Barriers to colonoscopy in UK colorectal cancer screening programmes: Qualitative interviews with ethnic minority groups.

OBJECTIVE: People from ethnic minority backgrounds are less likely to attend colonoscopy, following faecal immunochemical test screening, and are more likely to be diagnosed with colorectal cancer at an advanced stage as a result. The aim of this research was to explore the barriers and facilitators to attending colonoscopy, perceived by ethnic minority groups living in the United Kingdom. METHODS: Semi-structured online and telephone interviews were conducted with thirty men and women of Black-African (n = 5), Black-Caribbean (n = 5), South Asian (n = 10) and White British (n = 10) descent. Participants were eligible for screening, but had not necessarily been invited for colonoscopy. All interviews were conducted in the participant's first language and were assessed using Framework-analysis, in line with a conceptual framework developed from previous interviews with healthcare professionals. RESULTS: Five thematic groups of barriers and facilitators were developed: 'Locus of control', 'Cultural attitudes and beliefs', 'Individual beliefs, knowledge and personal experiences with colonoscopy and cancer', 'Reliance on family and friends' and 'Health concerns'. Differences were observed, between ethnic groups, for: 'Locus of control', 'Cultural attitudes and beliefs' and 'Reliance on family and friends'. Black and South Asian participants frequently described the decision to attend colonoscopy as lying with 'God' (Muslims, specifically), 'the doctor', or 'family' (Locus of control). Black and South Asian participants also reported relying on friends and family for 'language, transport and emotional support' (Reliance on family and friends). Black-African participants, specifically, described cancer as 'socially taboo' (Cultural attitudes and beliefs). CONCLUSIONS: The results highlight several targets for culturally-tailored interventions to make colonoscopy more equitable.

Patient experience and satisfaction with symptomatic faecal immunochemical testing: an explanatory sequential mixed-methods evaluation.

BACKGROUND: Recent evidence suggests that faecal immunochemical testing (FIT) can rule out colorectal cancer (CRC) in symptomatic adults. To date, there has been little research exploring experiences of FIT for this population. AIM: To explore patient experience and satisfaction with FIT in an 'early adopter' site in England. DESIGN: Explanatory sequential mixed-methods approach combining mailed quantitative surveys with semi-structured telephone interviews. METHOD: Multivariate logistic regression was used to analyse quantitative data. Thematic analysis was used to assess qualitative transcripts. RESULTS: The survey had 260 responders, and it found that satisfaction with FIT was high (88.7%). Compared with test satisfaction, the proportion of responders satisfied with their GP consultation and how they received their results was lower (74.4% and 76.2%, respectively). Multivariate analysis showed that increased area-level deprivation and not receiving an explanation of the purpose of the test were associated with lower satisfaction with the GP consultation (both P-values <0.05), while increased area-level deprivation and not receiving results from the GP were associated with lower satisfaction with receiving results (both P-values <0.05). Interviews with responders (n = 20) helped explain the quantitative results. They revealed that 'not knowing the purpose of the test' caused 'anxiety' and 'confusion', which led to dissatisfaction. 'Not receiving results from GP' was considered 'unacceptable', as this left patients with a 'niggling doubt' and lack of diagnosis or assurance that they did not have cancer. CONCLUSION: Patient satisfaction with symptomatic FIT is high. Efforts to improve satisfaction should focus on ensuring that patients understand the purpose of the test and always receive their test results.

Barriers and facilitators to colonoscopy for cancer detection: patient and practitioner perspectives.

OBJECTIVE: To further understand the barriers and facilitators to attending colonoscopy examination following a positive routinely offered stool test result, from the perspective of patients and Specialist Screening Practitioners (SSPs). METHODS: Qualitative semi-structured interviews were conducted. Participants (N = 32) were patients (n = 20) who, as part of the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) in England, were invited to attend a colonoscopy examination, and SSPs (n = 12), who worked for the BCSP in England. Framework analysis included inductive and deductive coding. RESULTS: Anxiety was as a key barrier cited by patients and SSPs, arising from the moment the patient received the invitation letter. Notably, procedural-related anxieties centred upon the fear of pain and discomfort and test invasiveness. The role of family, friends and the SSP were recognised by patients and SSPs to facilitate participation. Many patients, yet not SSPs, emphasised an obligation to attend all medical test invitations. CONCLUSION: Practically orientated strategies suggested by patients and SSPs address the patient barriers identified. These include earlier information to patients on the option of sedation for pain relief, earlier notification of potential financial support for patients unable to fund their own travel costs, and fewer uses of the term cancer within written materials.

Demographic and psychological predictors of community pharmacists' cancer-related conversations with patients: a cross-sectional analysis and survey study.

BACKGROUND: There is increasing interest in the role of community pharmacy in the early diagnosis and prevention of cancer. This study set out to examine how often community pharmacists (CPs) encourage patients to spot or respond to potential signs and symptoms of cancer, and how often they help people to make an informed decision about taking part in bowel cancer screening. METHODS: Data from 400 UK CPs, who completed the 2018 Cancer Research UK Healthcare Professional Tracker survey, were analysed. The primary outcomes were: 'how often CPs encourage patients to spot or respond to potential signs and symptoms of cancer' and 'how often CPs encourage eligible people to make an informed decision to participate in bowel cancer screening'. Associations between behaviours and demographic and psychological variables (Capability, Opportunity and Motivation) were assessed using multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: Most (n = 331, 82.8%) CPs reported occasionally, frequently or always encouraging patients to spot or respond to potential signs and symptoms of cancer, while only half (n = 203, 50.8%) reported occasionally, frequently or always helping people make an informed decision to participate in bowel cancer screening. Female sex (aOR: 3.20, 95%CI: 1.51, 6.81; p < 0.01) and increased Opportunity (aOR: 1.72, 95%CIs: 1.12, 2.64; p < 0.05) and Motivation (aOR: 1.76, 95%CIs: 1.37, 2.27; p < 0.001) were associated with encouraging patients to spot or respond to potential signs and symptoms of cancer; all three psychological variables were associated with helping people to make an informed decision to participate in bowel cancer screening (Capability: aOR: 1.39, 95%CIs: 1.26, 1.52, p < 0.001; Opportunity: aOR: 1.44, 95%CIs: 1.11, 1.87; p < 0.01; Motivation: aOR: 1.45, 95%CIs: 1.05, 2.00; p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Most CPs encourage patients to spot or respond to potential cancer symptoms, while only half help them make an informed decision to participate in bowel cancer screening. A multifaceted approach, targeting multiple COM-B components, is required to change these behaviours.

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

•We searched PubMed, PsycInfo and EconLit for RCTs that evaluated BE interventions in CRC screening.•We identified 1027 papers for title and abstract review. 30 studies were eligible for the review.•The most frequently tested BE intervention was incentives, followed by default principle and salience.•Default-based interventions were most likely to be effective. Incentives had mixed evidence.•BE remains a promising field of interest in relation to influencing CRC screening behaviours.

Testing Enhanced Active Choice to Optimize Acceptance and Participation in a Population-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening Program in Malta.

Opt-out strategies have been shown to improve participation in cancer screening; however, there are ethical concerns regarding the presumed consent. In this study, we tested an alternative opt-in strategy, called: "enhanced active choice," in which the response options summarize the consequences of the decision. The study was conducted as part of the Maltese colorectal cancer screening program, which offers men and women, aged 60-64, a "one-off" fecal immunochemical test (FIT). A total of 8349 individuals were randomly assigned to receive either an invitation letter that featured a standard opt-in strategy (control condition), or an alternative letter with a modified opt-in strategy (enhanced active choice condition). Our primary outcome was participation three months after the invitation was delivered. Additionally, we also compared the proportion who said they wanted to take part in screening. We used multivariable logistic regression for the analysis. Overall, 48.4% (N = 4042) accepted the invitation and 42.4% (N = 3542) did the screening test. While there were no statistically significant differences between the two conditions in terms of acceptance and participation, enhanced active choice did increase acceptance among men by 4.6 percentage points, which translated to a significant increase in participation of 3.4 percentage points. We conclude that enhanced active choice can improve male screening participation. Given the higher risk of CRC in men, as well as their lower participation screening, we believe this to be an important finding.

Barriers and facilitators to colonoscopy following fecal immunochemical test screening for colorectal cancer: A key informant interview study.

OBJECTIVES: People who are referred for colonoscopy, following an abnormal colorectal cancer (CRC) screening result, are at increased risk of CRC. Despite this, many individuals decline the procedure. The aim of this study was to investigate why. METHODS: As little is currently known about non-attendance at follow-up colonoscopy, and follow-up of abnormal screening results is a nurse-led process, we decided to conduct key informant interviews with Specialist Screening Practitioners ([SSPs] nurses working in the English Bowel Cancer Screening Program). Interviews were conducted online. Transcripts were assessed using inductive and deductive coding techniques. RESULTS: 21 SSPs participated in an interview. Five main types of barriers and facilitators to colonoscopy were described, namely: Sociocultural, Practical, Psychological, Health-related and COVID-related. Key psychological and sociocultural factors included: 'Fear of pain and discomfort associated with the procedure' and 'Lack of support from family and friends'. Key practical, health-related and COVID-related factors included: 'Family and work commitments', 'Existing health conditions as competing priorities' and 'Fear of getting COVID-19 at the hospital'. CONCLUSIONS: A range of barriers and facilitators to follow-up colonoscopy exist. Future studies conducted with patients are needed to further explore barriers to colonoscopy. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Strategies to reduce non-attendance should adopt a multifaceted approach.

Improving postal survey response using behavioural science: a nested randomised control trial.

BACKGROUND: Systematic reviews have identified effective strategies for increasing postal response rates to questionnaires; however, most studies have isolated single techniques, testing the effect of each one individually. Despite providing insight into explanatory mechanisms, this approach lacks ecological validity, given that multiple techniques are often combined in routine practice. METHODS: We used a two-armed parallel randomised controlled trial (n = 2702), nested within a cross-sectional health survey study, to evaluate whether using a pragmatic combination of behavioural science and evidenced-based techniques (e.g., personalisation, social norms messaging) in a study invitation letter increased response to the survey, when compared with a standard invitation letter. Participants and outcome assessors were blinded to group assignment. We tested this in a sample of women testing positive for human papillomavirus (HPV) at cervical cancer screening in England. RESULTS: Overall, 646 participants responded to the survey (response rate [RR] = 23.9%). Logistic regression revealed higher odds of response in the intervention arm (n = 357/1353, RR = 26.4%) compared with the control arm (n = 289/1349, RR = 21.4%), while adjusting for age, deprivation, clinical site, and clinical test result (aOR = 1.30, 95% CI: 1.09-1.55). CONCLUSION: Applying easy-to-implement behavioural science and evidence-based methods to routine invitation letters improved postal response to a health-related survey, whilst adjusting for demographic characteristics. Our findings provide support for the pragmatic adoption of combined techniques in routine research to increase response to postal surveys. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN, ISRCTN15113095 . Registered 7 May 2019 - retrospectively registered.

Testing messages from behavioral economics to improve participation in a population-based colorectal cancer screening program in Cyprus: Results from two randomized controlled trials.

•Behavioral economic-based interventions have been suggested to increase uptake in CRC screening programmes.•This study tested the effectiveness of six behavioral economic-based messages in two field trials.•None of the messages increased screening participation.

Ethnic inequalities in older adults bowel cancer awareness: findings from a community survey conducted in an ethnically diverse region in England.

BACKGROUND: To date, research exploring the public's awareness of bowel cancer has taken place with predominantly white populations. To enhance our understanding of how bowel cancer awareness varies between ethnic groups, and inform the development of targeted interventions, we conducted a questionnaire study across three ethnically diverse regions in Greater London, England. METHODS: Data were collected using an adapted version of the bowel cancer awareness measure. Eligible adults were individuals, aged 60+ years, who were eligible for screening. Participants were recruited and surveyed, verbally, by staff working at 40 community pharmacies in Northwest London, the Harrow Somali association, and St. Mark's Bowel Cancer Screening Centre. Associations between risk factor, symptom and screening awareness scores and ethnicity were assessed using multivariate regression. RESULTS: 1013 adults, aged 60+ years, completed the questionnaire; half were of a Black, Asian or Minority ethnic group background (n = 507; 50.0%). Participants recognised a mean average of 4.27 of 9 symptoms and 3.99 of 10 risk factors. Symptom awareness was significantly lower among all ethnic minority groups (all p's < 0.05), while risk factor awareness was lower for Afro-Caribbean and Somali adults, specifically (both p's < 0.05). One in three adults (n = 722; 29.7%) did not know there is a Bowel Cancer Screening Programme. Bowel screening awareness was particularly low among Afro-Caribbean and Somali adults (both p's < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Awareness of bowel cancer symptoms, risk factors and screening varies by ethnicity. Interventions should be targeted towards specific groups for whom awareness of screening and risk factors is low.

Patient barriers and facilitators of colonoscopy use: A rapid systematic review and thematic synthesis of the qualitative literature.

Colonoscopy is the gold standard test in the diagnosis of colorectal cancer. Despite this, many people across the world decline the procedure when invited for screening, surveillance or diagnostic evaluation. The aim of this review was to characterise the barriers and facilitators of colonoscopy use described in the qualitative literature. We searched PubMed and PsychInfo for studies that explored barriers and facilitators of colonoscopy use. To determine the eligibility of studies, we first reviewed titles, then abstracts, and finally the full paper. We started with a narrow search, which we expanded successively, until the number of new publications eligible after abstract review was <1% of the total number of publications identified. Papers were eligible if they: 1) focussed on an adult population, 2) used a qualitative research design and, 3) described at least one patient-related theme regarding colonoscopy use. We then extracted qualitative data from eligible papers and analysed using thematic synthesis. Fifty-seven studies met the inclusion criteria. Most explored barriers and facilitators of screening colonoscopy (n=53, 93.0%) and were conducted in the USA (n=48, 84.2%). Key psychological and social factors included: 'fear of pain and discomfort', 'concerns about doing the bowel preparation', and whether the test was recommended by the patient's physician. Key practical factors included cost, and whether colonoscopy was covered by the patient's healthcare insurance. Studies mostly focussed on screening colonoscopy in the USA, where there is no universal healthcare coverage. To better understand the barriers and facilitators in other contexts, further research is needed.

Use of a GP-endorsed non-participant reminder letter to promote uptake of bowel scope screening: A randomised controlled trial in a hard-to-reach population.

Previous research suggests that sending non-participants a reminder letter, 1 year after their initial invitation, can improve coverage for bowel scope screening (BSS), also known as flexible sigmoidoscopy screening. We hypothesised that adding a general practitioner's (GPs) endorsement to the reminder letter could improve coverage even further. We conducted a randomised controlled trial in North West London, UK. Participants were screening-eligible men and women who had not responded to their initial BSS invitation at least 12 months prior to the trial period. Eligible adults were randomised in a 1:1 ratio to receive either a GP-endorsed reminder letter, or a standard reminder letter from June to August 2019. Logistic regression models were used to test the effect of the GP endorsement on attendance at BSS, adjusting for sex, clinical commissioning group, and local area socioeconomic deprivation. In total, 1200 participants were enrolled into the study and randomised to either the control (n = 600) or the intervention (n = 600) group. Those who received the GP-endorsed reminder letter were only slightly more likely to attend BSS than those who received the standard reminder letter (4% vs. 3%); this difference was not statistically significant (Adjusted OR = 1.30; 95% CI: 0.69, 2.43). Adding a GP-endorsement to the annual reminder letter did not have an effect on attendance at BSS. One possible explanation for this is that the endorsement used was not personalised enough. Future research should examine stronger GP-endorsements or other methods to promote uptake.

Behavioral economics informed message content in text message reminders to improve cervical screening participation: Two pragmatic randomized controlled trials.

The objective of the reported research was to assess the impact of text message (SMS) reminders and their content on cervical screening rates. Women invited for cervical screening in Northwest London from February-October 2015 were eligible. 3133 women aged 24-29 (Study 1) were randomized (1, 1) to 'no SMS' (control), or a primary care physician (PCP) endorsed SMS (SMS-PCP). 11,405 women aged 30-64 (Study 2), were randomized (1, 1:1:1:1:1:1) to either: no SMS, an SMS without manipulation (SMS), the SMS-PCP, an SMS with a total or proportionate social norm (SMS-SNT or SMS-SNP), or an SMS with a gain-framed or loss-framed message (SMS-GF and SMS-LF). The primary outcome was participation at 18 weeks. In Study 1 participation was significantly higher in the SMS-PCP arm (31.4%) compared to control (26.4%, aOR, 1.29, 95%CI: 1.09-1·51; p = 0.002). In Study 2 participation was highest in the SMS-PCP (38.4%) and SMS (38.1%) arms compared to control (34.4%), (aOR: 1.19, 95%CI: 1.03-1.38; p = 0.02 and aOR: 1.18, 95%CI: 1.02-1.37; p = 0.03, respectively). The results demonstrate that behavioral SMSs improve cervical screening participation. The message content plays an important role in the impact of SMS. The results from this trial have already been used to designing effective policy for cervical cancer screening. The NHS Cervical Screening Programme started running a London-wide screening SMS campaign which was based on the cervical screening trial described here. According to figures published by Public Health England, after six months attendance increased by 4.8%, which is the equivalent of 13,400 more women being screened at 18 weeks.

The impact of descriptive norms on motivation to participate in cancer screening - Evidence from online experiments.

OBJECTIVE: The current study tested in two online experiments whether manipulating normative beliefs about cancer screening uptake increases intention to attend colorectal screening among previously disinclined individuals. METHODS: 2461 men and women from an Internet panel (Experiment 1 N = 1032; Experiment 2, N = 1423) who initially stated that they did not intend to take up screening were asked to guess how many men and women they believe to get screened for colorectal cancer. Across participants, we varied the presence/absence of feedback on the participant's estimate, as well as the stated proportion of men and women doing the screening test. RESULTS: Across the two experiments, we found that receiving one of the experimental messages stating that uptake is higher than estimated significantly increased the proportion of disinclined men and women becoming intenders. While, we found a positive relationship between the communicated uptake and screening intentions, we did not find evidence that providing feedback on the estimate has an added benefit. CONCLUSION: Screening intention can be effectively manipulated through a high uptake message. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Communication of high screening uptake is an easy and effective way to motivate disinclined individuals to engage in colorectal cancer screening.

Rapid review of factors associated with flexible sigmoidoscopy screening use.

Flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) screening has been shown to reduce colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality among screened adults. The aim of this review was to identify patient-related factors associated with the screening test's use. We searched PubMed for studies that examined the association between FS screening use and one or more factors. To determine the eligibility of studies, we first reviewed titles, then abstracts, and finally the full paper. We started with a narrow search, which we expanded successively (by adding 'OR' terms) until the number of new publications eligible after abstract review was <1% of the total number of publications. We then abstracted factors from eligible papers and reported the number of times each was found to be positively or negatively associated with FS screening use. We identified 42 papers, most of which reported studies conducted in the United States of America (n = 21, 50%) and the United Kingdom (n = 13, 31%). Across studies, a wide range of factors were examined (n = 123), almost half of which were found to be associated with FS screening use at least once (n = 60). Sociodemographic and health and lifestyle factors that were frequently positively associated with FS screening use included: male gender, higher socioeconomic status and a family history of CRC. Frequently positively associated psychosocial factors included low perceived barriers and high perceived benefits. Findings suggest that future research should focus on developing a theoretical framework of cancer screening behaviour to allow a greater level of consistency and specificity in measuring key constructs.

Barriers to bowel scope (flexible sigmoidoscopy) screening: a comparison of non-responders, active decliners and non-attenders.

BACKGROUND: Participation in bowel scope screening (BSS) is low (43%), limiting its potential to reduce colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and mortality. This study aimed to quantify the prevalence of barriers to BSS and examine the extent to which these barriers differed according to non-participant profiles: non-responders to the BSS invitation, active decliners of the invitation, and non-attenders of confirmed appointments. METHODS: Individuals invited for BSS between March 2013 and December 2015, across 28 General Practices in England, were sent a questionnaire. Questions measured initial interest in BSS, engagement with the information booklet, BSS participation, and, where applicable, reasons for BSS non-attendance. Chi-square tests of independence were performed to examine the relationship between barriers, non-participant groups and socio-demographic variables. RESULTS: 1478 (45.8%) questionnaires were returned for analysis: 1230 (83.2%) attended screening, 114 (7.7%) were non-responders to the BSS invitation, 100 (6.8%) were active decliners, and 34 (2.3%) were non-attenders. Non-responders were less likely to have read the whole information booklet than active decliners (x2 (2, N = 157) = 7.00, p = 0.008) and non-attenders (x2 (2, N = 101) = 8.07, p = 0.005). Non-responders also had lower initial interest in having BSS than either active decliners (x2 (2, N = 213) = 6.07, p = 0.014) or non-attenders (x2 (2, N = 146) = 32.93, p < 0.001). Overall, anticipated pain (33%) and embarrassment (30%) were the most commonly cited barriers to BSS participation. For non-attenders, however, practical, appointment-related reasons were most common (27%). CONCLUSIONS: Interventions to improve BSS uptake should be more nuanced and use targeted strategies to address the specific needs of each group.

Use of Two Self-referral Reminders and a Theory-Based Leaflet to Increase the Uptake of Flexible Sigmoidoscopy in the English Bowel Scope Screening Program: Results From a Randomized Controlled Trial in London.

Background: We previously initiated a randomized controlled trial to test the effectiveness of two self-referral reminders and a theory-based leaflet (sent 12 and 24 months after the initial invitation) to increase participation within the English Bowel Scope Screening program. Purpose: This study reports the results following the second reminder. Methods: Men and women included in the initial sample (n = 1,383) were re-assessed for eligibility 24 months after their invitation (12 months after the first reminder) and excluded if they had attended screening, moved away, or died. Eligible adults received the same treatment they were allocated 12 months previous, that is, no reminder ("control"), or a self-referral reminder with either the standard information booklet ("Reminder and Standard Information Booklet") or theory-based leaflet designed using the Behavior Change Wheel ("Reminder and Theory-Based Leaflet"). The primary outcome was the proportion screened within each group 12 weeks after the second reminder. Results: In total, 1,218 (88.1%) individuals were eligible. Additional uptake following the second reminder was 0.4% (2/460), 4.8% (19/399), and 7.9% (29/366) in the control, Reminder and Standard Information Booklet, and Reminder and Theory-Based Leaflet groups, respectively. When combined with the first reminder, the overall uptake for each group was 0.7% (3/461), 14.5% (67/461), and 21.5% (99/461). Overall uptake was significantly higher in the Reminder and Standard Information Booklet and Reminder and Theory-Based Leaflet groups than in the control (odds ratio [OR] = 26.1, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 8.1-84.0, p < .001 and OR = 46.9, 95% CI = 14.7-149.9, p < .001, respectively), and significantly higher in the Reminder and Theory-Based Leaflet group than in the Reminder and Standard Information Booklet group (OR = 1.8, 95% CI = 1.3-2.6, p < .001). Conclusion: A second reminder increased uptake among former nonparticipants. The added value of the theory-based leaflet highlights a potential benefit to reviewing the current information booklet. Trials Registry Number: ISRCTN44293755.

Using primary care-based paper and telephone interventions to increase uptake of bowel scope screening in Yorkshire: a protocol of a randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: Evidence suggests bowel scope screening (BSS) can significantly reduce an individual's risk of developing colorectal cancer (CRC). BSS for 55 year olds was therefore introduced to the English Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) in 2013. However, the benefits are only gained from test completion and uptake is low (43%). Primary care involvement has consistently shown benefits to cancer screening uptake and so this study aims to build on this knowledge and evaluate general practitioner (GP) practice led interventions designed to increase BSS attendance. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A three-arm randomised controlled trial will be conducted to evaluate three interventions: one intervention for prospective BSS invitees (primer letter with locally tailored leaflet sent by an individual's GP practice) and two interventions for those who do not attend their BSS appointment (a self-referral letter sent by an individual's GP practice and a patient navigation call made on behalf of an individual's GP practice). The trial will be set in Yorkshire. Individuals soon to receive their invitation to attend BSS at one of the Hull and East Yorkshire Bowel Cancer Screening centre sites, will be randomly assigned to one of three groups: control (usual care; no input from GP practice), Intervention group A (primer letter/leaflet and a self-referral letter), Intervention group B (primer letter/leaflet and a patient navigation call). Attendance data will be obtained from the BCSP database (via National Health Service (NHS) Digital) 3 months after the last intervention. Regression analysis will compare uptake, and additional clinical outcomes, across the three groups. The analysis will be multivariate and adjust for several covariates including gender and area-level deprivation. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: NHS ethical approval has been obtained from London-Harrow Research Ethics Committee. The results will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN16252122; Pre-results.

Use of a GP-endorsed 12 months' reminder letter to promote uptake of bowel scope screening: protocol for a randomised controlled trial in a hard-to-reach population.

INTRODUCTION: Flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) screening is associated with reduced colorectal cancer incidence and mortality when offered as a one-off test to men and women aged 55-64. The test, also referred to as the 'bowel scope screening' (BSS) test, was added to England's national Bowel Cancer Screening Programme in March 2013, where it is offered to men and women aged 55. Since its implementation, uptake of the BSS test has been low, with only 43% of the eligible population attending an appointment. Sending non-participants a reminder at age 56 has been shown to improve uptake by up to nine percentage points at a single centre in London; we hypothesise that adding a general practitioners (GPs) endorsement to the reminder could improve uptake even further. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This paper describes the protocol for a randomised controlled trial which will examine the effectiveness of adding a GPs endorsement to a reminder for BSS non-participants aged 56. All screening-eligible adults who have not responded to a BSS appointment at London North West Healthcare NHS Trust within 12 months of their initial invitation will be randomised to receive either a GP-endorsed reminder letter or reminder letter without GP endorsement. The primary outcome will be the proportion of individuals screened within each group 8 weeks after the reminder. Statistical comparisons will be made using univariate and multivariate logistic regression, with 'uptake' as the outcome variable, GP reminder group as the exposure and sociodemographic variables as covariates. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was approved by the Yorkshire & Humber-Bradford Leeds Research Ethics Committee (16/YH/0298) and the Confidentiality Advisory Group (17/CAG/0162). The results will be disseminated in a peer-reviewed journal in accordance with the Consort statement and will be made available to the public. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ISRCTN82867861.