Ways to use interventions to increase participation in mail-out bowel cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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].”
From Improving cancer screening uptake: A behavioural and cultural insights perspective and rapid review (2026) · cites this paper as [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].”
From Improving cancer screening uptake: A behavioural and cultural insights perspective and rapid review (2026) · cites this paper as [62]
Combining intervention strategies tended to improve participation rates.
“Спајање интервенционих стратегија имало је тенденцију да унапреди стопе учешћа [62].”
From Improving cancer screening uptake: A behavioural and cultural insights perspective and rapid review (2026) · cites this paper as [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].”
From Improving cancer screening uptake: A behavioural and cultural insights perspective and rapid review (2026) · cites this paper as [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].”
From Improving cancer screening uptake: A behavioural and cultural insights perspective and rapid review (2026) · cites this paper as [62]
Cites
ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions
Sterne, J. A., Hernán, M. A., Reeves, B. C., Savović, J., Berkman, N. D., Viswanathan, M., Henry, D., Altman, D. G., Ansari, M. T., Boutron, I., et al. (2016) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.i4919 · Cited by 20,329 · see citing works
Baker, R., Camosso-Stefinovic, J., Gillies, C., Shaw, E. J., Cheater, F., Flottorp, S., & Robertson, N. (2010) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd005470.pub2 · Cited by 1,003 · see citing works
Squires, J. E., Sullivan, K., Eccles, M. P., Worswick, J., & Grimshaw, J. M. (2014) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/s13012-014-0152-6 · Cited by 368 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Improving cancer screening uptake: A behavioural and cultural insights perspective and rapid review
Palsola, M., Likki, T., Snijders, V., Corbex, M., Lasierra, L., & Curtis, B. (2026) · Glasnik javnog zdravlja · doi:10.5937/serbjph2601086p
- 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
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- 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
- Licence
- academic.oup.com/journals/pages/open_access/funder_policies/chorus/standard_publication_model (vor)
- 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