Invitation strategies for colorectal cancer screening programmes: The impact of an advance notification letter

Senore, Carlo; Ederle, A.; Depretis, G.; Magnani, Corrado; Canuti, Debora; Deandrea, Silvia; Zorzi, Manuel; Barca, Alessandra; Bestagini, P; Faitini, K.; Bisanti, Luigi; Casale, C.; Ferro, António; Rossi, Paolo Giorgi; Quadrino, Francesco; Fiorina, Giorgia; Capuano, Arianna; Segnan, Nereo; Fantin, Alberto

doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2015.01.005

Cited by 29 publications

(46 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…An advance notification letter was associated with an increased participation in gFOBT and FIT screening,88 89 93 as well as in FS screening,87 although the size of the effect was not consistent across studies.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 96%

Optimising colorectal cancer screening acceptance: a review

Senore¹,

Inadomi

Segnan

et al. 2015

Gut

Self Cite

102

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The study aims to review available evidence concerning effective interventions to increase colorectal cancer (CRC) screening acceptance. We performed a literature search of randomised trials designed to increase individuals' use of CRC screening on PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects. Small (≤ 100 subjects per arm) studies and those reporting results of interventions implemented before publication of the large faecal occult blood test trials were excluded. Interventions were categorised following the Continuum of Cancer Care and the PRECEDE-PROCEED models and studies were grouped by screening model (opportunistic vs organised). Multifactor interventions targeting multiple levels of care and considering factors outside the individual clinician control, represent the most effective strategy to enhance CRC screening acceptance. Removing financial barriers, implementing methods allowing a systematic contact of the whole target population, using personal invitation letters, preferably signed by the reference care provider, and reminders mailed to all non-attendees are highly effective in enhancing CRC screening acceptance. Physician reminders may support the diffusion of screening, but they can be effective only for individuals who have access to and make use of healthcare services. Educational interventions for patients and providers are effective, but the implementation of organisational measures may be necessary to favour their impact. Available evidence indicates that organised programmes allow to achieve an extensive coverage and to enhance equity of access, while maximising the health impact of screening. They provide at the same time an infrastructure allowing to achieve a more favourable cost-effectiveness profile of potentially effective strategies, which would not be sustainable in opportunistic settings.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 96%

Optimising colorectal cancer screening acceptance: a review

Senore¹,

Inadomi

Segnan

et al. 2015

Gut

Self Cite

102

100

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Based on the discussions from many recent studies on health-related monitoring participation behavior [30,31,32,33,34,35], we elaborated the implications from the findings of this study around the concepts of ‘radiation risk perception’, defined as a cognitive process through which individuals perceive potential radiation risks, which determines their behavioral response to information or warnings on radiation; and ‘accessibility to the monitoring’ in terms of transportation and work schedules. Note that our intention in the present study is not to question the default setting of the monitoring program (mandatory or voluntary) or the low monitoring prevalence, nor to simply encourage monitoring participation, but to provide discussion points regarding in what manner internal contamination monitoring programs following a major radiation-release incident should be designed and delivered from a long-term viewpoint, i.e.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Finally, it should be noted that there are increasing numbers of nation-wide population cancer screening studies that also address the issue of low screening prevalence, which appear to be decreasing with time. Recent studies have focused mainly on the identification of factors associated with the screening prevalence [32]—the main interest in this study—and the evaluation of the cost-effective approaches to increase the screening prevalence [33,34,35]. However, given the substantially different context in which a screening is provided (e.g., human, material, and financial resources for operation and maintenance for providers; and financial assistance or special insurance and accessibility for participants), we were not easily able to compare our findings with those from these cancer studies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Towards a Long-Term Strategy for Voluntary-Based Internal Radiation Contamination Monitoring: A Population-Level Analysis of Monitoring Prevalence and Factors Associated with Monitoring Participation Behavior in Fukushima, Japan

Nomura

Tsubokura²,

Ozaki³

et al. 2017

IJERPH

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Following Japan’s 2011 Fukushima nuclear incident, we assessed voluntary-based monitoring behavior in Minamisoma City—located 10–40 km from the Fukushima nuclear plant—to inform future monitoring strategies. The monitoring in Minamisoma included occasional free of charge internal-radiation-exposure measurements. Out of around 70,000 individuals residing in the city before the incident, a total of 45,788 residents (female: 52.1%) aged ≥21 were evaluated. The monitoring prevalence in 2011–2012 was only 30.2%, and this decreased to 17.9% in 2013–2014. Regression analyses were performed to estimate factors associated with the monitoring prevalence and participation behavior. The results show that, in comparison with the age cohort of 21–30 years, the cohort of 71–80 and ≥81 years demonstrated significantly lower monitoring prevalence; female residents had higher monitoring prevalence than male residents; those who were living in evacuation zones at the time of the incident had higher monitoring prevalence than those who lived outside any of the evacuation zones; for those living outside Fukushima and neighboring Prefectures post-incident monitoring prevalence decreased significantly in 2013–2014. Our findings inform the discussion on the concepts of radiation risk perception and accessibility to monitoring and societal decision-making regarding the maintenance of the monitoring program with low monitoring prevalence. We also stress the possibility that the monitoring can work both to check that internal contamination levels are within acceptable limits, and as a risk communication tool, alleviating individuals’ concern and anxiety over radiation contamination.

show abstract

“…Studies of interest will feature one or various invitation method(s) to a colonoscopy: stepwise mailed intervention invitation letters [14] with free bowel prep or FIT kits [15], scheduling assistance [15], and reminder calls [15]; advanced notification letters [16]; mailed outreach letters [17]; physician-linked mailed invitation letters [11]; postcards; automated call back systems [18]; specific education and outreach activities (including point-of-care videos and phone lines dedicated to patient education) [19]; physician recommendation; pamphlets/ informational brochures about colorectal cancer [9]; or media campaigns (including, but not limited to, online video sharing, widgets, blogs, and social media forums) [20].…”

Section: Interventions and Comparatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

What is the effectiveness of various invitation methods to a colonoscopy in the early detection and prevention of colorectal cancer? Protocol of a systematic review

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Colorectal cancer, a prevalent malignancy worldwide, is associated with numerous modifiable and nonmodifiable risk factors that play a role in the early detection and successful treatment of cancer. Despite improvements in the availability and quality of screening methods, especially colonoscopy, and the substantial survival benefits of the early detection of colorectal cancer, patient participation remains low due to clinical reasons and patient barriers. Studies around the world have used various methods of invitation in order to promote patient uptake of colonoscopies. The main objective of this systematic review is to analyze the association between certain invitation procedures, the participation in colonoscopies, and important patient outcomes in the early detection and prevention of colorectal cancer. Method: We will systematically search in electronic databases including Medline via PubMed and Ovid, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), and the Cochrane Library. All studies will be described in a table of study characteristics with a risk of bias assessment. In addition, two authors will independently rate the overall quality of evidence for the critical outcomes using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group approach. Discrepancies regarding the inclusion of studies, data extraction, or risk of bias assessment will be resolved independently by one other reviewer. Due to the heterogeneous design of the studies that will be evaluated in this review, synthesizing data from these studies in the form of a meta-analysis may not be possible. In this instance, we can conduct a descriptive synthesis of data from these studies. Discussion: The results that arise from this systematic review will reflect the influence that various invitation procedures to a colonoscopy have on patient participation in these screenings. Drawing conclusions about the efficiency of various invitation methods to a colonoscopy can provide valuable information to both clinicians and patients and may not only improve future invitation-based patient recruitment to colonoscopy screenings, but also shape guidelines regarding prevention of colorectal cancer. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42019128645

show abstract

Invitation strategies for colorectal cancer screening programmes: The impact of an advance notification letter

Cited by 29 publications

References 15 publications

Optimising colorectal cancer screening acceptance: a review

Optimising colorectal cancer screening acceptance: a review

Towards a Long-Term Strategy for Voluntary-Based Internal Radiation Contamination Monitoring: A Population-Level Analysis of Monitoring Prevalence and Factors Associated with Monitoring Participation Behavior in Fukushima, Japan

What is the effectiveness of various invitation methods to a colonoscopy in the early detection and prevention of colorectal cancer? Protocol of a systematic review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About