Advance notification letters increase adherence in colorectal cancer screening: A population-based randomized trial

Invitation strategies for colorectal cancer screening programmes: The impact of an advance notification letter

“…The observed range of incremental costs per additional FIT screenee is consistent with the estimate (15.5 Euros) reported in the Dutch study (Van Roon et al, 2011) and it is also comparable to the estimated costs of a strategy involving direct mailing of FIT kits (Giorgi Rossi et al, 2011). However, given the small difference in the uptake, our sensitivity analysis would suggest that the additional mailing costs might not be associated with a sizeable benefit.…”

“…However, given the small difference in the uptake, our sensitivity analysis would suggest that the additional mailing costs might not be associated with a sizeable benefit. Given the relatively high detection rate of advanced neoplasia among people attending FS screening, the estimated costs per additional screenee would translate in a decrease of the incremental cost per additional detected advanced neoplasm ranging between 50 and 60% compared to the corresponding estimate in the context of FIT screening, which was considered sustainable in the Dutch study (Van Roon et al, 2011). A limitation of the study is related to the low response rate in the survey among people invited for FS, and by the restriction of the survey of FIT screening to a single centre.…”

“…Available evidence from three trials (Cole et al, 2007;Libby et al, 2011;Van Roon et al, 2011) indicates that an advance notification letter may represent an effective strategy to increase the response rate among subjects invited for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening with FOBT, as compared to the direct mailing of the screening invitation. The positive impact of this approach has been explained based on the framework of stage models of behavioural change, such as the trans-theoretical model (TTM) (Prochaska and DiClemente, 1986;Prochaska et al, 1994;Rakowski et al, 1996Rakowski et al, , 1997.…”

“…Interventions aimed at increasing individual's awareness and at favouring progression from contemplation of action to the decision to adopt the required behaviour might be particularly helpful, however, when offering more invasive and less diffused tests, such as sigmoidoscopy (FS). Moreover, only one study (Libby et al, 2011) has been conducted in the context of a large population programme, offering guaiac FOBT (gFOBT) screening, while the two studies assessing the impact of prenotification among people invited for immunochemical FOBT (FIT) screening (Cole et al, 2007;Van Roon et al, 2011) were conducted in the context of small pilot studies. Since media coverage can be effective in increasing public awareness of CRC risk, the impact of additional information conveyed by the advance notification letter might be overestimated in pilot settings where large scale mass-media campaigns aimed at promoting screening participation are usually not implemented.…”

A Randomized Controlled Trial to Improve Colon Cancer Screening in Rural Family Medicine: An Iowa Research Network (IRENE) Study

“…38 -41 Studies conducted in the context of population-based screening programs in Great Britain or the Netherlands showed that FOBTs, educational materials, and a letter signed by the patient's physician resulted in screening rates ranging from 55% to 65%. [42][43][44] Randomized controlled trials in practices where a mailed FOBT was used gave rates of returned FOBTs of 27% to 48%, 45 33% to 48%, 38 29% to 36%, 46 and 60%. 47 Although the telephone call was designed to assess patient barriers and move patients through the stages of change, 32 our telephone call did not increase screening rates.…”