Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Systematic Reviews
Published in: Systematic Reviews 1/2019

Open Access 01-12-2019 | Colorectal Cancer | Research

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

Authors: Belinda C. Goodwin, Michael J. Ireland, Sonja March, Larry Myers, Fiona Crawford-Williams, Suzanne K. Chambers, Joanne F. Aitken, Jeff Dunn

Published in: Systematic Reviews | Issue 1/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

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
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Parkin D, et al. World Health Organization cancer incidence in five continents Lyon. World Health OrganInt Agency Res Cancer. 2002;8:1–771.
2.
Government A. In: D.o.H.a. Aging, editor. The Austalian Bowel Cancer Screening Pilot Program and Beyond: Final Evaluation Report. ACT, Australia: Commonwealth of Australia; 2005.
3.
Frazier AL, Colditz GA, Fuchs CS, Kuntz KM. Cost-effectiveness of screening for colorectal cancer in the general population. JAMA. 2000;284(15):1954–61.PubMedCrossRef
4.
Kronborg O, et al. Randomized study of biennial screening with a faecal occult blood test: results after nine screening rounds. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2004;39(9):846–51.PubMedCrossRef
5.
Scholefield J, et al. Nottingham trial of faecal occult blood testing for colorectal cancer: a 20-year follow-up. Gut. 2011; p. gutjnl-2011-300774.
6.
Ananda S, et al. Survival impact of the Australian National Bowel Cancer Screening Programme. Intern Med J. 2016;46(2):166–71.PubMedCrossRef
7.
Australian Institue of Health and Welfare. Analysis of bowel cancer outcomes for the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program. Australian Government, Canberra; 2014. Report No.: Cat. no. CAN 87.
8.
9.
Swan H, Siddiqui AA, Myers RE. International colorectal cancer screening programs: population contact strategies, testing methods and screening rates. Pract Gastroenterol. 2012;36(8):20–9.
10.
Liberati A, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000100.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
11.
12.
Team RC. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2017.
13.
Viechtbauer W. Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. J Stat Softw. 2010;36(3):1–48.CrossRef
14.
Viechtbauer W. Bias and efficiency of meta-analytic variance estimators in the random-effects model. J Educ Behav Stat. 2005;30(3):261–93.CrossRef
15.
Michael Borenstein, Hedges LV, Julian P. T. Higgins, Hannah R. Rothstein, Introduction to Meta-Analysis. 2009, United Kingdom: Wiley.
16.
Benton SC, et al. GP participation in increasing uptake in a national bowel cancer screening programme: the PEARL project. Br J Cancer. 2017;116(12):1551.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
17.
Cole SR, et al. Participation in screening for colorectal cancer based on a faecal occult blood test is improved by endorsement by the primary care practitioner. J Med Screen. 2002;9(4):147–52.PubMedCrossRef
18.
Cole SR, et al. A randomised trial of the impact of new faecal haemoglobin test technologies on population participation in screening for colorectal cancer. J Med Screen. 2003;10(3):117–22.PubMedCrossRef
19.
Cole SR, et al. An advance notification letter increases participation in colorectal cancer screening. J Med Screen. 2007;14(2):73–5.PubMedCrossRef
20.
Coronado GD, Rivelli JS, Fuoco MJ, Vollmer WM, Petrik AF, Keast E, et al. Effect of reminding patients to complete fecal immunochemical testing: A comparative effectiveness study of automated and live approaches. J Gen Intern Med. 2018;33(1):72–8.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
21.
Denters MJ, et al. A feces collection paper does not enhance participation in a fecal immunochemical test-based colorectal cancer screening program: randomized clinical trial. Eur J Cancer Prev. 2013;22(4):299–304.PubMedCrossRef
22.
Deutekom M, et al. Comparison of guaiac and immunological fecal occult blood tests in colorectal cancer screening: the patient perspective. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2010;45(11):1345–9.PubMedCrossRef
23.
Gupta S, et al. Financial incentives for promoting colorectal cancer screening: a randomized, comparative effectiveness trial. Am J Gastroenterol. 2016;111(11):1630–6.PubMedCrossRef
24.
Hewitson P, Ward AM, Heneghan C, Halloran SP, Mant D. Primary care endorsement letter and a patient leaflet to improve participation in colorectal cancer screening: Results of a factorial randomised trial. Br J Cancer. 2011;105(4):475–80.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
25.
Hirst Y, Skrobanski H, Kerrison RS, Kobayashi LC, Counsell N, Djedovic N, et al. Text-message Reminders in Colorectal Cancer Screening (TRICCS): A randomised controlled trial. Br J Cancer. 2017;116(11):1408–14.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
26.
Hughes K, et al. Guaiac versus immunochemical tests: faecal occult blood test screening for colorectal cancer in a rural community. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2005;29(4):358–64.PubMedCrossRef
27.
King J, et al. Colorectal cancer screening: optimal compliance with postal faecal occult blood test. Aust N Z J Surg. 1992;62(9):714–9.PubMedCrossRef
28.
King J, Fairbrother G, Thompson C, Morris DL. Influence of socioeconomic status, ethnicity and an educational brochure on compliance with a postal faecal occult blood test. Aust N Z J Public Health. 1994;18(1):87–92.CrossRef
29.
Libby G, et al. Pre-notification increases uptake of colorectal cancer screening in all demographic groups: a randomized controlled trial. J Med Screen. 2011;18(1):24–9.PubMedCrossRef
30.
Lo SH, et al. Preformulated implementation intentions to promote colorectal cancer screening: a cluster-randomized trial. Health Psychol. 2014;33(9):998–1002.PubMedCrossRef
31.
McGregor LM, et al. Reducing the social gradient in uptake of the NHS colorectal cancer screening programme using a narrative-based information leaflet: a cluster-randomised trial. Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2016;2016.
32.
Moss S, Mathews C, Day TJ, Smith S, Seaman HE, Snowball J, et al. Increased uptake and improved outcomes of bowel cancer screening with a faecal immunochemical test: Results from a pilot study within the national screening programme in England. Gut. 2017;66(9):1631–44.PubMedCrossRef
33.
Myers RE, et al. Behavioral interventions to increase adherence in colorectal cancer screening. Med Care. 1991;29(10):1039–50.PubMedCrossRef
34.
Neter E, Stein N, Barnett-Griness O, Rennert G, Hagoel L. From the bench to public health: Population-level implementation intentions in colorectal cancer screening. Am J Prev Med. 2014 Mar;46(3):273–80.PubMedCrossRef
35.
O'Carroll RE, et al. Anticipated regret to increase uptake of colorectal cancer screening (ARTICS): a randomised controlled trial. Soc Sci Med. 2015;142:118–27.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
36.
Robinson MHE, et al. Haemoccult screening for colorectal cancer: the effect of dietary restriction on compliance. Eur J Surg Oncol. 1994;20(5):545–8.PubMed
37.
Santare D, et al. Improving uptake of screening for colorectal cancer: a study on invitation strategies and different test kit use. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015;27(5):536–43.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
38.
Van Roon AHC, et al. Advance notification letters increase adherence in colorectal cancer screening: a population-based randomized trial. Prev Med. 2011;52(6):448–51.PubMedCrossRef
39.
Van Rossum LG, et al. Random comparison of guaiac and immunochemical fecal occult blood tests for colorectal cancer in a screening population. Gastroenterology. 2008;135(1):82–90.PubMedCrossRef
40.
Verne J, et al. Self-administered faecal occult blood tests do not increase compliance with screening for colorectal cancer: results of a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Cancer Prev. 1993;2(4):301–5.PubMedCrossRef
41.
Wardle J, von Wagner C, Kralj-Hans I, Halloran SP, Smith SG, McGregor LM, et al. Effects of evidence-based strategies to reduce the socioeconomic gradient of uptake in the English NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (ASCEND): four cluster-randomised controlled trials. The Lancet. 2016;387(10020):751–9.CrossRef
42.
Watson J, et al. Use of research questionnaires in the NHS bowel Cancer screening Programme in England: impact on screening uptake. J Med Screen. 2013;20(4):192–7.PubMedCrossRef
43.
White B, et al. Piloting the impact of three interventions on guaiac faecal occult blood test uptake within the NHS bowel cancer screening programme. Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:1–11.CrossRef
44.
Zajac IT, et al. Endorsement by the primary care practitioner consistently improves participation in screening for colorectal cancer: a longitudinal analysis. J Med Screen. 2010;17(1):19–24.PubMedCrossRef
45.
Zubero MB, et al. Population-based colorectal cancer screening: comparison of two fecal occult blood test. Front Pharmacol. 2014;4:175.
46.
Hewitson P, et al. Primary care endorsement letter and a patient leaflet to improve participation in colorectal cancer screening: results of a factorial randomised trial. Br J Cancer. 2011;105(4):475–80.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
47.
Wardle J, et al. Effects of evidence-based strategies to reduce the socioeconomic gradient of uptake in the English NHS bowel cancer screening programme (ASCEND): four cluster-randomised controlled trials. Lancet. 2016;387(10020):751–9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
48.
Neter E, et al. From the bench to public health: population-level implementation intentions in colorectal cancer screening. Am J Prev Med. 2014;46(3):273–80.PubMedCrossRef
49.
Arnold CL, et al. Final results of a 3-year literacy-informed intervention to promote annual fecal occult blood test screening. J Community Health. 2016;41(4):724–31.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
50.
Moss S, Mathews C, Day TJ, Smith S, Seaman HE, Snowball J, Halloran SP. Increased uptake and improved outcomes of bowel cancer screening with a faecal immunochemical test: results from a pilot study within the national screening programme in England. Gut. 2017;66(9):1631–44.PubMedCrossRef
51.
Coronado GD, et al. Effectiveness of a clinic-based colorectal cancer screening promotion program for underserved Hispanics. Cancer. 2011;117(8):1745–54.PubMedCrossRef
52.
Coronado GD, et al. Effect of reminding patients to complete fecal immunochemical testing: a comparative effectiveness study of automated and live approaches. J Gen Intern Med. 2018;33(1):72–8.PubMedCrossRef
53.
Hirst Y, et al. Text Reminders in Colorectal Cancer Screening (TRICCS): Protocol for a randomised controlled trial. BMC Public Health. 2016;16(1):74.
54.
Pennbridge J, Moya R, Rodrigues L. Questionnaire survey of California consumers' use and rating of sources of health care information including the internet. West J Med. 1999;171(5–6):302.PubMedPubMedCentral
55.
Närhi U. Sources of medicine information and their reliability evaluated by medicine users. Pharm World Sci. 2007;29(6):688–94.PubMedCrossRef
56.
Khoo K, et al. Health information seeking by parents in the internet age. J Paediatr Child Health. 2008;44(7–8):419–23.PubMedCrossRef
57.
Duffy SW, Myles JP, Maroni R, Mohammad A. Rapid review of evaluation of interventions to improve participation in cancer screening services. J Med Screen. 2017;24(3):127–145.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRef
58.
Reynolds LM, et al. Disgust and behavioral avoidance in colorectal cancer screening and treatment: a systematic review and research agenda. Cancer Nurs. 2013;36(2):122–30.PubMedCrossRef
59.
Schreuders EH, et al. Colorectal cancer screening: a global overview of existing programmes. Gut. 2015;64(10):1637–49.PubMedCrossRef
60.
Metadata
Title
Strategies for increasing participation in mail-out colorectal cancer screening programs: a systematic review and meta-analysis
Authors
Belinda C. Goodwin
Michael J. Ireland
Sonja March
Larry Myers
Fiona Crawford-Williams
Suzanne K. Chambers
Joanne F. Aitken
Jeff Dunn
Publication date
01-12-2019
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Systematic Reviews / Issue 1/2019
Electronic ISSN: 2046-4053
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-019-1170-x

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

Systematic Reviews 1/2019 Go to the issue

Protocol

Influence of health interventions on quality of life in seriously ill children at the end of life: a systematic review protocol

Protocol

Defining loneliness in older adults: protocol for a systematic review

Protocol

Preferred Reporting Items for Overviews of Reviews (PRIOR): a protocol for development of a reporting guideline for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions

Protocol

Evidence-based models of care for the treatment of alcohol use disorder in primary health care settings: protocol for systematic review

Protocol

Using mobile phones to improve young people’s sexual and reproductive health in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review protocol to identify barriers, facilitators and reported interventions

Protocol

Palliative care interventions in intensive care unit patients – a systematic review protocol