The DOI matches its Crossref record.
A Randomised Trial of the Impact of New Faecal Haemoglobin Test Technologies on Population Participation in Screening for Colorectal Cancer
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVES: To investigate the effect on participation in colorectal cancer screening of testing for blood products in faeces using technologies that remove dietary restrictions (i.e. immunochemical tests) and simplify faecal sampling (i.e. tests that use brush sampling). SETTING: Urban residents (n=1818) of Adelaide, Australia, aged between 50 and 69 years, randomly selected from the electoral roll. DESIGN: Three randomised cohorts of 606 invitees were offered a screening test by mail in 2001. The Hemoccult SENSA and FlexSure OBT cohorts were instructed to sample three stools using a spatula while the InSureTM cohort sampled two stools using a brush. The Hemoccult SENSA cohort was asked to restrict certain (high-peroxidase) foods and drugs. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Participation (i.e. return of completed sample kits within 12 weeks) and generalised linear modelling (GLM) of relationships between participation, test technologies and demographic variables. RESULTS: Participation was 23.4%, 30.5% and 39.6% for the Hemoccult, FlexSure and InSure cohorts, respectively (chi(2)=37.1, p<0.00001). GLM demonstrated that participation was increased by 28% by removal of restrictions (p=0.01) and by 30% by simplification of sampling (p=0.001); both together increased participation by 66% (p<0.001). The differences in participation between tests occurred in the first three weeks. Socio-economic status, gender or age did not significantly influence technology-based improvements in participation. CONCLUSIONS: The brush-sampling faecal immunochemical test for haemoglobin (InSure) achieves the best participation rates by simplifying sampling and removing the need for restrictions of diet and drugs. Because participation in screening is vital to detection, this new technology should contribute to better detection of neoplasia at the population level.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Goodwin, B. C., Ireland, M. J., March, S., Myers, L., Crawford-Williams, F., Chambers, S. K., Aitken, J. F., & Dunn, J. (2019) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-019-1170-x · Cited by 83
Myers, L., Goodwin, B., March, S., & Dunn, J. (2020) · Translational Behavioral Medicine · doi:10.1093/tbm/ibz081 · Cited by 31
Metadata
- Authors
- Cole, S. R., Young, G. P., Esterman, A., Cadd, B., & Morcom, J.
- Venue
- Journal of Medical Screening
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2003-09
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 117-122
- ISSN
- 0969-1413 (ISSN-L)
- 1475-5793
- OpenAlex
- W2165506687
- Cited by
- 165
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 3.18
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Randomised Trial of the Impact of New Faecal Haemoglobin Test Technologies on Population Participation in Screening for Colorectal Cancer. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1177/096914130301000304
- The paper
- Cole, S. R., Young, G. P., Esterman, A., Cadd, B., & Morcom, J. (2003). A Randomised Trial of the Impact of New Faecal Haemoglobin Test Technologies on Population Participation in Screening for Colorectal Cancer. Journal of Medical Screening. https://doi.org/10.1177/096914130301000304
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.