Objective:
To evaluate an intervention based on implementation intention principles designed to increase uptake of colorectal cancer screening, and to examine differential efficacy by socioeconomic deprivation.
Method:
In England, adults aged between 60 and 69 years are invited for biennial fecal occult blood testing. A test kit and an information leaflet are mailed to each individual by the "Hubs" that deliver the national screening program. In the intervention group, three preformulated implementation intentions, based on known barriers to carrying out the test, were added to the information leaflet. Over a 12-week period, each week was randomly allocated to either the intervention (n = 12,414 invitations) or the control condition (n = 10,768), with uptake recorded at the Hub. Socioeconomic deprivation of each individual's area of residence was categorized into tertiles.
Results:
There was no overall difference in uptake between control (40.4%) and intervention (39.7%) conditions, odds ratio (OR) = 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) [0.91, 1.04]. There was an interaction with deprivation, OR = 1.11, 95% CI [1.04, 1.18], but the positive effect observed in the lowest socioeconomic status (SES) tertile was small (35.2% vs. 33.0%), OR = 1.103, 95% CI [1.01, 1.21], and offset by a negative effect in the least deprived tertile (45.6% vs. 48.2%), OR = 0.90, 95% CI [0.82, 0.99]. The intervention had no significant effect in the middle tertile (38.9% vs. 40.8%), OR = 0.92, 95% CI [0.81, 1.04].
Conclusion:
Preformulated implementation intentions did not increase overall colorectal cancer screening uptake and failed to make a sufficiently large impact on uptake among lower SES groups to merit their future use in this context.
Citing Articles
The Framing Effect of Digital Textual Messages on Uptake Rates of Medical Checkups: Field Study.
Maltz A, Rashkovich S, Sarid A, Cohen Y, Landau T, Saifer E
JMIR Public Health Surveill. 2024; 10():e45379.
PMID: 38446543
PMC: 10955408.
DOI: 10.2196/45379.
Are behavioral economics interventions effective in increasing colorectal cancer screening uptake: A systematic review of evidence and meta-analysis?.
Ahadinezhad B, Maleki A, Akhondi A, Kazemi M, Yousefy S, Rezaei F
PLoS One. 2024; 19(2):e0290424.
PMID: 38315699
PMC: 10843112.
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0290424.
Increasing uptake of FIT colorectal screening: protocol for the TEMPO randomised controlled trial testing a suggested deadline and a planning tool.
Robb K, Kotzur M, Young B, McCowan C, Hollands G, Irvine A
BMJ Open. 2023; 13(5):e066136.
PMID: 37202130
PMC: 10201271.
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-066136.
The Effects of Different Invitation Schemes on the Use of Fecal Occult Blood Tests for Colorectal Cancer Screening: Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials.
Gruner L, Amitay E, Heisser T, Guo F, Niedermaier T, Gies A
Cancers (Basel). 2021; 13(7).
PMID: 33806234
PMC: 8037417.
DOI: 10.3390/cancers13071520.
Assessing the implementation of interventions addressing socioeconomic inequalities in cancer screening in high-income countries.
Bygrave A, Whittaker K, Aranda Am S
J Public Health Res. 2020; 9(4):1713.
PMID: 33209857
PMC: 7662454.
DOI: 10.4081/jphr.2020.1713.
Implementation Strategies for Interventions Aiming to Increase Participation in Mail-Out Bowel Cancer Screening Programs: A Realist Review.
Myers L, Goodwin B, Ralph N, Castro O, March S
Front Oncol. 2020; 10:543732.
PMID: 33117681
PMC: 7550731.
DOI: 10.3389/fonc.2020.543732.
The impact of interventions addressing socioeconomic inequalities in cancer-related outcomes in high-income countries: A systematic review.
Bygrave A, Whittaker K, Aranda Am S
J Public Health Res. 2020; 9(3):1711.
PMID: 33014912
PMC: 7507136.
DOI: 10.4081/jphr.2020.1711.
Strategies for increasing participation in mail-out colorectal cancer screening programs: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
Goodwin B, Ireland M, March S, Myers L, Crawford-Williams F, Chambers S
Syst Rev. 2019; 8(1):257.
PMID: 31685010
PMC: 6827213.
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-019-1170-x.
The impact of descriptive norms on motivation to participate in cancer screening - Evidence from online experiments.
Von Wagner C, Hirst Y, Waller J, Ghanouni A, McGregor L, Kerrison R
Patient Educ Couns. 2019; 102(9):1621-1628.
PMID: 30975450
PMC: 6686210.
DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2019.04.001.
Effectiveness of reminder strategies on cancer screening adherence: a randomised controlled trial.
Wong M, Ching J, Huang J, Wong J, Lam T, Chan V
Br J Gen Pract. 2018; 68(674):e604-e611.
PMID: 30104327
PMC: 6104889.
DOI: 10.3399/bjgp18X698369.
Dismantling the theory of planned behavior: evaluating the relative effectiveness of attempts to uniquely change attitudes, norms, and perceived behavioral control.
Montanaro E, Kershaw T, Bryan A
J Behav Med. 2018; 41(6):757-770.
PMID: 29671166
PMC: 11864412.
DOI: 10.1007/s10865-018-9923-x.
Is an opportunistic primary care-based intervention for non-responders to bowel screening feasible and acceptable? A mixed-methods feasibility study in Scotland.
Calanzani N, Cavers D, Vojt G, Orbell S, Steele R, Brownlee L
BMJ Open. 2017; 7(10):e016307.
PMID: 29025829
PMC: 5652541.
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2017-016307.
Reducing the socioeconomic gradient in uptake of the NHS bowel cancer screening Programme using a simplified supplementary information leaflet: a cluster-randomised trial.
Smith S, Wardle J, Atkin W, Raine R, McGregor L, Vart G
BMC Cancer. 2017; 17(1):543.
PMID: 28806955
PMC: 5556676.
DOI: 10.1186/s12885-017-3512-1.
Micro actions in colorectal cancer screening participation: a population-based survey study.
Lo S, Waller J, Vrinten C, Von Wagner C
BMC Cancer. 2015; 15:438.
PMID: 26016989
PMC: 4446849.
DOI: 10.1186/s12885-015-1465-9.