22
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      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

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Summary

          Background

          Uptake in the national colorectal cancer screening programme in England varies by socioeconomic status. We assessed four interventions aimed at reducing this gradient, with the intention of improving the health benefits of screening.

          Methods

          All people eligible for screening (men and women aged 60–74 years) across England were included in four cluster-randomised trials. Randomisation was based on day of invitation. Each trial compared the standard information with the standard information plus the following supplementary interventions: trial 1 (November, 2012), a supplementary leaflet summarising the gist of the key information; trial 2 (March, 2012), a supplementary narrative leaflet describing people's stories; trial 3 (June, 2013), general practice endorsement of the programme on the invitation letter; and trial 4 (July–August, 2013) an enhanced reminder letter with a banner that reiterated the screening offer. Socioeconomic status was defined by the Index of Multiple Deprivation score for each home address. The primary outcome was the socioeconomic status gradient in uptake across deprivation quintiles. This study is registered, number ISRCTN74121020.

          Findings

          As all four trials were embedded in the screening programme, loss to follow-up was minimal (less than 0·5%). Trials 1 (n=163 525) and 2 (n=150 417) showed no effects on the socioeconomic gradient of uptake or overall uptake. Trial 3 (n=265 434) showed no effect on the socioeconomic gradient but was associated with increased overall uptake (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1·07, 95% CI 1·04–1·10, p<0·0001). In trial 4 (n=168 480) a significant interaction was seen with socioeconomic status gradient (p=0·005), with a stronger effect in the most deprived quintile (adjusted OR 1·11, 95% CI 1·04–1·20, p=0·003) than in the least deprived (1·00, 0·94–1·06, p=0·98). Overall uptake was also increased (1·07, 1·03–1·11, p=0·001).

          Interpretation

          Of four evidence-based interventions, the enhanced reminder letter reduced the socioeconomic gradient in screening uptake, but further reducing inequalities in screening uptake through written materials alone will be challenging.

          Funding

          National Institute for Health Research.

          Related collections

          Most cited references31

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          A Heteroskedasticity-Consistent Covariance Matrix Estimator and a Direct Test for Heteroskedasticity

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: not found
            • Article: not found

            Narrative communication in cancer prevention and control: A framework to guide research and application

              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Outcomes of the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) in England after the first 1 million tests

              Introduction The Bowel Cancer Screening Programme in England began operating in 2006 with the aim of full roll out across England by December 2009. Subjects aged 60–69 are being invited to complete three guaiac faecal occult blood tests (6 windows) every 2 years. The programme aims to reduce mortality from colorectal cancer by 16% in those invited for screening. Methods All subjects eligible for screening in the National Health Service in England are included on one database, which is populated from National Health Service registration data covering about 98% of the population of England. This analysis is only of subjects invited to participate in the first (prevalent) round of screening. Results By October 2008 almost 2.1 million had been invited to participate, with tests being returned by 49.6% of men and 54.4% of women invited. Uptake ranged between 55–60% across the four provincial hubs which administer the programme but was lower in the London hub (40%). Of the 1.08 million returning tests 2.5% of men and 1.5% of women had an abnormal test. 17 518 (10 608 M, 6910 F) underwent investigation, with 98% having a colonoscopy as their first investigation. Cancer (n=1772) and higher risk adenomas (n=6543) were found in 11.6% and 43% of men and 7.8% and 29% of women investigated, respectively. 71% of cancers were ‘early’ (10% polyp cancer, 32% Dukes A, 30% Dukes B) and 77% were left-sided (29% rectal, 45% sigmoid) with only 14% being right-sided compared with expected figures of 67% and 24% for left and right side from UK cancer registration. Conclusion In this first round of screening in England uptake and fecal occult blood test positivity was in line with that from the pilot and the original European trials. Although there was the expected improvement in cancer stage at diagnosis, the proportion with left-sided cancers was higher than expected.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Journal
                Lancet
                Lancet
                Lancet (London, England)
                Elsevier
                0140-6736
                1474-547X
                20 February 2016
                20 February 2016
                : 387
                : 10020
                : 751-759
                Affiliations
                [a ]Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, London, UK
                [b ]Department of Applied Health Research, University College London, London, UK
                [c ]Cancer Research Centre UK and University College London Cancer Trials Centre, University College London, London, UK
                [d ]Department of Biostatistics, King's Clinical Trials Unit, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, London, UK
                [e ]NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme Southern Hub, Royal Surrey County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Guildford, Surrey, UK
                [f ]Royal Surrey County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Guildford, and University of Surrey, Guildford, UK
                [g ]Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK
                [h ]Department of Surgery and Cancer, Imperial College London, London, UK
                [i ]NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme North East Hub, Gateshead Health NHS Foundation Trust, Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Gateshead, UK
                [j ]NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme Eastern Hub, Nottingham University Hospitals, Nottingham, UK
                [k ]NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Hub, London Hub, Northwick Park and St Mark's Hospital, Harrow, Middlesex, UK
                [l ]NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme Midlands and North West Hub, University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire NHS Trust, Hospital of St Cross, Rugby, UK
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence to: Dr Christian von Wagner, Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, University College London, Gower Street, London WC1E 6BT, UKCorrespondence to: Dr Christian von WagnerDepartment of Epidemiology and Public HealthUniversity College LondonGower StreetLondonWC1E 6BTUK c.wagner@ 123456ucl.ac.uk
                [*]

                Joint first authors

                [†]

                Jane Wardle died in October, 2015

                Article
                S0140-6736(15)01154-X
                10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01154-X
                4761689
                26680217
                221b5161-bffb-43e2-9357-8546371b8b8b
                © 2016 Wardle et al. Open Access article distributed under the terms of CC BY

                This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

                History
                Categories
                Articles

                Medicine
                Medicine

                Comments

                Comment on this article