Tailored telephone counselling to increase participation of underusers in a population-based colorectal cancer-screening programme with faecal occult blood test: A randomized controlled trial

Denis, Bernard; Broc, Guillaume; Sauleau, Erik; Gendre, Isabelle; Gana, Kamel; Perrin, Philippe

doi:10.1016/j.respe.2016.06.336

Cited by 8 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In agreement with other studies, we found a lower participation rate among men and in the younger age group . It was in these groups which had low participation rates that the brief phone intervention had the greatest benefit.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Effectiveness of a brief phone intervention to increase participation in a population‐based colorectal cancer screening programme: a randomized controlled trial

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aim Although colorectal cancer (CRC) screening reduces mortality and morbidity the uptake in target populations is suboptimal. The aim was to assess whether adding a brief phone intervention to the usual invitation process increases participation in a CRC screening programme based in Catalonia. Method This was a non‐blinded prospective randomized control study of patients eligible for their first CRC screening test (immunochemical faecal occult blood test). Between March and December 2017, 512 invitees (age range 50–69 years) were randomized to receiving either a brief informative phone call prior to receiving the standard screening invitation (letter and informative brochure) or the standard screening invitation alone. The primary outcome was participation in the screening programme at 6 months. Results In all, 492/512 patients (54.7% women; 45.3% men) could be analysed (239/256 intervention group; 253/256 control group). On an intention to treat basis, the intervention group (55% women; 45% men) saw an 11% increase in the participation rate (51.05% vs 40.32%, P = 0.017). The intervention was more effective in male patients (50.93% vs 33.91%, P = 0.01) and those patients aged between 50 and 54 years (54.32% vs 37.77%, P = 0.03). After adjusting for sex, age and geographic area, the benefit of the intervention remained statistically significant (adjusted OR 1.54, 95% CI 1.07–2.20). Conclusion Our data suggest that a brief, informative intervention by phone in addition to the usual invitation process is effective in increasing participation in a CRC screening programme. It may be a useful strategy to improve uptake in groups which are less likely to participate in CRC screening (http://clinicaltrials.gov NCT03082911).

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…There are some limitations. The socio‐demographic data are limited (sex, age and area of residence); it would have been interesting to have known the impact of socio‐economic status since reduced screening uptake is associated with lower socio‐economic status .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effectiveness of a brief phone intervention to increase participation in a population‐based colorectal cancer screening programme: a randomized controlled trial

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There have been more reports of investigations that aimed to improve participation to FOBT screening. For instance, tailored telephone counseling is reported to be not more effective than FOBT kit mailing [18], but the latter has been found to be more effective than an invitation letter [19]. Although currently no diagnostic kit can be sent directly to patients, it would be of interest in future studies targeting the population refractive to colonoscopy to investigate tailored telephone counseling.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Colon capsule versus computed tomography colonography for colorectal cancer screening in patients with positive fecal occult blood test who refuse colonoscopy: a randomized trial

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective Some patients (10 % – 32 %) with a positive guaiac fecal occult blood test (gFOBT) do not undergo the recommended colonoscopy. The aim of this study was to compare video capsule endoscopy (VCE) and computed tomography colonography (CTC) in terms of participation rate and detection outcomes when offered to patients with a positive gFOBT who did not undergo the recommended colonoscopy. Methods An invitation letter offering CTC or VCE was sent to selected patients after randomization. Acceptance of the proposed (or alternative) procedure and procedure results were recorded. Sample size was evaluated according to the hypothesis of a 13 % increase of participation with VCE. Results A total of 756 patients were targeted. Following the invitation letter, 5.0 % (19/378) of patients underwent the proposed VCE and 7.4 % (28/378) underwent CTC, (P = 0.18). Following the letter, 9.8 % (37/378) of patients in the VCE group underwent a diagnostic procedure (19 VCE, 1 CTC, 17 colonoscopy) vs. 10.8 % in the CTC group (41/378: 28 CTC, 13 colonoscopy; P = 0.55). There were more potentially neoplastic lesions diagnosed in the VCE group than in the CTC group (12/20 [60.0 %] vs. 8/28 [28.6 %]; P = 0.04). Thus, 15/20 noninvasive procedures in the VCE group (19 VCE, 1 CTC; 75.0 %) vs. 10/28 in the CTC group (35.7 %; P = 0.01) resulted in a recommendation of further colonoscopy, but only 10/25 patients actually underwent this proposed colonoscopy. Conclusion Patients with a positive gFOBT result who do not undergo the recommended colonoscopy are difficult to recruit to the screening program and simply proposing an additional, less-invasive procedure, such as VCE or CTC, is not an effective strategy.

show abstract

“…MI was delivered via telephone in all included studies except for Adegboyega et al’s study which delivered the MI sessions face-to-face ( 34 ). The professions of MI interventionists varied across the studies, including nurse or psychologists ( 25 , 30 , 31 ), unspecified healthcare workers ( 34 , 36 ), peer coaches ( 35 ), genetic counselors ( 24 ), outreach workers ( 29 ), health educators ( 26 ), prevention counselors ( 32 ), and counselors of unspecified professions ( 23 , 27 , 28 , 33 ). Frequency of MI sessions ranged from one to two times over the course of the study, with the exception of Lasser et al’s study, totaling up to a maximum of 6 h within 6 months ( 36 ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Components of MI that were incorporated varied across the studies. Mentions of various MI components were included such as the evocation of change talk ( 25 , 28 , 30 , 31 , 33 , 36 ), the elicit-provide-elicit framework when providing information ( 24 , 25 , 28 , 30 , 31 , 33 , 35 ) and exploring ambivalence ( 25 , 28 , 30 , 32 , 34 ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Motivational Interviewing to Improve the Uptake of Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionColorectal cancer screening when done early can significantly reduce mortality. However, screening compliance is still lower than expected even in countries with established screening programs. Motivational interviewing is an approach that has been explored to promote behavioral change including screening compliance. This review synthesizes the efficacy of motivational interviewing in promoting uptake of colorectal screening modalities and is the only review so far that examines motivational interviewing for colorectal cancer screening alone.MethodsA systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted to examine the effects of motivational interviewing for colorectal cancer screening. PubMed, EMBASE, CENTRAL, PsycINFO, and CINAHL were searched to identify eligible studies from inception to June 2021 and selection criteria was defined. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2.0 tool. The DerSimonian and Laird random effects model was used in the statistical analysis for studies included in the meta-analysis.ResultsFourteen studies from 14 randomized-controlled trials with a low to moderate risk of bias were analyzed. 8 studies in the systematic review showed that motivational interviewing is superior to a control group. Meta-analysis was conducted on 11 studies and showed that motivational interviewing is statistically significant in increasing colorectal cancer screening rates in both intention-to-treat and per-protocol analysis. Timing of data collection of colorectal cancer screening rates did not make a significant difference to the efficacy of motivational interviewing. Studies that offered and accepted a mixture of colorectal screening modalities such as colonoscopy and fecal immunochemical tests were significantly more likely to have favorable colorectal screening outcomes. Heterogeneity in intervention was noted between studies, specifically differences in the training of interventionists, intervention delivery and comparator components.ConclusionMotivational interviewing is a tailored intervention demonstrating mixed evidence in improving colorectal cancer screening attendance amongst individuals. More research is needed to rigorously compare the effect of motivational interviewing alone vs. in combination with other screening promotion strategies to enhance colorectal cancer screening compliance.

show abstract

Tailored telephone counselling to increase participation of underusers in a population-based colorectal cancer-screening programme with faecal occult blood test: A randomized controlled trial

Cited by 8 publications

References 36 publications

Effectiveness of a brief phone intervention to increase participation in a population‐based colorectal cancer screening programme: a randomized controlled trial

Effectiveness of a brief phone intervention to increase participation in a population‐based colorectal cancer screening programme: a randomized controlled trial

Colon capsule versus computed tomography colonography for colorectal cancer screening in patients with positive fecal occult blood test who refuse colonoscopy: a randomized trial

Motivational Interviewing to Improve the Uptake of Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About