Effectiveness of behavioural economics-based interventions to improve colorectal cancer screening participation: A rapid systematic review of randomised controlled trials

Taylor, Lily C; Kerrison, Robert; Herrmann, Benedikt; Stoffel, Sandro

doi:10.1016/j.pmedr.2022.101747

Cited by 4 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, the effect size was different based on the type of intervention. In line with our results, Taylor et al [ 8 ] through systematic reviewing the evidence, concluded that the effect of BE intervention on stimulating the demand for screening is significant and that these types of intervention have the potential to improve participation in screening. It is worth mentioning that our study differs from Taylor et al’s study in several aspects.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

“…Numerous interventions such as advance notification letters, postal reminders and phone navigation calls have been employed to improve the uptake of CRC screening [ 8 ]. Through a scoping review, Leach et al [ 9 ] investigated the impact of various interventions on colorectal cancer screening in the United States.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Studies using behavioral economics interventions to promote colorectal screening have reported heterogeneous results. In a rapid review, Taylor et al [ 8 ] concluded that behavioral economics interventions have a mixed effect on increasing the uptake of colorectal cancer screening. To date, the robustness of empirical and confirmatory evidence regarding the effectiveness of BE interventions in promoting the use of CRC screening remains unclear.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Are behavioral economics interventions effective in increasing colorectal cancer screening uptake: A systematic review of evidence and meta-analysis?

Ahadinezhad,

Maleki,

Akhondi

et al. 2024

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Various interventions have been investigated to improve the uptake of colorectal cancer screening. In this paper, the authors have attempted to provide a pooled estimate of the effect size of the BE interventions running a systematic review based meta-analysis. In this study, all the published literatures between 2000 and 2022 have been reviewed. Searches were performed in PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane databases. The main outcome was the demanding the one of the colorectal cancer screening tests. The quality assessment was done by two people so that each person evaluated the studies separately and independently based on the individual participant data the modified Jadad scale. Pooled effect size (odds ratio) was estimated using random effects model at 95% confidence interval. Galbraith, Forrest and Funnel plots were used in data analysis. Publication bias was also investigated through Egger’s test. All the analysis was done in STATA 15. From the initial 1966 records, 38 were included in the final analysis in which 72612 cases and 71493 controls have been studied. About 72% have been conducted in the USA. The heterogeneity of the studies was high based on the variation in OR (I2 = 94.6%, heterogeneity X2 = 670.01 (d.f. = 36), p < 0.01). The random effect pooled odds ratio (POR) of behavioral economics (BE) interventions was calculated as 1.26 (95% CI: 1.26 to 1.43). The bias coefficient is noteworthy (3.15) and statistically significant (p< 0.01). According to the results of this meta-analysis, health policy and decision makers can improve the efficiency and cost effectiveness of policies to control this type of cancer by using various behavioral economics interventions. It’s noteworthy that due to the impossibility of categorizing behavioral economics interventions; we could not perform by group analysis.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 91%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Are behavioral economics interventions effective in increasing colorectal cancer screening uptake: A systematic review of evidence and meta-analysis?

Ahadinezhad,

Maleki,

Akhondi

et al. 2024

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Würde bei der Mitteilung des Testresultats gleich ein im Voraus fixierter Termin für die Koloskopie angeboten, könnte die Abklärungsrate wesentlich verbessert werden [22][23][24], wie dies bei der Mammographie, beim Zervixabstrich und der Sigmoidoskopie gezeigt wurde. Finanzielle Anreize für Patienten hingegen bringen wenig [25,26]. Hilfreich ist jedoch eine persönliche motivierende Information [14,20,27,28].…”

Section: Was Nützt Das Testangebot?unclassified

Dickdarmkrebsscreening in der Schweiz: Sind unsere Patienten genügend motiviert?

Marbet¹,

Stoffel

Brunner-Schaub³

2022

Schweiz. Gastroenterol.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

ZusammenfassungEin breites Bevölkerungsscreening könnte die Mortalität von Dickdarmkrebs erheblich reduzieren. Die Darmkrebsvorsorge ist in der Schweiz aber wenig beliebt. Um die Voraussetzungen für eine effiziente Darmkrebsvorsorge zu schaffen, müssen unterschiedlichste Verbesserungen angestrebt werden. Finanzielle Hindernisse sollten gesamtschweizerisch abgebaut und einheitliche Richtlinien geschaffen werden. Die Verfügbarkeit von verschiedenen wissenschaftlich etablierten Tests sollte den persönlichen Präferenzen Rechnung tragen. Das allgemeine Bewusstsein um die Bedeutung des Dickdarmkrebses muss verbessert und die verbreiteten Ängste und falschen Vorstellungen abgebaut werden. Alle Bemühungen dürfen nicht nur jene erreichen, die regelmässig einen Arzt aufsuchen, sondern müssen auch sozial schlechter Gestellte erfassen und sprachliche Barrieren überwinden. Die Rolle des Hausarztes bei der Entscheidungsfindung ist zentral. Hausärzte sollten durch Erinnerungssysteme und allenfalls Entschädigungen für den administrativen Aufwand unterstützt werden. Positive Screeningtests müssen innert nützlicher Frist abgeklärt werden, was genügend Endoskopie-Plätze bedingt. Organisierte überregionale Vorsorgeprogramme können mithelfen, die Qualität und den Nutzen langfristig zu sichern.

show abstract

“…The World Health Organization (WHO) has recently suggested improving primary healthcare practice and public health policymaking using a nudge strategy in numerous health initiatives, including boosting the uptake of cancer screening. [ 4 5 ]…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A nudge strategy to increase the uptake of colorectal cancer screening in Saudi Arabia: A pragmatic randomized trial in the Hail region

Elfakki,

Alshammari,

Aljamani

et al. 2024

Journal of Family Medicine and Primary Care

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: The purpose of this research was to examine the effectiveness of using a nudge strategy to encourage eligible clients to participate in colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) at primary care facilities. Additionally, it emphasizes the good outcomes of utilizing nudge in primary healthcare settings by reflecting on the novel experience of family physicians and nurses in the field of CRCS. Nudge is a cost-effective intervention that serves as a choice architect to assist people in making wise decisions for their lives. It is a subtly changed environment or combination of words that push individuals to make a decision without restricting their alternatives. Research Methods: This is a six-month, pragmatic trial with open-label recruitment that enrolled people with an average CRC risk from four screening healthcare zones that included 34 public primary care facilities. The study protocol is registered and can be accessed here: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT05785975. Results: An obvious increase in the proportion of the uptake of CRCS screening is higher in the two intervention sites—Al Hait General Hospital Zone (38%) and Al-Shamli General Hospital Zone (26%), than in the two control sites, Bagaa General Hospital Zone (18%) and King Khalid Hospital Zone (18%). Conclusions: Using the nudge strategy to increase CRCS uptake is valuable and effective; additionally, front-line family physicians and nurses in primary care are encouraged to use a planned, positive, and highly selective set of words when offering screening. Policymakers could make use of these research outcomes when designing new guidelines for CRCS.

show abstract

Effectiveness of behavioural economics-based interventions to improve colorectal cancer screening participation: A rapid systematic review of randomised controlled trials

Cited by 4 publications

References 50 publications

Are behavioral economics interventions effective in increasing colorectal cancer screening uptake: A systematic review of evidence and meta-analysis?

Are behavioral economics interventions effective in increasing colorectal cancer screening uptake: A systematic review of evidence and meta-analysis?

Dickdarmkrebsscreening in der Schweiz: Sind unsere Patienten genügend motiviert?

A nudge strategy to increase the uptake of colorectal cancer screening in Saudi Arabia: A pragmatic randomized trial in the Hail region

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About