Strategies for increasing participation in mail-out colorectal cancer screening programs: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Belinda C Goodwin, Michael J Ireland, Sonja March, Larry Myers, Fiona Crawford-Williams, Suzanne K Chambers, Joanne F Aitken, Jeff Dunn, Belinda C Goodwin, Michael J Ireland, Sonja March, Larry Myers, Fiona Crawford-Williams, Suzanne K Chambers, Joanne F Aitken, Jeff Dunn

Abstract

Background: Population mail-out bowel screening programs are a convenient, cost-effective and sensitive method of detecting colorectal cancer (CRC). Despite the increased survival rates associated with early detection of CRC, in many countries, 50% or more of eligible individuals do not participate in such programs. The current study systematically reviews interventions applied to increase fecal occult blood test (FOBT) kit return, specifically in population mail-out programs.

Methods: Five electronic databases (PubMed, PsycINFO, Scopus, CINAHL, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses) were searched for articles published before the 10th of March 2018. Studies were included if they reported the results of an intervention designed to increase the return rate of FOBT kits that had been mailed to individuals' homes. PRISMA systematic review reporting methods were applied and each study was assessed using Cochrane's Risk of Bias tool. Pooled effect sizes were calculated for each intervention type and the risk of bias was tested as a moderator for sensitivity analysis.

Results: The review identified 53 interventions from 30 published studies from which nine distinct intervention strategy types emerged. Sensitivity analysis showed that the risk of bias marginally moderated the overall effect size. Pooled risk ratios and confidence intervals for each intervention type revealed that telephone contact RR = 1.23, 95% CI (1.08-1.40), GP endorsement RR = 1.19, 95% CI (1.10-1.29), simplified test procedures RR = 1.17, 95% CI (1.09-1.25), and advance notifications RR = 1.09, 95% CI (1.07-1.11) were effective intervention strategies with small to moderate effect sizes. Studies with a high risk of bias were removed and pooled effects remained relatively unchanged.

Conclusions: Interventions that combine program-level changes incorporating the issue of advance notification and alternative screening tools with the involvement of primary health professionals through endorsement letters and telephone contact should lead to increases in kit return in mail-out CRC screening programs.

Systematic review registration: This review is registered with PROSPERO; registration number CRD42017064652.

Keywords: Bowel cancer screening; Colorectal cancer screening; Fecal occult blood test; Intervention; Population screening; Systematic review, meta-analysis.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
PRISMA flow chart of search and filter results
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Pooled risk ratio estimates and 95% confidence intervals for each intervention type (interventions from high risk of bias studies included)
Fig. 3
Fig. 3
Pooled risk ratio estimates and 95% confidence intervals for each intervention type (interventions from high risk of bias studies not included)

References

    1. Parkin D, et al. World Health Organization cancer incidence in five continents Lyon. World Health OrganInt Agency Res Cancer. 2002;8:1–771.
    1. Government A. In: The Austalian Bowel Cancer Screening Pilot Program and Beyond: Final Evaluation Report. D.o.H.a. Aging, editor. ACT, Australia: Commonwealth of Australia; 2005.
    1. Frazier A. Lindsay. Cost-effectiveness of Screening for Colorectal Cancer in the General Population. JAMA. 2000;284(15):1954. doi: 10.1001/jama.284.15.1954.
    1. Kronborg O, et al. Randomized study of biennial screening with a faecal occult blood test: results after nine screening rounds. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2004;39(9):846–851. doi: 10.1080/00365520410003182.
    1. Scholefield J, et al. Nottingham trial of faecal occult blood testing for colorectal cancer: a 20-year follow-up. Gut. 2011; p. gutjnl-2011-300774.
    1. Ananda S, et al. Survival impact of the Australian National Bowel Cancer Screening Programme. Intern Med J. 2016;46(2):166–171. doi: 10.1111/imj.12916.
    1. Australian Institue of Health and Welfare. Analysis of bowel cancer outcomes for the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program. Australian Government, Canberra; 2014. Report No.: Cat. no. CAN 87.
    1. Navarro M, et al. Colorectal cancer population screening programs worldwide in 2016: an update. World J Gastroenterol. 2017;23(20):3632. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v23.i20.3632.
    1. Swan H, Siddiqui AA, Myers RE. International colorectal cancer screening programs: population contact strategies, testing methods and screening rates. Pract Gastroenterol. 2012;36(8):20–9.
    1. Liberati A, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000100. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100.
    1. Higgins JP, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d5928. doi: 10.1136/bmj.d5928.
    1. Team RC. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: Foundation for Statistical Computing; 2017.
    1. Viechtbauer W. Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. J Stat Softw. 2010;36(3):1–48. doi: 10.18637/jss.v036.i03.
    1. Viechtbauer W. Bias and efficiency of meta-analytic variance estimators in the random-effects model. J Educ Behav Stat. 2005;30(3):261–293. doi: 10.3102/10769986030003261.
    1. Michael Borenstein, Hedges LV, Julian P. T. Higgins, Hannah R. Rothstein, Introduction to Meta-Analysis. 2009, United Kingdom: Wiley.
    1. Benton SC, et al. GP participation in increasing uptake in a national bowel cancer screening programme: the PEARL project. Br J Cancer. 2017;116(12):1551. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2017.129.
    1. Cole SR, et al. 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(4):147–152. doi: 10.1136/jms.9.4.147.
    1. Cole SR, et al. A randomised trial of the impact of new faecal haemoglobin test technologies on population participation in screening for colorectal cancer. J Med Screen. 2003;10(3):117–122. doi: 10.1177/096914130301000304.
    1. Cole SR, et al. An advance notification letter increases participation in colorectal cancer screening. J Med Screen. 2007;14(2):73–75. doi: 10.1258/096914107781261927.
    1. Coronado Gloria D., Rivelli Jennifer S., Fuoco Morgan J., Vollmer William M., Petrik Amanda F., Keast Erin, Barker Sara, Topalanchik Emily, Jimenez Ricardo. Effect of Reminding Patients to Complete Fecal Immunochemical Testing: A Comparative Effectiveness Study of Automated and Live Approaches. Journal of General Internal Medicine. 2017;33(1):72–78. doi: 10.1007/s11606-017-4184-x.
    1. Denters MJ, et al. A feces collection paper does not enhance participation in a fecal immunochemical test-based colorectal cancer screening program: randomized clinical trial. Eur J Cancer Prev. 2013;22(4):299–304. doi: 10.1097/CEJ.0b013e32835b3882.
    1. Deutekom M, et al. Comparison of guaiac and immunological fecal occult blood tests in colorectal cancer screening: the patient perspective. Scand J Gastroenterol. 2010;45(11):1345–1349. doi: 10.3109/00365521.2010.497937.
    1. Gupta S, et al. Financial incentives for promoting colorectal cancer screening: a randomized, comparative effectiveness trial. Am J Gastroenterol. 2016;111(11):1630–1636. doi: 10.1038/ajg.2016.286.
    1. Hewitson P, Ward AM, Heneghan C, Halloran SP, Mant D. Primary care endorsement letter and a patient leaflet to improve participation in colorectal cancer screening: Results of a factorial randomised trial. Br J Cancer. 2011;105(4):475–80. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2011.255.
    1. Hirst Y, Skrobanski H, Kerrison RS, Kobayashi LC, Counsell N, Djedovic N, et al. Text-message Reminders in Colorectal Cancer Screening (TRICCS): A randomised controlled trial. Br J Cancer. 2017;116(11):1408–14. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2017.117.
    1. Hughes K, et al. Guaiac versus immunochemical tests: faecal occult blood test screening for colorectal cancer in a rural community. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2005;29(4):358–364. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-842X.2005.tb00207.x.
    1. King J, et al. Colorectal cancer screening: optimal compliance with postal faecal occult blood test. Aust N Z J Surg. 1992;62(9):714–9. doi: 10.1111/j.1445-2197.1992.tb07068.x.
    1. King J, Fairbrother G, Thompson C, Morris DL. Influence of socioeconomic status, ethnicity and an educational brochure on compliance with a postal faecal occult blood test. Aust N Z J Public Health. 1994;18(1):87–92. doi: 10.1111/j.1753-6405.1994.tb00201.x.
    1. Libby G, et al. Pre-notification increases uptake of colorectal cancer screening in all demographic groups: a randomized controlled trial. J Med Screen. 2011;18(1):24–29. doi: 10.1258/jms.2011.011002.
    1. Lo SH, et al. Preformulated implementation intentions to promote colorectal cancer screening: a cluster-randomized trial. Health Psychol. 2014;33(9):998–1002. doi: 10.1037/a0033507.
    1. McGregor LM, et al. Reducing the social gradient in uptake of the NHS colorectal cancer screening programme using a narrative-based information leaflet: a cluster-randomised trial. Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2016;2016.
    1. Moss S, Mathews C, Day TJ, Smith S, Seaman HE, Snowball J, et al. Increased uptake and improved outcomes of bowel cancer screening with a faecal immunochemical test: Results from a pilot study within the national screening programme in England. Gut. 2017;66(9):1631–44. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2015-310691.
    1. Myers RE, et al. Behavioral interventions to increase adherence in colorectal cancer screening. Med Care. 1991;29(10):1039–1050. doi: 10.1097/00005650-199110000-00009.
    1. Neter Efrat, Stein Nili, Barnett-Griness Ofra, Rennert Gad, Hagoel Lea. From the Bench to Public Health. American Journal of Preventive Medicine. 2014;46(3):273–280. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2013.11.008.
    1. O'Carroll RE, et al. Anticipated regret to increase uptake of colorectal cancer screening (ARTICS): a randomised controlled trial. Soc Sci Med. 2015;142:118–127. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.07.026.
    1. Robinson MHE, et al. Haemoccult screening for colorectal cancer: the effect of dietary restriction on compliance. Eur J Surg Oncol. 1994;20(5):545–548.
    1. Santare D, et al. Improving uptake of screening for colorectal cancer: a study on invitation strategies and different test kit use. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2015;27(5):536–543. doi: 10.1097/MEG.0000000000000314.
    1. Van Roon AHC, et al. Advance notification letters increase adherence in colorectal cancer screening: a population-based randomized trial. Prev Med. 2011;52(6):448–451. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2011.01.032.
    1. Van Rossum LG, et al. Random comparison of guaiac and immunochemical fecal occult blood tests for colorectal cancer in a screening population. Gastroenterology. 2008;135(1):82–90. doi: 10.1053/j.gastro.2008.03.040.
    1. Verne J, et al. Self-administered faecal occult blood tests do not increase compliance with screening for colorectal cancer: results of a randomized controlled trial. Eur J Cancer Prev. 1993;2(4):301–305. doi: 10.1097/00008469-199307000-00003.
    1. Wardle J, von Wagner C, Kralj-Hans I, Halloran SP, Smith SG, McGregor LM, et al. 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. The Lancet. 2016;387(10020):751–9. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01154-X.
    1. Watson J, et al. Use of research questionnaires in the NHS bowel Cancer screening Programme in England: impact on screening uptake. J Med Screen. 2013;20(4):192–197. doi: 10.1177/0969141313511447.
    1. White B, et al. Piloting the impact of three interventions on guaiac faecal occult blood test uptake within the NHS bowel cancer screening programme. Biomed Res Int. 2015;2015:1–11. doi: 10.1155/2015/928251.
    1. Zajac IT, et al. Endorsement by the primary care practitioner consistently improves participation in screening for colorectal cancer: a longitudinal analysis. J Med Screen. 2010;17(1):19–24. doi: 10.1258/jms.2010.009101.
    1. Zubero MB, et al. Population-based colorectal cancer screening: comparison of two fecal occult blood test. Front Pharmacol. 2014;4:175.
    1. Hewitson P, et al. Primary care endorsement letter and a patient leaflet to improve participation in colorectal cancer screening: results of a factorial randomised trial. Br J Cancer. 2011;105(4):475–480. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2011.255.
    1. Wardle J, et al. 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. Lancet. 2016;387(10020):751–759. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01154-X.
    1. Neter E, et al. From the bench to public health: population-level implementation intentions in colorectal cancer screening. Am J Prev Med. 2014;46(3):273–280. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2013.11.008.
    1. Arnold CL, et al. Final results of a 3-year literacy-informed intervention to promote annual fecal occult blood test screening. J Community Health. 2016;41(4):724–731. doi: 10.1007/s10900-015-0146-6.
    1. Moss Sue, Mathews Christopher, Day T J, Smith Steve, Seaman Helen E, Snowball Julia, Halloran Stephen P. Increased uptake and improved outcomes of bowel cancer screening with a faecal immunochemical test: results from a pilot study within the national screening programme in England. Gut. 2016;66(9):1631–1644. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2015-310691.
    1. Coronado GD, et al. Effectiveness of a clinic-based colorectal cancer screening promotion program for underserved Hispanics. Cancer. 2011;117(8):1745–1754. doi: 10.1002/cncr.25730.
    1. Coronado GD, et al. Effect of reminding patients to complete fecal immunochemical testing: a comparative effectiveness study of automated and live approaches. J Gen Intern Med. 2018;33(1):72–78. doi: 10.1007/s11606-017-4184-x.
    1. Hirst Y, et al. Text Reminders in Colorectal Cancer Screening (TRICCS): Protocol for a randomised controlled trial. BMC Public Health. 2016;16(1):74.
    1. Pennbridge J, Moya R, Rodrigues L. Questionnaire survey of California consumers' use and rating of sources of health care information including the internet. West J Med. 1999;171(5–6):302.
    1. Närhi U. Sources of medicine information and their reliability evaluated by medicine users. Pharm World Sci. 2007;29(6):688–694. doi: 10.1007/s11096-007-9131-1.
    1. Khoo K, et al. Health information seeking by parents in the internet age. J Paediatr Child Health. 2008;44(7–8):419–423. doi: 10.1111/j.1440-1754.2008.01322.x.
    1. Duffy Stephen W, Myles Jonathan P, Maroni Roberta, Mohammad Abeera. Rapid review of evaluation of interventions to improve participation in cancer screening services. Journal of Medical Screening. 2016;24(3):127–145. doi: 10.1177/0969141316664757.
    1. Reynolds LM, et al. Disgust and behavioral avoidance in colorectal cancer screening and treatment: a systematic review and research agenda. Cancer Nurs. 2013;36(2):122–130. doi: 10.1097/NCC.0b013e31826a4b1b.
    1. Schreuders EH, et al. Colorectal cancer screening: a global overview of existing programmes. Gut. 2015;64(10):1637–1649. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2014-309086.
    1. Rücker G, Schwarzer G, Carpenter JR, Schumacher M. Undue reliance on I 2 in assessing heterogeneity may mislead. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2008;8(1):79. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-8-79.

Source: PubMed

Sponsorer og samarbejdspartnere

Medicinske tilstande

Narkotikainterventioner

3
Abonner