Reinvitation to screening colonoscopy

Abstract

A simple reinvitation letter results in a higher response rate and participation rate to screening colonoscopy than invitation to tailored educational meeting in nonresponders to previous invitations. (NCT01183156).

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

“…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.…”

“…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.…”

Effect of Behavioral Interventions on the Uptake of Colonoscopy for Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

“…A total of 30,064 participants were included, and the median duration of follow-up was 6 months. Twenty-one studies were randomized controlled trials and 6 were population-based (13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18). Several studies focused on specific populations: 6 involved lowincome or racial minority groups in the United States (19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24), 3 examined individuals with first-degree relatives with CRC (17,18,25), and 1 studied persons with human immunodeficiency virus (26).…”

“…Six studies included patients younger than 50 years (15,17,18,22,25,27). For behavioral interventions, 3 interventions used mailed letters (13,16,28), 3 used informational brochures (24,29), 11 studied patient navigation (17)(18)(19)(20)(21)23,25,(30)(31)(32), 1 examined preprocedural telephone consultations ( 14), 1 studied PCP counseling (33), 2 used videos (22,26), 1 changed EHR settings (10), 1 used an email intervention (34), and 1 used a financial incentive (35). Six interventions studied the effects of multiple concurrent interventions (15,27,28,34,36).…”