Reducing the socioeconomic gradient in uptake of the NHS bowel cancer screening Programme using a simplified supplementary information leaflet: a cluster-randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Uptake of colorectal cancer screening is low in the English NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP). Participation in screening is strongly associated with socioeconomic status. The aim of this study was to determine whether a supplementary leaflet providing the 'gist' of guaiac-based Faecal Occult Blood test (gFOBt) screening for colorectal cancer could reduce the socioeconomic status (SES) gradient in uptake in the English NHS BCSP. METHODS: The trial was integrated within routine BCSP operations in November 2012. Using a cluster randomised controlled design all adults aged 59-74 years who were being routinely invited to complete the gFOBt were randomised based on day of invitation. The Index of Multiple Deprivation was used to create SES quintiles. The control group received the standard information booklet ('SI'). The intervention group received the SI booklet and the Gist leaflet ('SI + Gist') which had been designed to help people with lower literacy engage with the invitation. Blinding of hubs was not possible and invited subjects were not made aware of a comparator condition. The primary outcome was the gradient in uptake across IMD quintiles. RESULTS: In November 2012, 163,525 individuals were allocated to either the 'SI' intervention (n = 79,104) or the 'SI + Gist' group (n = 84,421). Overall uptake was similar between the intervention and control groups (SI: 57.3% and SI + Gist: 57.6%; OR = 1.02, 95% CI: 0.92-1.13, p = 0.77). Uptake was 42.0% (SI) vs. 43.0% (SI + Gist) in the most deprived quintile and 65.6% vs. 65.8% in the least deprived quintile (interaction p = 0.48). The SES gradient in uptake was similar between the study groups within age, gender, hub and screening round sub-groups. CONCLUSIONS: Providing supplementary simplified information in addition to the standard information booklet did not reduce the SES gradient in uptake in the NHS BCSP. The effectiveness of the Gist leaflet when used alone should be explored in future research. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ISRCTN74121020 , registered: 17/20/2012.

A national cluster-randomised controlled trial to examine the effect of enhanced reminders on the socioeconomic gradient in uptake in bowel cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: The NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme in England offers biennial guaiac faecal occult blood testing (gFOBt). There is a socioeconomic gradient in participation and socioeconomically disadvantaged groups have worse colorectal cancer survival than more advantaged groups. We compared the effectiveness and cost of an enhanced reminder letter with the usual reminder letter on overall uptake of gFOBt and the socioeconomic gradient in uptake. METHODS: We enhanced the usual reminder by including a heading 'A reminder to you' and a short paragraph restating the offer of screening in simple language. We undertook a cluster-randomised trial of all 168 480 individuals who were due to receive a reminder over 20 days in 2013. Randomisation was based on the day of invitation. Blinding of individuals was not possible, but the possibility of bias was minimal owing to the lack of direct contact with participants. The enhanced reminder was sent to 78 067 individuals and 90 413 received the usual reminder. The primary outcome was the proportion of people adequately screened and its variation by quintile of Index of Multiple Deprivation. Data were analysed by logistic regression with conservative variance estimates to take account of cluster randomisation. RESULTS: There was a small but statistically significant (P=0.001) increase in participation with the enhanced reminder (25.8% vs 25.1%). There was significant (P=0.005) heterogeneity of the effect by socioeconomic status with an 11% increase in the odds of participation in the most deprived quintile (from 13.3 to 14.1%) and no increase in the least deprived. We estimated that implementing the enhanced reminder nationally could result in up to 80 more people with high or intermediate risk colorectal adenomas and up to 30 more cancers detected each year if it were implemented nationally. The intervention incurred a small one-off cost of £78 000 to modify the reminder letter. CONCLUSIONS: The enhanced reminder increases overall uptake and reduces the socioeconomic gradient in bowel cancer screening participation at little additional cost.

Reducing the Social Gradient in Uptake of the NHS Colorectal Cancer Screening Programme Using a Narrative-Based Information Leaflet: A Cluster-Randomised Trial.

Objective. To test the effectiveness of adding a narrative leaflet to the current information material delivered by the NHS English colorectal cancer (CRC) screening programme on reducing socioeconomic inequalities in uptake. Participants. 150,417 adults (59-74 years) routinely invited to complete the guaiac Faecal Occult Blood test (gFOBt) in March 2013. Design. A cluster randomised controlled trial (ISRCTN74121020) to compare uptake between two arms. The control arm received the standard NHS CRC screening information material (SI) and the intervention arm received the standard information plus a supplementary narrative leaflet, which had previously been shown to increase screening intentions (SI + N). Between group comparisons were made for uptake overall and across socioeconomic status (SES). Results. Uptake was 57.7% and did not differ significantly between the two trial arms (SI: 58.5%; SI + N: 56.7%; odds ratio = 0.93; 95% confidence interval: 0.81-1.06; p = 0.27). There was no interaction between group and SES quintile (p = 0.44). Conclusions. Adding a narrative leaflet to existing information materials does not reduce the SES gradient in uptake. Despite the benefits of using a pragmatic trial design, the need to add to, rather than replace, existing information may have limited the true value of an evidence-based intervention on behaviour.

Impact of general practice endorsement on the social gradient in uptake in bowel cancer screening.

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.

Effects of evidence-based strategies to reduce the socioeconomic gradient of uptake in the English NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (ASCEND): four cluster-randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Uptake 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. METHODS: All 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. FINDINGS: As 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). INTERPRETATION: Of 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. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research.

The impact of supplementary narrative-based information on colorectal cancer screening beliefs and intention.

BACKGROUND: The 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. METHODS: 4125 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. RESULTS: Relative 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. CONCLUSIONS: An additional narrative leaflet had a positive impact on beliefs about CRC screening which led to stronger screening intentions.

How do people interpret information about colorectal cancer screening: observations from a think-aloud study.

BACKGROUND: The 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. OBJECTIVE: To provide detailed commentary on how individuals process the information contained within 'The Facts' booklet. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: This 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. RESULTS: A 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. CONCLUSION: Public 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.

Preformulated implementation intentions to promote colorectal cancer screening: a cluster-randomized trial.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate an intervention based on implementation intention principles designed to increase uptake of colorectal cancer screening, and to examine differential efficacy by socioeconomic deprivation. METHOD: In England, adults aged between 60 and 69 years are invited for biennial fecal occult blood testing. A test kit and an information leaflet are mailed to each individual by the "Hubs" that deliver the national screening program. In the intervention group, three preformulated implementation intentions, based on known barriers to carrying out the test, were added to the information leaflet. Over a 12-week period, each week was randomly allocated to either the intervention (n = 12,414 invitations) or the control condition (n = 10,768), with uptake recorded at the Hub. Socioeconomic deprivation of each individual's area of residence was categorized into tertiles. RESULTS: There was no overall difference in uptake between control (40.4%) and intervention (39.7%) conditions, odds ratio (OR) = 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.91, 1.04]. There was an interaction with deprivation, OR = 1.11, 95% CI [1.04, 1.18], but the positive effect observed in the lowest socioeconomic status (SES) tertile was small (35.2% vs. 33.0%), OR = 1.103, 95% CI [1.01, 1.21], and offset by a negative effect in the least deprived tertile (45.6% vs. 48.2%), OR = 0.90, 95% CI [0.82, 0.99]. The intervention had no significant effect in the middle tertile (38.9% vs. 40.8%), OR = 0.92, 95% CI [0.81, 1.04]. CONCLUSION: Preformulated implementation intentions did not increase overall colorectal cancer screening uptake and failed to make a sufficiently large impact on uptake among lower SES groups to merit their future use in this context.

Patient attitudes towards faecal immunochemical testing for haemoglobin as an alternative to colonoscopic surveillance of groups at increased risk of colorectal cancer.

OBJECTIVES: To examine attitudes towards an annual faecal immunochemical test for haemoglobin (FIT) versus three-yearly colonoscopic surveillance of individuals at intermediate risk of colorectal cancer (CRC). SETTING: A London hospital. METHODS: Five semi-structured discussion groups were conducted with 28 adults (aged 60-74, 61% female) with different levels of CRC risk and experience of colonoscopy or colonoscopic surveillance. Information was presented sequentially using a step-by-step discussion guide. Results were analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: When evaluating FIT in the context of a surveillance programme, all respondents readily made comparisons with related tests that they had been exposed to previously. Those with no experience of surveillance were enthusiastic about an annual FIT to replace three-yearly colonoscopy, because they felt that the higher testing frequency could improve detection of advanced lesions. Those with experience of colonoscopic surveillance did not perceive FIT to be as accurate as colonoscopy, and therefore either preferred colonoscopy on its own or wanted an annual FIT in addition to three-yearly colonoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: FIT may be well-received as an additional method of surveillance for new patients at intermediate risk of CRC. More research is required to better understand potential barriers associated with FIT surveillance for patients with experience of colonoscopic surveillance.

Comparing participation rates between immunochemical and guaiac faecal occult blood tests: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Biennial screening with faecal occult blood tests (FOBts) has been found to reduce colorectal cancer mortality. Faecal immunochemical tests (FITs) are superior to guaiac faecal occult blood tests (G-FOBts) due to their improved sensitivity and specificity. However the effectiveness of a screening programme depends highly on participation rates. The aim of this study was to review studies comparing guaiac faecal occult blood tests and faecal immunochemical tests, in terms of participation rates. METHODS: We searched PubMed and the Cochrane Library (2000-September 2011) to identify randomised control trials comparing guaiac faecal occult blood test with faecal immunochemical test participation rates. One author screened the titles and abstracts, and performed data extraction which was then checked by the other authors. Risk of bias in the included studies was also assessed. RESULTS: Seven studies met the eligibility criteria and were entered into a meta-analysis. Participation rates were significantly higher for individuals offered faecal immunochemical tests compared to those offered a guaiac faecal occult blood test (RR 1.21; 95% CI 1.09-1.33). Potential factors that could have influenced participation were discussed. CONCLUSIONS: Colorectal cancer screening programmes currently using guaiac faecal occult blood tests could improve participation rates by converting to faecal immunochemical tests. More research examining the acceptability of faecal immunochemical tests, from a patient perspective, is warranted.