Cited by 31Colorectal Cancer Screening and DetectionGlobal Cancer Incidence and ScreeningHealth Promotion and Cardiovascular Prevention

Ways to use interventions to increase participation in mail-out bowel cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Myers, Larry, Goodwin, Belinda, March, Sonja, Dunn, Jeff·2020·Translational Behavioral Medicine

Abstract

The impact of colorectal cancer can be reduced through nationwide fecal occult blood test (FOBT) screening. Unfortunately, participation in screening programs are low with interventions only increasing participation modestly. This meta-analysis explores if intervention effectiveness can be increased by targeting specific subpopulations with specific interventions or by combining interventions. Six databases were searched for studies aiming to increase participation in mail-out FOBT screening. To investigate if interventions are more effective for certain subpopulations, the difference in (log) Risk Ratios (RRs) between alternate subpopulations (male vs. female; low vs. high Socioeconomic Status (SES); <65 vs. ≥65 years) was assessed. To investigate if interventions should be combined, uptake rates for single interventions were compared to uptake rates for combined interventions. Cochrane Collaboration tools were used to assess the risk of bias. Searches found 3,436 articles, with 32 meeting the inclusion criteria. These contained 30 trials that reported uptake rates within subpopulations and 17 trials that combined interventions. Most differences in intervention effects between subpopulations were nonsignificant. Combining interventions led to greater participation, RR = 1.06, confidence interval [1.03; 1.10]. As interventions rarely affect subpopulations differently, targeting them at specific subpopulations may be an ineffective strategy. While individual interventions show modest effects, these results indicate that future programs might overcome this by combining interventions together. Care is needed when selecting interventions to combine as adding some interventions (e.g., additional print materials) can reduce the effectiveness of a combined strategy. Future research should examine methods for effectively combining interventions in nationwide programs to maximize participation.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/tbm/ibz081

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • Adding intervention strategies together tended to improve participation rates in CRC home testing.

    “Adding intervention strategies together tended to improve participation rates [62].”
  • Some strategies such as additional print materials might reduce effectiveness when combined with other interventions if not carefully designed.

    “However, caution is advisable since some strategies such as additional print materials (which may have an adverse effect when used alone as well [40]) might reduce effectiveness when combined with other interventions [62].”
  • Combining intervention strategies tended to improve participation rates.

    “Спајање интервенционих стратегија имало је тенденцију да унапреди стопе учешћа [62].”
  • Some strategies, such as additional printed materials, can lead to reduced effectiveness when combined with other interventions.

    “Међутим, саветује се предострожност јер неке стратегије, као што су додатни штампани материјали (који могу да имају негативне ефекте и када се користе сами [40]) могу да доведу до смањења делотворности када се комбинују са другим интервенцијама [62].”
  • For colorectal cancer, a meta-analysis compared the effectiveness of single interventions with interventions containing several types of interventions in promoting home testing.

    “За РДЦ, у једној мета-анализи је поређена делотворност појединачних интервенција (нпр.писмо са препоруком лекара опште праксе) са интервенцијама које садрже неколико типова интервенција (нпр.писмо са препоруком лекара опште праксе и поједностављена процедура за тестирање) у промовисању тестирања код куће [62].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Myers, L., Goodwin, B., March, S., & Dunn, J.
Affiliations
  • University of Southern Queensland (AU)
  • Griffith University (AU)
Corresponding author
Myers, Larry
Venue
Translational Behavioral Medicine
Published
2019-06-03
Volume
10
Issue
2
Pages
384-393
ISSN
  • 1613-9860 (ISSN-L)
  • 1869-6716
OpenAlex
W2948594977
Cited by
31
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 3
FWCI
0.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Translational Behavioral Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Australian Government Research Training Program
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, fecal occult blood test, screening uptake, intervention effectiveness, combined intervention, socioeconomic status, age differences, sex differences, print materials
MeSH terms
Female, Humans, Male, Mass Screening, Occult Blood, Postal Service, Colorectal Neoplasms, 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