Use of research questionnaires in the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme in England: impact on screening uptake

Implementation Strategies for Interventions Aiming to Increase Participation in Mail-Out Bowel Cancer Screening Programs: A Realist Review

Background: Bowel cancer is the third most commonly diagnosed cancer and the third most common cause of cancer-related death, with 1,849,518 new cases of bowel diagnosed and 880,792 deaths reported globally in 2018 alone. Survival can be improved through early detection via national mail-out bowel cancer screening programs; however, participation remains low in many countries. Behavior change is therefore required to increase participation. This realist review aims to (a) identify the behavior change techniques (BCTs) used in each intervention, (b) understand the mechanisms of action (MoAs) responsible for the BCT effectiveness, and (c) apply a behavior change model to inform how MoAs can be combined to increase screening participation.

Methods: We systematically reviewed the literature for interventions aiming to increase participation in mail-out bowel cancer screening. We used a four-stage realist synthesis approach whereby (1) interventions were extracted from each study; (2) BCTs applied in each intervention were identified and coded using the BCT Taxonomy-v1; (3) the Theory and Techniques Tool was used to link BCTs to their MoA; and (4) BCTs and MoAs were categorized according to their effectiveness and what Health Action Process Approach (HAPA) stage of change they would affect.

Results: We identified 68 intervention trials using 26 unique BCTs and 13 MoAs to increase participation. Sixteen BCTs and 10 MoAs were identified within the interventions that successfully increased participation rates. Interventions targeting both stages of the HAPA model had a higher success rate (80%) than those targeting one stage of change (51%). When targeting only one stage, interventions targeting the volitional stage had a higher success rate (71%) than interventions targeting only the motivational stage of change (26%).

Conclusion: Importantly, this review identified a suite of BCTs and MoAs effective for increasing participation in mail-out bowel cancer screening programs. With increased participation in bowel cancer screening leading to improved survival, our findings are key to informing the improvement of policy and interventions that aim to increase screening using specific strategies at key stages of health decision-making.

Strategies for increasing participation in mail-out colorectal cancer screening programs: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Population mail-out bowel screening programs are a convenient, cost-effective and sensitive method of detecting colorectal cancer (CRC). Despite the increased survival rates associated with early detection of CRC, in many countries, 50% or more of eligible individuals do not participate in such programs. The current study systematically reviews interventions applied to increase fecal occult blood test (FOBT) kit return, specifically in population mail-out programs.

METHODS

Five electronic databases (PubMed, PsycINFO, Scopus, CINAHL, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses) were searched for articles published before the 10th of March 2018. Studies were included if they reported the results of an intervention designed to increase the return rate of FOBT kits that had been mailed to individuals' homes. PRISMA systematic review reporting methods were applied and each study was assessed using Cochrane's Risk of Bias tool. Pooled effect sizes were calculated for each intervention type and the risk of bias was tested as a moderator for sensitivity analysis.

RESULTS

The review identified 53 interventions from 30 published studies from which nine distinct intervention strategy types emerged. Sensitivity analysis showed that the risk of bias marginally moderated the overall effect size. Pooled risk ratios and confidence intervals for each intervention type revealed that telephone contact RR = 1.23, 95% CI (1.08-1.40), GP endorsement RR = 1.19, 95% CI (1.10-1.29), simplified test procedures RR = 1.17, 95% CI (1.09-1.25), and advance notifications RR = 1.09, 95% CI (1.07-1.11) were effective intervention strategies with small to moderate effect sizes. Studies with a high risk of bias were removed and pooled effects remained relatively unchanged.

CONCLUSIONS

Interventions that combine program-level changes incorporating the issue of advance notification and alternative screening tools with the involvement of primary health professionals through endorsement letters and telephone contact should lead to increases in kit return in mail-out CRC screening programs.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

This review is registered with PROSPERO; registration number CRD42017064652.

Towards risk-stratified colorectal cancer screening. Adding risk factors to the fecal immunochemical test: Evidence, evolution and expectations

With increasing incidence and mortality, colorectal cancer (CRC) is a growing health problem worldwide. An effective way to address CRC is by screening for fecal (occult) blood by the fecal immunochemical test (FIT). However, there is room for improvement since precursor lesions and CRC bleed intermittent and can therefore be missed by the FIT (false negatives) or, the detected blood did not result from precursor lesions or CRC (false positives). This review provides the latest evidence on risk prediction models using FIT combined with additional risk factors before colonoscopy, which risk factors to include and if these models will better discriminate between normal findings and CRC compared to the FIT-only. Many prediction models are known for CRC, but compared to the FIT, these are less effective in detecting CRC. The literature search resulted in 645 titles where 11 papers matched the inclusion criteria and were analyzed. Comparing the FIT-only with the risk prediction models for detecting CRC resulted in a significantly increased discrimination for the models. In addition, 2 different risk-stratification categories before colonoscopy were distinguished, namely the 1-model approach which combined risk factors with FIT results in a prediction model while the 2 step approach used risk factors apart from the FIT. Finally, combining FIT with CRC risk factors by means of a model before colonoscopy seems effective regarding discriminative power, however, more research is needed for validation combined with transparent and standardized reporting to improve quality assessment, for which suggestions are reported in this study.

Ways to use interventions to increase participation in mail-out bowel cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis

The impact of colorectal cancer can be reduced through nationwide fecal occult blood test (FOBT) screening. Unfortunately, participation in screening programs are low with interventions only increasing participation modestly.

This meta-analysis explores if intervention effectiveness can be increased by targeting specific subpopulations with specific interventions or by combining interventions. Six databases were searched for studies aiming to increase participation in mail-out FOBT screening. To investigate if interventions are more effective for certain subpopulations, the difference in (log) Risk Ratios (RRs) between alternate subpopulations (male vs. female; low vs. high Socioeconomic Status (SES); <65 vs. ≥65 years) was assessed. To investigate if interventions should be combined, uptake rates for single interventions were compared to uptake rates for combined interventions. Cochrane Collaboration tools were used to assess the risk of bias.

Searches found 3,436 articles, with 32 meeting the inclusion criteria. These contained 30 trials that reported uptake rates within subpopulations and 17 trials that combined interventions. Most differences in intervention effects between subpopulations were nonsignificant. Combining interventions led to greater participation, RR = 1.06, confidence interval [1.03; 1.10]. As interventions rarely affect subpopulations differently, targeting them at specific subpopulations may be an ineffective strategy. While individual interventions show modest effects, these results indicate that future programs might overcome this by combining interventions together. Care is needed when selecting interventions to combine as adding some interventions (e.g., additional print materials) can reduce the effectiveness of a combined strategy. Future research should examine methods for effectively combining interventions in nationwide programs to maximize participation.

Risk-adjusted colorectal cancer screening using the FIT and routine screening data: development of a risk prediction model

Background:

The faecal immunochemical test (FIT) is replacing the guaiac faecal occult blood test in colorectal cancer screening. Increased uptake and FIT positivity will challenge colonoscopy services. We developed a risk prediction model combining routine screening data with FIT concentration to improve the accuracy of screening referrals.

Methods:

Multivariate analysis used complete cases of those with a positive FIT (⩾20 μg g⁻¹) and diagnostic outcome (n=1810; 549 cancers and advanced adenomas). Logistic regression was used to develop a risk prediction model using the FIT result and screening data: age, sex and previous screening history. The model was developed further using a feedforward neural network. Model performance was assessed by discrimination and calibration, and test accuracy was investigated using clinical sensitivity, specificity and receiver operating characteristic curves.

Results:

Discrimination improved from 0.628 with just FIT to 0.659 with the risk-adjusted model (P=0.01). Calibration using the Hosmer–Lemeshow test was 0.90 for the risk-adjusted model. The sensitivity improved from 30.78% to 33.15% at similar specificity (FIT threshold of 160 μg g⁻¹). The neural network further improved model performance and test accuracy.

Conclusions:

Combining routinely available risk predictors with the FIT improves the clinical sensitivity of the FIT with an increase in the diagnostic yield of high-risk adenomas.

Embedded survey study harms colorectal cancer screening attendance: Experiences from Finland 2010 to 2015

Objective We previously found that administering a pre-screening lifestyle questionnaire lowered the subsequent attendance proportion in the first-ever colorectal cancer screening. We sought to determine whether the effect continued in subsequent screening rounds. Methods The eligible survey cohort ( n = 10,375) received a follow-up questionnaire in 2012, and in 2013, they were invited for colorectal cancer screening for the second time. For the third screening round, in 2015, no questionnaires were sent in the previous year. Screening attendance in 2013 and in 2015 was examined in relation to survey mailings. Results The colorectal cancer screening attendance rate in 2013 was 58.4% in the survey population, and 63.9% in those not surveyed ( P < 0.001). In 2015, the screening attendance rate was 61.7% among those who had been sent the questionnaires in 2010 and in 2012, and 66.2% in those not surveyed ( P < 0.001). The reduction in screening attendance was greater at the second (2013) round than at the first (2011). Conclusion The effect of the initial survey seemed to continue even when no questionnaires were being sent. Attendance among those who had been sent questionnaires earlier did not reach the level of the group that was never surveyed.

Rapid review of evaluation of interventions to improve participation in cancer screening services

Objective

Screening participation is spread differently across populations, according to factors such as ethnicity or socioeconomic status. We here review the current evidence on effects of interventions to improve cancer screening participation, focussing in particular on effects in underserved populations.

Methods

We selected studies to review based on their characteristics: focussing on population screening programmes, showing a quantitative estimate of the effect of the intervention, and published since 1990. To determine eligibility for our purposes, we first reviewed titles, then abstracts, and finally the full paper. We started with a narrow search and expanded this until the search yielded eligible papers on title review which were less than 1% of the total. We classified the eligible studies by intervention type and by the cancer for which they screened, while looking to identify effects in any inequality dimension.

Results

The 68 papers included in our review reported on 71 intervention studies. Of the interventions, 58 had significant positive effects on increasing participation, with increase rates of the order of 2%–20% (in absolute terms).

Conclusions

Across different countries and health systems, a number of interventions were found more consistently to improve participation in cancer screening, including in underserved populations: pre-screening reminders, general practitioner endorsement, more personalized reminders for non-participants, and more acceptable screening tests in bowel and cervical screening.

Self-Reported And Objectively Recorded Colorectal Cancer Screening Participation In England

Objective

To compare self-reported with objectively recorded participation in Faecal Occult Blood testing (FOBt) colorectal cancer (CRC) screening in a national programme.

Methods

Survey respondents living in England who were eligible for screening were asked in face-to-face interviews if they had ever been invited to do a CRC screening test, how many times they had been invited, and how many times they had participated. National Health Service (NHS) Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) records were consulted for respondents who had consented to a record check. The outcome measures were ‘ever uptake’ (responded to ≥1 invitation), ‘repeat uptake’ (responded to ≥2 invitations), and ‘consistent uptake’ (responded to all invitations).

Results

In the verified group, self-reported ever uptake was highly consistent with recorded ever uptake (87.0% vs. 87.8%). Among those who indicated that they had been invited more than once, self-reported repeat uptake was 89.8% compared with 84.8% recorded repeat uptake. Among those with more than one recorded invitation, self-reported repeat uptake was 72.7% compared with 77.2% recorded repeat uptake, and self-reported consistent uptake was 81.6% compared with 65.6% recorded consistent uptake.

Conclusion

Our results suggest that people can accurately report whether they have ever taken part in CRC screening. The vast majority of those whose records were verified could also accurately report whether they had taken part in screening at least twice. They were somewhat less accurate in reporting whether they had responded to all screening invitations.