extracting and organising data and (5) synthesising the evidence.

Results

Three hundred and twenty-five studies met the inclusion criteria and 159 of them were selected for the evidence synthesis. Evidence about the impact of general practice interventions on health inequalities is limited. To reduce health inequalities, general practice needs to be: • connected so that interventions are linked and coordinated across the sector; • intersectional to account for the fact that people's experience is affected by many of their characteristics; • flexible to meet patients' different needs and preferences; • inclusive so that it does not exclude people because of who they are; • community-centred so that people who receive care engage with its design and delivery. These qualities should inform action across four domains: structures like funding and workforce distribution, organisational culture, everyday regulated procedures involved in care delivery, interpersonal and community relationships.

Limitations

The reviewed evidence offers limited detail about the ways and the extent to which specific interventions increase or decrease inequalities in general practice. Therefore, we focused on the underpinning principles that were common across interventions to produce higher-level, transferrable conclusions about ways to achieve equitable care.

Conclusions

Inequalities in general practice result from complex processes across four different domains that include structures, ideas, regulated everyday procedures, and relationships among individuals and communities. To achieve equity, general practice needs to be connected, intersectional, flexible, inclusive and community-centred.

Future work

Future work should focus on how these five essential qualities can be better used to shape the organisational development of future general practice.

Study registration

This trial is registered as PROSPERO CRD42020217871.

Funding

This award was funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Health and Social Care Delivery Research programme (NIHR award ref: NIHR130694) and is published in full in Health and Social Care Delivery Research; Vol. 12, No. 7. See the NIHR Funding and Awards website for further award information.

Reducing health inequalities through general practice

Although general practice can contribute to reducing health inequalities, existing evidence provides little guidance on how this reduction can be achieved. We reviewed interventions influencing health and care inequalities in general practice and developed an action framework for health professionals and decision makers. We conducted a realist review by searching MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library for systematic reviews of interventions into health inequality in general practice. We then screened the studies in the included systematic reviews for those that reported their outcomes by socioeconomic status or other PROGRESS-Plus (Cochrane Equity Methods Group) categories. 159 studies were included in the evidence synthesis. Robust evidence on the effect of general practice on health inequalities is scarce. Focusing on common qualities of interventions, we found that to reduce health inequalities, general practice needs to be informed by five key principles: involving coordinated services across the system (ie, connected), accounting for differences within patient groups (ie, intersectional), making allowances for different patient needs and preferences (ie, flexible), integrating patient worldviews and cultural references (ie, inclusive), and engaging communities with service design and delivery (ie, community-centred). Future work should explore how these principles can inform the organisational development of general practice.

Effectiveness of behavioural economics-based interventions to improve colorectal cancer screening participation: A rapid systematic review of randomised controlled trials

•

We searched PubMed, PsycInfo and EconLit for RCTs that evaluated BE interventions in CRC screening.

•

We identified 1027 papers for title and abstract review. 30 studies were eligible for the review.

•

The most frequently tested BE intervention was incentives, followed by default principle and salience.

•

Default-based interventions were most likely to be effective. Incentives had mixed evidence.

•

BE remains a promising field of interest in relation to influencing CRC screening behaviours.

Implementation of long-term non-participant reminders for flexible sigmoidoscopy screening

•

Long-term self-referral reminders increased uptake by 4.1%.

•

13% of those who self-referred had pre-cancerous lesions detected.

•

The biggest effects were seen in the most deprived areas.

The clinical effectiveness of screening is highly dependent on uptake. Previous randomised controlled trials suggest that non-participant reminders, which highlight the opportunity to re-book an appointment, can improve participation. The present analysis examines the impact of implementing these reminders within the English Flexible Sigmoidoscopy (FS) Screening Programme, which offers once-only FS screening to adults aged 55–59 years.

We assessed the screening status of 26,339 individuals invited for once-only FS screening in England. A total of 10,952 (41.6%) had attended screening, and were subsequently ineligible. The remaining 15,387 had not attended screening, and were selected to receive a reminder, 1–2 years after their invitation. Descriptive statistics were used to assess the increase in uptake and the adenoma detection rate (ADR) of those who self-referred, six months after the delivery of the final reminder. Pearson’s Chi-Square was used to compare the ADR between those who attended when invited and those who self-referred.

Of the 15,387 adults eligible to receive a reminder, 13,626 (88.6%) were sent a reminder as intended (1,761 were not sent a reminder, due to endoscopy capacity). Of these, 8.0% (n = 1,086) booked and attended an appointment, which equated to a 4.1% increase in uptake from 41.6% at baseline, to 45.7% at follow-up. The ADR was significantly higher for those who self-referred, compared with those who attended when invited (13.3% and 9.5%, respectively; X² = 16.138, p = 0.000059).

The implementation of non-participant reminders led to a moderate increase in uptake. Implementing non-participant reminders could help mitigate the negative effects of COVID-19 on uptake.

Assessing the implementation of interventions addressing socioeconomic inequalities in cancer screening in high-income countries

Background: The context of an intervention may influence its effectiveness and success in meeting the needs of the targeted population. Implementation science frameworks have been developed, but previous literature in this field has been mixed. This paper aimed to assess the implementation success of interventions, identified from a systematic review, that reduced inequalities in cancer screening between people in low and high socioeconomic groups.

Design and Methods: The implementation framework by Proctor et al. was utilised to assess the potential success of 6 studies reporting on 7 interventions in the “real-world” environment. A standardised rating system to identify the overall implementation success of each intervention was established.

Results: Four interventions (57%) demonstrated high potential to be implemented successfully. Interventions included enhanced reminder letters and GP-endorsed screening invitations, containing evidence on the acceptability, from participants and stakeholders, appropriateness and direct cost of the intervention.

Conclusion: While some interventions reduced socioeconomic inequalities in cancer screening participation, there have been missed opportunities to integrate the experiences of the targeted population into design and evaluation components. This has limited the potential for transferability of outcomes to other settings.

The impact of interventions addressing socioeconomic inequalities in cancer-related outcomes in high-income countries: A systematic review

Background: High cancer mortality is a major source of burden. Population-wide programs have been developed to improve cancer outcomes, and although effective in improving outcomes overall, the socioeconomically disadvantaged population have disproportionately benefited. This systematic review evaluated interventions aimed at addressing inequalities in cancer-related outcomes between low and high socioeconomic groups within high-income countries. Materials and Methods: The Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, and PubMed searches were completed in October 2018. Data extraction and quality appraisal were guided by established mechanisms. Impact of interventions, using odds ratios, with respective 95% confidence intervals were presented, where available. Results: Sixteen studies reporting on 19 interventions were included. Seven interventions (37%) reduced socioeconomic inequalities in cancer-related outcomes, focusing on participation in cancer screening. Interventions included pre-formulated implementation intentions; GP-endorsed screening invitations; enhanced reminder letters; text message reminders; and implementation of an organised screening program. Conclusions: This systematic review found limited evidence on the efficacy of existing interventions that aimed to reduce inequalities in cancer-related outcomes between people living in low and high socioeconomic areas among high-income countries. Future interventions should consider the specific needs of people living in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas to improve the efficacy of an intervention.

[Intervention research for the reduction of social and local inequalities in matters relating to cancer screening]

Social inequalities constitute a major obstacle to the social and economic cohesion of a country, particularly those affecting the health field. In the field of cancer screening, the current situation is that of a social gradient of participation and strong territorial inequalities. This paper reports on the results of two interventional investigations to add incentives to the existing device to provide screening tests for specific populations. A prospective trial with a collective randomization unit was set up from April 2011 to April 2013 in the 3 areas of Northern France (Aisne, Oise and Somme), to assess social workers' help with screening of colorectal cancer (Prado trial). A retrospective study was conducted on the experience of mammobile driving in the area of Orne for several years. The analysis of the results shows that each of these devices is capable of reducing or even erasing social and territorial inequalities at a reasonable cost to society. It also shows that in terms of screening, inequalities can only be reduced if additional devices dedicated to particular populations are added to the national system according to a principle of proportionate universalism.

The effects of reminders for colorectal cancer screening: participation and inequality

PURPOSE

To investigate the effect of sending out reminders for colorectal cancer screening on socioeconomic and demographic inequalities in screening uptake.

METHODS

All citizens aged 50-74 in Denmark are invited every 2 years for colorectal cancer screening. Non-participants receive an electronically distributed reminder. Data for these analyses were derived from national registers. Socioeconomic status was measured by income and educational level. Demographic variables included age, gender and marital status, and the analyses were stratified by immigration status. Logistic regression analyses were conducted to estimate the odds of non-participation for invited citizens and for reminded citizens divided by socioeconomic and demographic predictors.

RESULTS

Of 763,511 native Danes invited for screening from 2014 to 2015, 387,116 (50.70%) participated after the initial invitation and 133,470 after receiving a reminder. Differences in participation were present in relation to all subgroups among both the invited citizens and reminded citizens. Differences persisted after full model adjustments with reductions for demographic variables. Odds ratio (OR) for non-participation in the eldest age group was 0.32 (95% CI, 0.32; 0.33) before and 1.11 (95% CI 1, 0.08; 1.14) after the reminder, compared to those under 55 years. OR for the 4th income quartile was 0.54 (95% CI, 0.53; 0.55) before and 0.44 (95% CI, 0.43; 0.45) after the reminder, compared to 1st quartile.

CONCLUSIONS

Reminders increased the overall participation, and the inequalities in participation in relation to demographic factors were reduced after the distribution of reminders. The age differences were especially reduced. The inequalities in participation related to socioeconomic status were, however, slightly increased after reminder distribution.