Cited by 15Colorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionGlobal Cancer Incidence and ScreeningHealth Promotion and Cardiovascular Prevention

Testing behavioral interventions to optimize participation in a population-based colorectal cancer screening program in Catalonia, Spain

Open access
Stoffel, S., Benito, L., Milà, N., Travier, N., Binefa, G., Vidal, C., Espinosa, J., Moreno, V. +1 more·2019·Preventive Medicine

Abstract

The aim of the study was to measure the effect of three cost-neutral behavioral interventions on participation compared to the standard invitation letter in a population-based colorectal cancer screening program in 2014. For that purpose, a four-arm randomized field trial was conducted among 5077 individuals aged 50 to 69 years. Over an 8-week period, each week was randomly allocated to the intervention or the control conditions. Individuals assigned to the intervention conditions additionally received a prompt to write down the date to pick up the screening test in a pharmacy. Two of the three intervention groups also included an additional paragraph in the invitation letter on either: 1) the high proportion of individuals participating regularly (social norms condition) or 2) the importance of regular participation (benefit condition). We measured screening participation before and after receiving a reminder letter six weeks after the screening invitation. An overall 8.0 percentage point increase in CRC screening was achieved as a direct result of receiving a reminder letter; however none of the intervention strategies influenced participation. The only significant difference was found for newly invited individuals. There, participation rates decreased from 34.9% to 24.2% when the invitation mailing mentioned the importance of regular participation (OR: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.38-0.95). While none of the intervention strategies improved participation rates we found that praising th…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ypmed.2018.12.013

Cites

30 of 30 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Stoffel, S., Benito, L., Milà, N., Travier, N., Binefa, G., Vidal, C., Espinosa, J., Moreno, V., & Garcia, M.
Affiliations
  • University College London (GB)
  • Institut d'Investigació Biomédica de Bellvitge (ES)
Venue
Preventive Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-02
Volume
119
Pages
58-62
ISSN
0091-7435 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2908095833
Cited by
15
References
30
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3
FWCI
0.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Preventive Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • RECERCAT (Consorci de Serveis Universitaris de Catalunya) (acceptedVersion, other-oa)
  • Dipòsit Digital de la Universitat de Barcelona (Universitat de Barcelona) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
  • Carlos III Health Institute
  • European Regional Development Fund (PI05/0942)
  • Government of Catalonia (2017SGR1283)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Colorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Health Promotion and Cardiovascular Prevention
Keywords
colorectal cancer screening, screening uptake, behavioral interventions, reminder letters, social norms, perceived benefits of screening, pharmacy-based screening, population-based screening program, health behavior change
MeSH terms
Aged, Female, Humans, Male, Mass Screening, Middle Aged, Occult Blood, Patient Participation, Postal Service, Spain, Colorectal Neoplasms, Reminder Systems, Early Detection of Cancer

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review