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

Jane Wardle, Christian von Wagner, Ines Kralj-Hans, Stephen P Halloran, Samuel G Smith, Lesley M McGregor, Gemma Vart, Rosemary Howe, Julia Snowball, Graham Handley, Richard F Logan, Sandra Rainbow, Steve Smith, Mary C Thomas, Nicholas Counsell, Steve Morris, Stephen W Duffy, Allan Hackshaw, Sue Moss, Wendy Atkin, Rosalind Raine, Jane Wardle, Christian von Wagner, Ines Kralj-Hans, Stephen P Halloran, Samuel G Smith, Lesley M McGregor, Gemma Vart, Rosemary Howe, Julia Snowball, Graham Handley, Richard F Logan, Sandra Rainbow, Steve Smith, Mary C Thomas, Nicholas Counsell, Steve Morris, Stephen W Duffy, Allan Hackshaw, Sue Moss, Wendy Atkin, Rosalind Raine

Abstract

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.

Copyright © 2016 Wardle et al. Open Access article distributed under the terms of CC BY. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Trial 1 profile (gist leaflet) IMD=Index of Multiple Deprivation.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Trial 2 profile (narrative leaflet) IMD=Index of Multiple Deprivation.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Trial 3 profile (general practice endorsement) IMD=Index of Multiple Deprivation.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Trial 4 profile (enhanced reminder letter) IMD=Index of Multiple Deprivation.

References

    1. Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Ervik M. GLOBOCAN 2012 v1.0, Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: IARC CancerBase No. 11. 2013. (accessed Jan 20, 2015).
    1. Cancer Research UK Bowel cancer mortality statistics. 2014. (accessed Jan 20, 2015).
    1. Whyte S, Chilcott J, Halloran S. Reappraisal of the options for colorectal cancer screening in England. Colorectal Dis. 2012;14:e547–e561.
    1. Maheswaran R, Pearson T, Jordan H, Black D. Socioeconomic deprivation, travel distance, location of service, and uptake of breast cancer screening in North Derbyshire, UK. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2006;60:208–212.
    1. Bang JY, Yadegarfar G, Soljak M, Majeed A. Primary care factors associated with cervical screening coverage in England. J Public Health (Oxf) 2012;34:532–538.
    1. Logan RFA, Patnick J, Nickerson C, Coleman L, Rutter MD, von Wagner C, for the English Bowel Cancer Screening Evaluation Committee Outcomes of the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) in England after the first 1 million tests. Gut. 2012;61:1439–1446.
    1. von Wagner C, Good A, Whitaker KL, Wardle J. Psychosocial determinants of socioeconomic inequalities in cancer screening participation: a conceptual framework. Epidemiol Rev. 2011;33:135–147.
    1. Kobayashi LC, Wardle J, von Wagner C. Limited health literacy is a barrier to colorectal cancer screening in England: evidence from the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing. Prev Med. 2014;61:100–105.
    1. Department for Business Innovation & Skills The 2011 skills for life survey: a survey of literacy, numeracy and ICT levels in England. 2012. (accessed Jan 20, 2015).
    1. Cole SR, Young G, Byrne D, Guy J, Morcom J. Participation in screening for colorectal cancer based on a faecal occult blood test is improved by endorsement by the primary care practitioner. J Med Screen. 2002;9:147–152.
    1. Cole SR, Smith A, Wilson C, Turnbull D, Esterman A, Young GP. An advance notification letter increases participation in colorectal cancer screening. J Med Screen. 2007;14:73–75.
    1. Zajac IT, Whibley AH, Cole SR. Endorsement by the primary care practitioner consistently improves participation in screening for colorectal cancer: a longitudinal analysis. J Med Screen. 2010;17:19–24.
    1. Ahmed NU, Haber G, Semenya KA, Hargreaves MK. Randomized controlled trial of mammography intervention in insured very low-income women. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2010;19:1790–1798.
    1. Wolf MS, Curtis LM, Waite K. Helping patients simplify and safely use complex prescription regimens. Arch Intern Med. 2011;171:300–305.
    1. Camilloni L, Ferroni E, Cendales BJ. Methods to increase participation in organised screening programs: a systematic review. BMC Public Health. 2013;13:464.
    1. McGregor LM, von Wagner C, Vart G. The impact of supplementary narrative-based information on colorectal cancer sceeening beliefs and intention. BMC Cancer. 2015;15:162.
    1. Palmer CK, Thomas MC, von Wagner C, Raine R. Reasons for non-uptake and subsequent participation in the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme: a qualitative study. Br J Cancer. 2014;110:1705–1711.
    1. Smith SG, Vart G, Wolf MS. How do people interpret information about colorectal cancer screening: observations from a think-aloud study. Health Expect. 2015;18:703–714.
    1. Smith SG, Wolf MS, Obichere A, Raine R, Wardle J, von Wagner C. The development and testing of a brief (‘gist-based’) supplementary colorectal cancer screening information leaflet. Patient Educ Couns. 2013;93:619–625.
    1. Smith SG, Raine R, Obichere A, Wolf MS, Wardle J, von Wagner C. The effect of a supplementary (‘gist-based’) information leaflet on colorectal cancer knowledge and screening intention: a randomized controlled trial. J Behav Med. 2015;38:261–272.
    1. Reyna VF, Brainerd CJ. Fuzzy-trace theory: an interim synthesis. Learn Individ Differ. 1995;7:1–75.
    1. General Medical Council Consent: patients and doctors making decisions together. 2008. (accessed Jan 20, 2015).
    1. Kreuter MW, Green MC, Cappella JN. Narrative communication in cancer prevention and control: a framework to guide research and application. Ann Behav Med. 2007;33:221–235.
    1. Department for Communities and Local Government Indices of deprivation 2010. 2011. (accessed Jan 20, 2015).
    1. Puffer S, Torgerson D, Watson J. Evidence for risk of bias in cluster randomised trials: review of recent trials published in three general medical journals. BMJ. 2003;327:785–789.
    1. Campbell MJ, Donner A, Klar N. Developments in cluster randomized trials and statistics in medicine. Stat Med. 2007;26:2–19.
    1. Huber PJ. vol 1. University of California Press; Berkeley, CA: 1967. The behavior of maximum likelihood estimates under non-standard conditions; pp. 221–233. (Proceedings of the fifth Berkeley symposium on mathematical statistics and probability).
    1. White H. A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity. Econometrica. 1980;48:817–830.
    1. Lyratzopoulos G, Liu MPH, Abel GA, Wardle J, Keating NL. The association between fatalistic beliefs and late stage at diagnosis of lung and colorectal cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2015;24:720–726.
    1. Digby J, McDonald PJ, Strachan JA, Libby G, Steele RJ, Fraser CG. Use of a faecal immunochemical test narrows current gaps in uptake for sex, age and deprivation in a bowel cancer screening programme. J Med Screen. 2013;20:80–88.
    1. Moss S, Mathews C, Day T, Smith S, Halloran SP. Increased participation in colorectal cancer screening during a pilot of faecal immunochemical test of haemoglobin (FIT) in England. Gut. 2015;64:A1.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer og samarbejdspartnere

Medicinske tilstande

Narkotikainterventioner

3
Abonner