Use of Two Self-referral Reminders and a Theory-Based Leaflet to Increase the Uptake of Flexible Sigmoidoscopy in the English Bowel Scope Screening Program: Results From a Randomized Controlled Trial in London

Uptake of invitations to a lung health check offering low-dose CT lung cancer screening among an ethnically and socioeconomically diverse population at risk of lung cancer in the UK (SUMMIT): a prospective, longitudinal cohort study

BACKGROUND

Lung cancer screening with low-dose CT reduces lung cancer mortality, but screening requires equitable uptake from candidates at high risk of lung cancer across ethnic and socioeconomic groups that are under-represented in clinical studies. We aimed to assess the uptake of invitations to a lung health check offering low-dose CT lung cancer screening in an ethnically and socioeconomically diverse cohort at high risk of lung cancer.

METHODS

In this multicentre, prospective, longitudinal cohort study (SUMMIT), individuals aged 55-77 years with a history of smoking in the past 20 years were identified via National Health Service England primary care records at practices in northeast and north-central London, UK, using electronic searches. Eligible individuals were invited by letter to a lung health check offering lung cancer screening at one of four hospital sites, with non-responders re-invited after 4 months. Individuals were excluded if they had dementia or metastatic cancer, were receiving palliative care or were housebound, or declined research participation. The proportion of individuals invited who responded to the lung health check invitation by telephone was used to measure uptake. We used univariable and multivariable logistic regression analyses to estimate associations between uptake of a lung health check invitation and re-invitation of non-responders, adjusted for sex, age, ethnicity, smoking, and deprivation score. This study was registered prospectively with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03934866.

FINDINGS

Between March 20 and Dec 12, 2019, the records of 2 333 488 individuals from 251 primary care practices across northeast and north-central London were screened for eligibility; 1 974 919 (84·6%) individuals were outside the eligible age range, 7578 (2·1%) had pre-existing medical conditions, and 11 962 (3·3%) had opted out of particpation in research and thus were not invited. 95 297 individuals were eligible for invitation, of whom 29 545 (31·0%) responded. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic, re-invitation letters were sent to only a subsample of 4594 non-responders, of whom 642 (14·0%) responded. Overall, uptake was lower among men than among women (odds ratio [OR] 0·91 [95% CI 0·88-0·94]; p<0·0001), and higher among older age groups (1·48 [1·42-1·54] among those aged 65-69 years vs those aged 55-59 years; p<0·0001), groups with less deprivation (1·89 [1·76-2·04] for the most vs the least deprived areas; p<0·0001), individuals of Asian ethnicity (1·14 [1·09-1·20] vs White ethnicity; p<0·0001), and individuals who were former smokers (1·89 [1·83-1·95] vs current smokers; p<0·0001). When ethnicity was subdivided into 16 groups, uptake was lower among individuals of other White ethnicity than among those with White British ethnicity (0·86 [0·83-0·90]), whereas uptake was higher among Chinese, Indian, and other Asian ethnicities than among those with White British ethnicity (1·33 [1·13-1·56] for Chinese ethnicity; 1·29 [1·19-1·40] for Indian ethnicity; and 1·19 [1·08-1·31] for other Asian ethnicity).

INTERPRETATION

Inviting eligible adults for lung health checks in areas of socioeconomic and ethnic diversity should achieve favourable participation in lung cancer screening overall, but inequalities by smoking, deprivation, and ethnicity persist. Reminder and re-invitation strategies should be used to increase uptake and the equity of response.

FUNDING

GRAIL.

Barriers and facilitators to colonoscopy following fecal immunochemical test screening for colorectal cancer: A key informant interview study

OBJECTIVES

People who are referred for colonoscopy, following an abnormal colorectal cancer (CRC) screening result, are at increased risk of CRC. Despite this, many individuals decline the procedure. The aim of this study was to investigate why.

METHODS

As little is currently known about non-attendance at follow-up colonoscopy, and follow-up of abnormal screening results is a nurse-led process, we decided to conduct key informant interviews with Specialist Screening Practitioners ([SSPs] nurses working in the English Bowel Cancer Screening Program). Interviews were conducted online. Transcripts were assessed using inductive and deductive coding techniques.

RESULTS

21 SSPs participated in an interview. Five main types of barriers and facilitators to colonoscopy were described, namely: Sociocultural, Practical, Psychological, Health-related and COVID-related. Key psychological and sociocultural factors included: 'Fear of pain and discomfort associated with the procedure' and 'Lack of support from family and friends'. Key practical, health-related and COVID-related factors included: 'Family and work commitments', 'Existing health conditions as competing priorities' and 'Fear of getting COVID-19 at the hospital'.

CONCLUSIONS

A range of barriers and facilitators to follow-up colonoscopy exist. Future studies conducted with patients are needed to further explore barriers to colonoscopy.

PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS

Strategies to reduce non-attendance should adopt a multifaceted approach.

The integrated screening action model (I-SAM): A theory-based approach to inform intervention development

Screening can reduce deaths if the people invited participate. However, good uptake is hard to achieve, and our current approaches are failing to engage the most vulnerable. A coherent model of screening behaviour to guide our understanding and intervention development is yet to be established. The present aim was to propose an Integrated Screening Action Model (I-SAM) to improve screening access. The I-SAM synthesises existing models of health behaviour and empirical evidence. The I-SAM was developed following: i) an appraisal of the predominant models used within the screening literature; ii) the integration of the latest knowledge on behaviour change; with iii) the empirical literature, to inform the development of a theory-based approach to intervention development. There are three key aspects to the I-SAM: i) a sequence of stages that people pass through in engaging in screening behaviour (based on the Precaution Adoption Process Model); ii) screening behaviour is shaped by the interaction between participant and environmental influences (drawing from the Access Framework); and iii) targets for intervention should focus on the sources of behaviour - 'capability', 'opportunity', and 'motivation' (based on the COM-B Model). The I-SAM proposes an integrated model to support our understanding of screening behaviour and to identify targets for intervention. It will be an iterative process to test and refine the I-SAM and establish its value in supporting effective interventions to improve screening for all.

The impact of information about different absolute benefits and harms on intention to participate in colorectal cancer screening: A think-aloud study and online randomised experiment

BACKGROUND

There is considerable heterogeneity in individuals' risk of disease and thus the absolute benefits and harms of population-wide screening programmes. Using colorectal cancer (CRC) screening as an exemplar, we explored how people make decisions about screening when presented with information about absolute benefits and harms, and how those preferences vary with baseline risk, between screening tests and between individuals.

METHOD

We conducted two linked studies with members of the public: a think-aloud study exploring decision making in-depth and an online randomised experiment quantifying preferences. In both, participants completed a web-based survey including information about three screening tests (colonoscopy, sigmoidoscopy, and faecal immunochemical testing) and then up to nine scenarios comparing screening to no screening for three levels of baseline risk (1%, 3% and 5% over 15 years) and the three screening tests. Participants reported, after each scenario, whether they would opt for screening (yes/no).

RESULTS

Of the 20 participants in the think-aloud study 13 did not consider absolute benefits or harms when making decisions concerning CRC screening. In the online experiment (n = 978), 60% expressed intention to attend at 1% risk of CRC, 70% at 3% and 77% at 5%, with no differences between screening tests. At an individual level, 535 (54.7%) would attend at all three risk levels and 178 (18.2%) at none. The 27% whose intention varied by baseline risk were more likely to be younger, without a family history of CRC, and without a prior history of screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Most people in our population were not influenced by the range of absolute benefits and harms associated with CRC screening presented. For an appreciable minority, however, magnitude of benefit was important.

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.

Use of a GP-endorsed non-participant reminder letter to promote uptake of bowel scope screening: A randomised controlled trial in a hard-to-reach population

Previous research suggests that sending non-participants a reminder letter, 1 year after their initial invitation, can improve coverage for bowel scope screening (BSS), also known as flexible sigmoidoscopy screening. We hypothesised that adding a general practitioner's (GPs) endorsement to the reminder letter could improve coverage even further. We conducted a randomised controlled trial in North West London, UK. Participants were screening-eligible men and women who had not responded to their initial BSS invitation at least 12 months prior to the trial period. Eligible adults were randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive either a GP-endorsed reminder letter, or a standard reminder letter from June to August 2019. Logistic regression models were used to test the effect of the GP endorsement on attendance at BSS, adjusting for sex, clinical commissioning group, and local area socioeconomic deprivation. In total, 1200 participants were enrolled into the study and randomised to either the control (n = 600) or the intervention (n = 600) group. Those who received the GP-endorsed reminder letter were only slightly more likely to attend BSS than those who received the standard reminder letter (4% vs. 3%); this difference was not statistically significant (Adjusted OR = 1.30; 95% CI: 0.69, 2.43). Adding a GP-endorsement to the annual reminder letter did not have an effect on attendance at BSS. One possible explanation for this is that the endorsement used was not personalised enough. Future research should examine stronger GP-endorsements or other methods to promote uptake.

Barriers to flexible sigmoidoscopy colorectal cancer screening in low uptake socio-demographic groups: A systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To synthesise qualitative evidence related to barriers and facilitators of flexible sigmoidoscopy screening (FSS) intention and uptake, particularly within low socio-demographic uptake groups. FSS uptake is lower amongst women, lower socio-economic status (SES), and Asian ethnic groups within the United Kingdom (UK) and United States of America.

METHODS

A total of 12 168 articles were identified from searches of four databases: EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsycINFO and Web of Science. Eligibility criteria included: individuals eligible to attend FSS and empirical peer-reviewed studies that analysed qualitative data. The Critical Appraisal Skills Program tool evaluated the methodological quality of included studies, and thematic synthesis was used to analyse the data.

RESULTS

Ten qualitative studies met the inclusion criteria. Key barriers to FSS intention and uptake centred upon procedural anxieties. Women, including UK Asian women, reported shame and embarrassment, anticipated pain, perforation risk, and test preparation difficulties to elevate anxiety levels. Religious and cultural-influenced health beliefs amongst UK Asian groups were reported to inhibit FSS intention and uptake. Competing priorities, such as caring commitments, particularly impeded women's ability to attend certain FSS appointments. The review identified a knowledge gap concerning factors especially associated with FSS participation amongst lower SES groups.

CONCLUSIONS

Studies mostly focussed on barriers and facilitators of intention to participate in FSS, particularly within UK Asian groups. To determine the barriers associated with FSS uptake, and further understand how screening intention translates to behaviour, it is important that future qualitative research is equally directed towards factors associated with screening behaviour.

Feasibility of an implementation intervention to increase attendance at diabetic retinopathy screening: protocol for a cluster randomised pilot trial

BACKGROUND

Diabetic retinopathy screening (DRS) leads to the earlier detection of retinopathy and treatment that can prevent or delay the development of diabetes-related blindness. However, uptake continues to be sub-optimal in many countries, including Ireland. Routine management of type 2 diabetes largely takes place in primary care. As such, there may be an opportunity in primary care to introduce interventions to improve DRS uptake. However, few studies test the feasibility of interventions to enhance DRS uptake in this context. Our aim is to investigate the feasibility of an implementation intervention (IDEAs (Improving Diabetes Eye screening Attendance)) delivered in general practice to improve the uptake of the national DRS programme, RetinaScreen.

METHODS

The IDEAs study is a cluster randomised pilot trial with an embedded process evaluation and economic evaluation. Following stratification by practice size, eight general practices (clusters) will be randomly allocated to intervention (n = 4) or wait-list control groups (n = 4). The intervention will be delivered for 6 months, after which, it will be administered to wait-list control practices. The intervention is multi-faceted and comprises provider-level components (training, audit and feedback, health care professional prompt, reimbursement) and patient-level components (GP-endorsed reminder with information leaflet delivered opportunistically face-to-face, and systematically by phone and letter). Patient inclusion criteria are type 1 or type 2 diabetes and DRS programme non-attendance. A multi-method approach will be used to determine screening uptake, evaluate the trial and study procedures and examine the acceptability and feasibility of the intervention from staff and patient perspectives. Quantitative and qualitative data will be collected on intervention uptake and delivery, research processes and outcomes. Data will be collected at the practice, health professional and patient level. A partial economic evaluation will be conducted to estimate the cost of delivering the implementation intervention in general practice. Formal continuation criteria will be used to determine whether IDEAs should progress to a definitive trial.

DISCUSSION

Findings will determine whether IDEAsis feasible and acceptable and will be used to refine the intervention and study procedures. A definitive trial will determine whether IDEAs is a cost-effective intervention to improve DRS uptake and reduce diabetes-related blindness.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03901898. Registered 3rd April 2019.

Lung Screen Uptake Trial (LSUT): Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial Testing Targeted Invitation Materials

Rationale: Low uptake of low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening, particularly by current smokers of a low socioeconomic position, compromises effectiveness and equity.Objectives: To compare the effect of a targeted, low-burden, and stepped invitation strategy versus control on uptake of hospital-based Lung Health Check appointments offering LDCT screening.Methods: In a two-arm, blinded, between-subjects, randomized controlled trial, 2,012 participants were selected from 16 primary care practices using these criteria: 1) aged 60 to 75 years, 2) recorded as a current smoker within the last 7 years, and 3) no prespecified exclusion criteria contraindicating LDCT screening. Both groups received a stepped sequence of preinvitation, invitation, and reminder letters from their primary care practitioner offering prescheduled appointments. The key manipulation was the accompanying leaflet. The intervention group's leaflet targeted psychological barriers and provided low-burden information, mimicking the concept of the U.K. Ministry of Transport's annual vehicle test ("M.O.T. For Your Lungs").Measurements and Main Results: Uptake was 52.6%, with no difference between intervention (52.3%) and control (52.9%) groups in unadjusted (odds ratio [OR], 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82-1.16) or adjusted (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.82-1.17) analyses. Current smokers were less likely to attend (adjusted OR, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.56-0.86) than former smokers. Socioeconomic deprivation was significantly associated with lower uptake for the control group only (P < 0.01).Conclusions: The intervention did not improve uptake. Regardless of trial arm, uptake was considerably higher than previous clinical and real-world studies, particularly given that the samples were predominantly lower socioeconomic position smokers. Strategies common to both groups, including a Lung Health Check approach, could represent a minimum standard.Clinical trial registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02558101) and registered prospectively with the International Standard Registered Clinical/Social Study (N21774741).

Optimizing the Quality of Colorectal Cancer Screening Worldwide

Screening, followed by colonoscopic polypectomy (or surgery for malignant lesions), prevents incident colorectal cancer and mortality. However, there are variations in effective application of nearly every aspect of the screening process. Screening is a multistep process, and failure in any single step could result in unnecessary morbidity and mortality. Awareness of variations in operator- and system-dependent performance has led to detailed, comprehensive recommendations in the United States and Europe on how colonoscopy screening should be performed and measured. Likewise, guidance has been provided on quality assurance for nonprimary colonoscopy-based screening programs, including strategies to maximize adherence. Quality improvement is now a validated science, and there is clear evidence that higher quality prevents incident cancer and cancer death. Quality must be addressed at the levels of the system, provider, and individuals, to maximize the benefits of screening for any population. We review the important aspects of measuring and improving the quality of colorectal cancer screening.

Colorectal Cancer in Brunei Darussalam: An Overview and Rationale for National Screening Programme

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the third most common cancer worldwide after lung and breast cancers, and ranks second in terms of cancer mortality globally. Brunei Darussalam reports high incidence of CRC in the Southeast Asian region and has no formal national screening programme for CRC. Screening for CRC in Brunei Darussalam is offered in an opportunistic fashion for individuals with average or above average risks for CRC, that is, the individual has a positive family history of CRC or neoplasms and is more than 50 years old. Opportunistic screening is widely practiced but this is not standardised. The Ministry of Health in Brunei Darussalam is currently in the process of implementing a CRC screening programme as part of a larger national health screening based on the increasing incidence of non-communicable diseases (NCDs). This review article assesses the situation of CRC in Brunei Darussalam from the 1980s to present day, including incidence of CRC in different age groups, ethnicities and genders; relevant non-modifiable and modifiable risk factors of CRC in Brunei Darussalam setting; and common CRC screening techniques used in Brunei Darussalam as well as other Asia-Pacific countries. The review also discusses the merits of a national CRC screening programme. With the increasing incidence of CRC worldwide and in Brunei Darussalam, national screening for CRC in Brunei Darussalam is an important strategy to lower morbidity and mortality rates. A review of the progress and outcome of the national screening programme will be available a few years after rollout.

Enhancing bowel screening: Preventing colorectal cancer by flexible sigmoidoscopy in New Zealand

OBJECTIVES

The prevention of colorectal cancer (CRC) attainable from introducing once-in-a-lifetime flexible sigmoidoscopy (FSIG) screening was assessed.

STUDY DESIGN

This is a review of relevant available information for the assessment of the impact and resource demands of FSIG in New Zealand.

METHODS

The reduction in bowel cancer incidence achievable by one-off FSIG screening from 50 to 59 years of age, an age group for which bowel screening is not currently offered, was reviewed. The prevention of CRC attainable from an offer of screening at 55 years of age in New Zealand was also estimated. The number and cost of the FSIG screening procedures required and referrals for colonoscopies and the savings in treatment were calculated.

RESULTS

Annually, about 27,500 FSIG screening procedures would be required if 50% of those turning 55 years of age accepted an offer of once-in-a-lifetime FSIG screening. This would result in three-four-fold fewer people being referred for colonoscopy than in the national 2-yearly faecal immunochemical test (FIT) screening programme and subsequently reduce demand for colonoscopy from a false-positive FIT. The number of CRC cases prevented would increase over 17 years to more than 300 per year by 2033. After 10-15 years of screening, the annual savings in health service costs, primarily from CRC prevented, were sufficient to completely fund the FSIG screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Inclusion of FSIG screening in the national bowel screening programme would significantly reduce both the incidence and mortality of CRC in New Zealand, reduce the colonoscopy demand of current bowel screening and reduce long-term health service costs.

Rapid review of factors associated with flexible sigmoidoscopy screening use

Flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) screening has been shown to reduce colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality among screened adults. The aim of this review was to identify patient-related factors associated with the screening test's use. We searched PubMed for studies that examined the association between FS screening use and one or more factors. To determine the eligibility of studies, we first reviewed titles, then abstracts, and finally the full paper. We started with a narrow search, which we expanded successively (by adding 'OR' terms) until the number of new publications eligible after abstract review was <1% of the total number of publications. We then abstracted factors from eligible papers and reported the number of times each was found to be positively or negatively associated with FS screening use. We identified 42 papers, most of which reported studies conducted in the United States of America (n = 21, 50%) and the United Kingdom (n = 13, 31%). Across studies, a wide range of factors were examined (n = 123), almost half of which were found to be associated with FS screening use at least once (n = 60). Sociodemographic and health and lifestyle factors that were frequently positively associated with FS screening use included: male gender, higher socioeconomic status and a family history of CRC. Frequently positively associated psychosocial factors included low perceived barriers and high perceived benefits. Findings suggest that future research should focus on developing a theoretical framework of cancer screening behaviour to allow a greater level of consistency and specificity in measuring key constructs.

Use of a GP-endorsed 12 months' reminder letter to promote uptake of bowel scope screening: protocol for a randomised controlled trial in a hard-to-reach population

INTRODUCTION

Flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) screening is associated with reduced colorectal cancer incidence and mortality when offered as a one-off test to men and women aged 55-64. The test, also referred to as the 'bowel scope screening' (BSS) test, was added to England's national Bowel Cancer Screening Programme in March 2013, where it is offered to men and women aged 55. Since its implementation, uptake of the BSS test has been low, with only 43% of the eligible population attending an appointment. Sending non-participants a reminder at age 56 has been shown to improve uptake by up to nine percentage points at a single centre in London; we hypothesise that adding a general practitioners (GPs) endorsement to the reminder could improve uptake even further.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This paper describes the protocol for a randomised controlled trial which will examine the effectiveness of adding a GPs endorsement to a reminder for BSS non-participants aged 56. All screening-eligible adults who have not responded to a BSS appointment at London North West Healthcare NHS Trust within 12 months of their initial invitation will be randomised to receive either a GP-endorsed reminder letter or reminder letter without GP endorsement. The primary outcome will be the proportion of individuals screened within each group 8 weeks after the reminder. Statistical comparisons will be made using univariate and multivariate logistic regression, with 'uptake' as the outcome variable, GP reminder group as the exposure and sociodemographic variables as covariates.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The study was approved by the Yorkshire & Humber-Bradford Leeds Research Ethics Committee (16/YH/0298) and the Confidentiality Advisory Group (17/CAG/0162). The results will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal in accordance with the Consort statement and will be made available to the public.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ISRCTN82867861.