A targeted promotional DVD fails to improve Māori and Pacific participation rates in the New Zealand bowel screening pilot: results from a pseudo-randomised controlled trial.
Bowel cancer screening
Colorectal cancer
Equity
Ethnic inequalities
Faecal immunochemical test
Māori
Pacific
Screening participation
Small media interventions
Journal
BMC public health
ISSN: 1471-2458
Titre abrégé: BMC Public Health
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968562
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
09 Sep 2019
09 Sep 2019
Historique:
received:
12
01
2019
accepted:
30
08
2019
entrez:
11
9
2019
pubmed:
11
9
2019
medline:
18
12
2019
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
New Zealand's Bowel Screening Pilot (BSP) used a mailed invitation to return a faecal immunochemical test. As a pilot it offered opportunities to test interventions for reducing ethnic inequities in colorectal cancer screening prior to nationwide programme introduction. Small media interventions (e.g. educational material and DVDs) have been used at both community and participant level to improve uptake. We tested whether a DVD originally produced to raise community awareness among the Māori population would have a positive impact on participation and reduce the proportion of incorrectly performed tests (spoiled kits) if mailed out with the usual reminder letter. The study was a parallel groups pseudo-randomised controlled trial. Over 12 months, all Māori and Pacific ethnicity non-responders four weeks after being mailed the test kit were allocated on alternate weeks to be sent, or not, the DVD intervention with the usual reminder letter. The objective was to determine changes in participation and spoiled kit rates in each ethnic group, determined three months from the date the reminder letter was sent. Participants and those recording the outcomes (receipt of a spoiled or non-spoiled test kit) were blinded to group assignment. 2333 Māori and 2938 Pacific people participated (11 withdrew). Those who were sent the DVD (1029 Māori and 1359 Pacific) were less likely to participate in screening than those who were not (1304 Māori and 1579 Pacific). Screening participation was reduced by 12.3% (95% CI 9.1-15.5%) in Māori (13.6% versus 25.9%) and 8.3% (95% CI 5.8-10.8%) in Pacific (10.1% versus 18.4%). However, spoiled kit rates (first return) were significantly higher among those not sent the DVD (33.1% versus 12.4% in Māori and 42.1% versus 21.9% in Pacific). The DVD sent with the reminder letter to BSP non-responders reduced screening participation to an extent that more than offset the lower rate of spoiled kits. Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12612001259831 . Registered 30 November 2013.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
New Zealand's Bowel Screening Pilot (BSP) used a mailed invitation to return a faecal immunochemical test. As a pilot it offered opportunities to test interventions for reducing ethnic inequities in colorectal cancer screening prior to nationwide programme introduction. Small media interventions (e.g. educational material and DVDs) have been used at both community and participant level to improve uptake. We tested whether a DVD originally produced to raise community awareness among the Māori population would have a positive impact on participation and reduce the proportion of incorrectly performed tests (spoiled kits) if mailed out with the usual reminder letter.
METHODS
METHODS
The study was a parallel groups pseudo-randomised controlled trial. Over 12 months, all Māori and Pacific ethnicity non-responders four weeks after being mailed the test kit were allocated on alternate weeks to be sent, or not, the DVD intervention with the usual reminder letter. The objective was to determine changes in participation and spoiled kit rates in each ethnic group, determined three months from the date the reminder letter was sent. Participants and those recording the outcomes (receipt of a spoiled or non-spoiled test kit) were blinded to group assignment.
RESULTS
RESULTS
2333 Māori and 2938 Pacific people participated (11 withdrew). Those who were sent the DVD (1029 Māori and 1359 Pacific) were less likely to participate in screening than those who were not (1304 Māori and 1579 Pacific). Screening participation was reduced by 12.3% (95% CI 9.1-15.5%) in Māori (13.6% versus 25.9%) and 8.3% (95% CI 5.8-10.8%) in Pacific (10.1% versus 18.4%). However, spoiled kit rates (first return) were significantly higher among those not sent the DVD (33.1% versus 12.4% in Māori and 42.1% versus 21.9% in Pacific).
CONCLUSION
CONCLUSIONS
The DVD sent with the reminder letter to BSP non-responders reduced screening participation to an extent that more than offset the lower rate of spoiled kits.
TRIAL REGISTRATION
BACKGROUND
Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry ACTRN12612001259831 . Registered 30 November 2013.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31500594
doi: 10.1186/s12889-019-7582-7
pii: 10.1186/s12889-019-7582-7
pmc: PMC6734461
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1245Références
Ann Intern Med. 2000 Nov 21;133(10):761-9
pubmed: 11085838
Health Expect. 2001 Jun;4(2):92-8
pubmed: 11359539
Ann Intern Med. 2004 Nov 2;141(9):683-92
pubmed: 15520425
Prev Med. 2005 Jun;40(6):619-27
pubmed: 15850857
Psychol Bull. 2007 Jul;133(4):673-93
pubmed: 17592961
Implement Sci. 2008 Jun 02;3:32
pubmed: 18518990
Am J Prev Med. 2008 Jul;35(1 Suppl):S21-5
pubmed: 18541184
Am J Prev Med. 2008 Jul;35(1 Suppl):S56-66
pubmed: 18541188
J Gen Intern Med. 2009 Feb;24(2):211-7
pubmed: 19067085
BMC Health Serv Res. 2009 Jul 31;9:132
pubmed: 19643031
J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2009 May;20(2 Suppl):102-19
pubmed: 19711496
Cancer Epidemiol. 2009 Oct;33(3-4):216-22
pubmed: 19747893
Future Oncol. 2009 Nov;5(9):1371-88
pubmed: 19903066
BMJ. 2010 Oct 26;341:c5370
pubmed: 20978060
Prev Med. 2011 Mar-Apr;52(3-4):262-4
pubmed: 21256149
Gastroenterol Res Pract. 2012;2012:483417
pubmed: 22190913
J Am Board Fam Med. 2012 Jan-Feb;25(1):73-82
pubmed: 22218627
N Z Med J. 2012 Jun 08;125(1356):9-12
pubmed: 22729053
N Z Med J. 2012 Jun 08;125(1356):75-84
pubmed: 22729062
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Feb 28;(2):CD001865
pubmed: 23450534
Can J Public Health. 2012 May 09;103(8 Suppl 2):S7-11
pubmed: 23618071
BMC Public Health. 2013 May 13;13:464
pubmed: 23663511
Eur J Public Health. 2014 Oct;24(5):789-801
pubmed: 24443115
Gut. 2015 Jul;64(7):1158-77
pubmed: 26059765
Patient Educ Couns. 2015 Oct;98(10):1280-6
pubmed: 26227576
J Public Health (Oxf). 2018 Jun 1;40(2):e133-e140
pubmed: 28525616
Stat Med. 1998 Apr 30;17(8):857-72
pubmed: 9595616