Appointments timed in proximity to annual milestones and compliance with screening: randomised controlled trial

Inequalities in participation in colorectal cancer screening programmes: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Colorectal cancer (CRC) is a major public health problem due to its incidence and mortality. Screening programmes help decrease its impact on the population through early detection. However, the uneven distribution of social determinants of health can cause inequalities. The aim of this study is to identify the social inequalities in the participation in CRC screening programmes.

METHODS

A systematic review of the literature was carried out, searching in both health and social databases for papers published since 2000 in English, Spanish, Portuguese and French. The search strategies combined terms regarding screening, CRC, participation and social inequalities. Included papers were quantitative or qualitative primary studies analyzing gender and socioeconomic inequalities in the participation in CRC screening programmes implemented by public and private health-care providers and addressing 45- to 75-year-old population.

RESULTS

A total of 96 studies, described in 102 articles, were included. Most were quantitative observational studies and analyzed population-based screening programmes. They were carried out mainly in the UK (n=29) and the USA (n=18). Participation in screening programmes varied from 1.1% to 82.8% using several methods. A total of 87 studies assessed participation by sex and one focussed on men, but only two provided an analysis from a gender perspective. Although men are at a higher risk of developing CRC, they generally were less likely to participate in screening programmes. Screening attendance was higher among the least deprived areas.

CONCLUSIONS

Gender and socioeconomic inequalities in CRC screening participation should be addressed through the design of tailored interventions with a multidimensional focus.

Breast cancer screening outreach effectiveness: Mammogram-specific reminders vs. comprehensive preventive services birthday letters

We compared the effectiveness of two outreach strategies on timely mammography adherence: a mammogram-specific reminder letter (sent just before a woman was due) to a birthday letter (addresses multiple preventive services and not timed around due dates). We evaluated screening mammography adherence following 79,848 mammogram-specific and 151,626 birthday letters mailed between 2002 and 2012 to women aged 40-74years enrolled in Kaiser Permanente Washington. Screening mammogram adherence was specifically tied to due date and was evaluated separately by age group and up-to-date or overdue status at the time of mailing. We used generalized estimating equations to account for correlation between repeated observations, to model the odds of screening mammography adherence by letter type. Among women up-to-date, adherence following birthday letters was 22-76% lower compared to the mammogram-specific reminders, with the greatest decreases in adherence in women aged 70-74. Birthday letters were more effective at activating screening uptake among some subgroups of overdue women aged 50-69 and most overdue women aged 70-74, but universally low adherence rates were observed in overdue women. Increasing number of recommended services for women aged 50-74 who were up-to-date resulted in 12-17% lower mammography adherence, but had no effect in women aged 40-49 or in overdue women. Birthday letters are less effective than mammogram-specific reminder letters at prompting women to undergo timely breast cancer screening, particularly among women up-to-date with screening. Birthday letters may be effective at increasing overall preventive care; however, supplemental outreach may be needed around the due date to increase timely preventive services receipt.

Cancer Screening Reminders: Addressing the Spectrum of Patient Preferences

CONTEXT

Health care systems continue to seek evidence about how to optimize the efficiency and effectiveness of cancer screening reminders. Annual reminders to receive preventive services can be an efficient strategy.

OBJECTIVE

To understand patient motivators and barriers to cancer screening and preferences about reminder strategies.

DESIGN

We conducted 11 focus groups among adults recommended for cancer screening within Kaiser Permanente Washington. We held separate focus groups with women aged 21 to 49 years, women 50 to 75 years, and men 50 to 75 years. We used an inductive, validated coding scheme for analysis.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Motivators and barriers to obtaining recommended cancer screening and general cancer screening reminder content and modality preferences.

RESULTS

Half of our participants were women aged 50 to 75 years, and 25% were men aged 50 to 75 years. Differences by age, sex, insurance status, financial status, and health beliefs all drove the participants' preferences for whether they seek these recommended services and how and when they wish to be reminded about recommended cancer screening. Most participants preferred personalized reminders, and many favored receiving reminders less than 3 months before the recommended procedure date rather than a consolidated annual reminder. Younger participants more commonly requested electronic reminders, such as texts and e-mails.

CONCLUSION

Optimizing cancer screening reminders within a health care system involves a multifaceted approach that enables members to request which form of reminder they prefer (eg, electronic, paper, telephone) and the timing with which they want to be reminded, while staying affordable and manageable to the health care system.

Reinvitation to screening colonoscopy: a randomized-controlled trial of reminding letter and invitation to educational meeting on attendance in nonresponders to initial invitation to screening colonoscopy (REINVITE)

OBJECTIVES

The response rate to initial invitation to population-based primary screening colonoscopy within the NordICC trial (NCT 00883792) in Poland is around 50%. The aim of this study was to compare the effect of a reinvitation letter and invitation to an educational intervention on participation in screening colonoscopy in nonresponders to initial invitation.

METHODS

Within the NordICC trial framework, individuals living in the region of Warsaw, who were drawn from Population Registries and assigned randomly to the screening group, received an invitation letter and a reminder with a prespecified screening colonoscopy appointment date. One thousand individuals, aged 55 to 64 years, who did not respond to both the invitation and the reminding letter were assigned randomly in a 1:1 ratio to the reinvitation group (REI) and the educational meeting group (MEET). The REI group was sent a reinvitation letter and reminder 6 and 3 weeks before the new colonoscopy appointment date, respectively. The MEET group was sent an invitation 6 weeks before an educational meeting date. Outcome measures were participation in screening colonoscopy within 6 months and response rate within 3 months from the date of reinvitation or invitation to an educational meeting.

RESULTS

The response rate and the participation rate in colonoscopy were statistically significantly higher in the REI group compared with the MEET group (16.5 vs. 4.3%; P<0.001 and 5.2 vs. 2.1%; P=0.008, respectively).

CONCLUSION

A simple reinvitation letter results in a higher response rate and participation rate to screening colonoscopy than invitation to tailored educational meeting in nonresponders to previous invitations. (NCT01183156).

Optimising colorectal cancer screening acceptance: a review

The study aims to review available evidence concerning effective interventions to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening acceptance. We performed a literature search of randomised trials designed to increase individuals' use of CRC screening on PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects. Small (≤ 100 subjects per arm) studies and those reporting results of interventions implemented before publication of the large faecal occult blood test trials were excluded. Interventions were categorised following the Continuum of Cancer Care and the PRECEDE-PROCEED models and studies were grouped by screening model (opportunistic vs organised). Multifactor interventions targeting multiple levels of care and considering factors outside the individual clinician control, represent the most effective strategy to enhance CRC screening acceptance. Removing financial barriers, implementing methods allowing a systematic contact of the whole target population, using personal invitation letters, preferably signed by the reference care provider, and reminders mailed to all non-attendees are highly effective in enhancing CRC screening acceptance. Physician reminders may support the diffusion of screening, but they can be effective only for individuals who have access to and make use of healthcare services. Educational interventions for patients and providers are effective, but the implementation of organisational measures may be necessary to favour their impact. Available evidence indicates that organised programmes allow to achieve an extensive coverage and to enhance equity of access, while maximising the health impact of screening. They provide at the same time an infrastructure allowing to achieve a more favourable cost-effectiveness profile of potentially effective strategies, which would not be sustainable in opportunistic settings.

Long-term effectiveness of endoscopic screening on incidence and mortality of colorectal cancer: A randomized trial

BACKGROUND

Due to few randomized trials, there is uncertainty about the long-time effect of endoscopic screening on colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality.

AIM

To evaluate the long-term effect of endoscopic screening on CRC incidence and mortality, we performed a population-based randomized controlled trial in Norway.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

In 1983, 799 Norwegian men and women, age 50-59 years were drawn from the population registry and randomly assigned to flexible sigmoidoscopy screening (400 individuals), or no screening (399 individuals). Colonoscopy surveillance was offered after two and six years for all polyp-bearers in the screening group. In 1996, both groups were offered colonoscopy. Only individuals with advanced adenomas at colonoscopy in 1996 were recommended surveillance. All individuals were followed through Norwegian registries until 2008. Hazard ratios (HR) for CRC incidence, and CRC and overall mortality rates were calculated.

RESULTS

During 26 years of follow up (17,327 person-years), 26 colorectal cancers were observed: seven in the screening group and 19 in the control group (HR in screening group 0.40, 95% CI 0.17-0.95, p = 0.04). Eight individuals died of colorectal cancer; one in the screening group and seven in the control group (HR 0.16, 95% CI 0.02-1.28, p = 0.08).

CONCLUSIONS

This first randomized trial on the long-term effect of endoscopic screening shows reduced CRC incidence and mortality if screening is combined with rigorous surveillance for individuals with polyps. Colonoscopy screening without such surveillance may not be effective.

The NordICC Study: rationale and design of a randomized trial on colonoscopy screening for colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND AND STUDY AIM

While colonoscopy screening is widely used in several European countries and the United States, there are no randomized trials to quantify its benefits. The Nordic-European Initiative on Colorectal Cancer (NordICC) is a multinational, randomized controlled trial aiming at investigating the effect of colonoscopy screening on colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality. This paper describes the rationale and design of the NordICC trial.

STUDY DESIGN

Men and women aged 55 to 64 years are drawn from the population registries in the participating countries and randomly assigned to either once-only colonoscopy screening with removal of all detected lesions, or no screening (standard of care in the trial regions). All individuals are followed for 15 years after inclusion using dedicated national registries. The primary end points of the trial are cumulative CRC-specific death and CRC incidence during 15 years of follow-up. POWER ANALYSIS: We hypothesize a 50 % CRC mortality-reducing efficacy of the colonoscopy intervention and predict 50 % compliance, yielding a 25 % mortality reduction among those invited to screening. For 90 % power and a two-sided alpha level of 0.05, using a 2:1 randomization, 45 600 individuals will be randomized to control, and 22 800 individuals to the colonoscopy group. Interim analyses of the effect of colonoscopy on CRC incidence and mortality will be performed at 10-year follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS

The aim of the NordICC trial is to quantify the effectiveness of population-based colonoscopy screening. This will allow development of evidence-based guidelines for CRC screening in the general population.

Uptake of colorectal cancer screening: system, provider and individual factors and strategies to improve participation

Colorectal cancer (CRC) accounts for 9% of all new cancer cases worldwide and affects over 1 million people each year. Screening can reduce the mortality associated with the disease, yet participation rates are suboptimal. Compliers with CRC screening are less deprived; they have higher education than noncompliers and tend to be male, white and married. Likely reasons for nonparticipation encompass several 'modifiable' factors that could be targeted in interventions aimed at increasing participation rates. Successful intervention strategies include organizational changes, such as increasing access to fecal occult blood test (FOBT) kits, providing reminders to healthcare providers or users about screening opportunities, and educational strategies to improve awareness and attitudes towards CRC screening. Multifactor interventions that target more than one level of the screening process are likely to have larger effects. The biggest challenge for future research will be to reduce inequalities related to socio-economic position and ethnicity in the uptake of screening.

Uptake in cancer screening programmes: a priority in cancer control

Achieving adequate levels of uptake in cancer screening requires a variety of approaches that need to be shaped by the characteristics of both the screening programme and the target population. Strategies to improve uptake typically produce only incremental increases. Accordingly, approaches that combine behavioural, organisational and other strategies are most likely to succeed. In conjunction with a focus on uptake, providers of screening services need to promote informed decision making among invitees. Addressing inequalities in uptake must remain a priority for screening programmes. Evidence informing strategies targeting low-uptake groups is scarce, and more research is needed in this area. Cancer screening has the potential to make a major contribution to early diagnosis initiatives in the United Kingdom, and will best be achieved through uptake strategies that emphasise wide coverage, informed choice and equitable distribution of cancer screening services.

Uptake in cancer screening programmes

For cancer screening programmes to bring about reductions in mortality, a substantial proportion of the population must participate. Programmes with low uptake can be ineffective and can promote inequalities in health-service provision. Strategies to promote uptake are multifaceted, reflecting differences in the cancers targeted, invitees, health-service contexts, and the tests themselves. Accordingly, there is no universal approach. Strategies should accommodate the many factors that can influence uptake and should incorporate the need to promote informed choice. Screening has the potential to cause harm, and there is an ethical imperative to seek out strategies that provide balanced information on cancer screening. Further research is needed to assess newer approaches to promoting uptake, such as IT-based programmes, and to identify strategies that are balanced, self-sustaining, and affordable.