SummaryBackgroundUptake 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.MethodsAll 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.FindingsAs 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).InterpretationOf 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.FundingNational Institute for Health Research.

No abstract

BackgroundThe English NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme biennially invites individuals aged 60–74 to participate in screening. The booklet, ‘Bowel Cancer Screening: The Facts' accompanies this invitation. Its primary aim is to inform potential participants about the aims, advantages and disadvantages of colorectal cancer screening.ObjectiveTo provide detailed commentary on how individuals process the information contained within ‘The Facts’ booklet.Design, setting and participantsThis study comprised of 18 interviews with individuals aged 45–60 and used a ‘think‐aloud’ paradigm in which participants read aloud the booklet. Participant utterances (verbal statements made in response to researcher‐led prompts) were transcribed and analysed using a combination of content and thematic analysis.ResultsA total of 776 coded utterances were analysed (mean = 43.1 per person; range = 8–95). While overall comprehension was satisfactory, several problem areas were identified such as the use of complex unfamiliar terminology and the presentation of numerical information. Specific sections such as colonoscopy risk information evoked negative emotional responses. Participants made several suggestions for ways in which comprehension might be improved.ConclusionPublic perceptions of the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme information materials indicated that specific aspects of the booklet were difficult to process. These materials may be an appropriate target to improve public understanding of the aims, benefits and disadvantages of colorectal cancer screening. These findings will contribute to a broader NIHR‐funded project that aims to design a supplementary ‘gist‐based’ information leaflet suitable for low literacy populations.

Background:There is a socioeconomic gradient in the uptake of screening in the English NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP), potentially leading to inequalities in outcomes. We tested whether endorsement of bowel cancer screening by an individual's general practice (GP endorsement; GPE) reduced this gradient.Methods:A cluster-randomised controlled trial. Over 20 days, individuals eligible for screening in England from 6480 participating general practices were randomly allocated to receive a GP-endorsed or the standard invitation letter. The primary outcome was the proportion of people adequately screened and its variation by quintile of Index of Multiple Deprivation.Results:We enrolled 265 434 individuals. Uptake was 58.2% in the intervention arm and 57.5% in the control arm. After adjusting for age, sex, hub and screening episode, GPE increased the overall odds of uptake (OR=1.07, 95% CI 1.04–1.10), but did not affect its socioeconomic gradient. We estimated that implementing GPE could result in up to 165 more people with high or intermediate risk colorectal adenomas and 61 cancers detected, and a small one-off cost to modify the standard invitation (£78 000).Conclusions:Although GPE did not improve its socioeconomic gradient, it offers a low-cost approach to enhancing overall screening uptake within the NHS BCSP.

BackgroundThe potential benefits of colorectal cancer screening are limited by low uptake. This study tested whether providing narrative accounts of the colorectal cancer (CRC) screening experience positively affected beliefs about CRC screening and intention to be screened.Methods4125 adults aged 45-59.5 years, from three general practices in England, were randomised to be sent the standard information on CRC screening or the standard information plus a narrative-based leaflet describing CRC screening experiences. Both groups were asked to complete and return a questionnaire on beliefs about CRC screening after reading the study materials. Between-group differences on responses were assessed with t-tests. A mediation analysis then addressed the mediating role of CRC screening beliefs on the group and intention relationship.ResultsRelative to the standard information group (n = 590), the standard information plus narrative leaflet group (n = 631) showed higher perceived vulnerability to CRC, higher perceived test response efficacy, a stronger belief that the screening test would provide peace of mind and less disgust with the test procedure. There were no between group differences on perceived self-efficacy or the understanding that the screening test should be done in the absence of symptoms. Respondents who received the additional narrative leaflet reported significantly higher CRC screening intentions than respondents who received the standard information only. Controlling for the CRC screening beliefs reduced the effect of group on intention to non-significance.ConclusionsAn additional narrative leaflet had a positive impact on beliefs about CRC screening which led to stronger screening intentions.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12885-015-1167-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.