The Effects of Differing Invitation Models on the Uptake of Immunological Fecal Occult Blood Testing.
Journal
Deutsches Arzteblatt international
ISSN: 1866-0452
Titre abrégé: Dtsch Arztebl Int
Pays: Germany
ID NLM: 101475967
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
19 06 2020
19 06 2020
Historique:
received:
29
01
2020
revised:
29
01
2020
accepted:
15
04
2020
entrez:
5
9
2020
pubmed:
5
9
2020
medline:
2
10
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Participation rates in colorectal cancer screening in Germany are low. We therefore investigated the effectiveness of different invitation models for immunological stool blood tests (fecal immunological tests, FITs). A randomized controlled trial in 50- to 54-year-old clients of the health insurance provider AOK Baden-Wuerttemberg. A total of 17 532 insured persons were randomized to receive: (A) an invitation letter including a FIT (n = 5850); (B) an invitation letter including an option to request a FIT (n = 5844); or (C) an invitation letter only (n = 5838; control group, routine practice). Reminder letters were sent to half the members of groups A and B, selected at random, after 4 weeks. The primary endpoint was the use of a FIT within 1 year of the date of the invitation letter. IRRID: RR2-10.2196/16413. Registration: DRKS00011858. The invitation letter with a FIT enclosed (A) increased usage from 10% to 29.7% compared with the control group (+19.7% points, p < 0.0001; men: +19.4%, women: +18.8%). The invitation letter with a FIT request option (B) increased usage from 10% to 27.7% (+17.7% points, p < 0.0001; men: +17.7%, women: +17.4%). Reminders increased usage in group A by 7.5% points and in group B by 8.5% points. Participation among women was higher than among men in all groups. The FIT positivity rate was 6.9%. A subsequent colonoscopy was reported for 64.3% of FIT-positive participants, and advanced neoplasia was found in 21.3% of these cases. Letters of invitation that include a FIT and those that offer low-threshold access to a FIT achieve strong, comparable increases in the usage of FIT in the context of colorectal cancer screening.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Participation rates in colorectal cancer screening in Germany are low. We therefore investigated the effectiveness of different invitation models for immunological stool blood tests (fecal immunological tests, FITs).
METHODS
A randomized controlled trial in 50- to 54-year-old clients of the health insurance provider AOK Baden-Wuerttemberg. A total of 17 532 insured persons were randomized to receive: (A) an invitation letter including a FIT (n = 5850); (B) an invitation letter including an option to request a FIT (n = 5844); or (C) an invitation letter only (n = 5838; control group, routine practice). Reminder letters were sent to half the members of groups A and B, selected at random, after 4 weeks. The primary endpoint was the use of a FIT within 1 year of the date of the invitation letter. IRRID: RR2-10.2196/16413. Registration: DRKS00011858.
RESULTS
The invitation letter with a FIT enclosed (A) increased usage from 10% to 29.7% compared with the control group (+19.7% points, p < 0.0001; men: +19.4%, women: +18.8%). The invitation letter with a FIT request option (B) increased usage from 10% to 27.7% (+17.7% points, p < 0.0001; men: +17.7%, women: +17.4%). Reminders increased usage in group A by 7.5% points and in group B by 8.5% points. Participation among women was higher than among men in all groups. The FIT positivity rate was 6.9%. A subsequent colonoscopy was reported for 64.3% of FIT-positive participants, and advanced neoplasia was found in 21.3% of these cases.
CONCLUSION
Letters of invitation that include a FIT and those that offer low-threshold access to a FIT achieve strong, comparable increases in the usage of FIT in the context of colorectal cancer screening.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32885780
pii: arztebl.2020.0423
doi: 10.3238/arztebl.2020.0423
pmc: PMC7490457
doi:
pii:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Randomized Controlled Trial
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
423-430Références
Am J Gastroenterol. 2014 Aug;109(8):1257-64
pubmed: 24980879
JMIR Res Protoc. 2020 Apr 3;9(4):e16413
pubmed: 32242518
BMJ. 2014 Apr 09;348:g2467
pubmed: 24922745
Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2017 Feb 10;114(6):94-100
pubmed: 28266302
Prev Med. 2011 Jun;52(6):448-51
pubmed: 21457725
BMJ. 2019 Oct 2;367:l5383
pubmed: 31578177
Gut. 2019 Jul;68(7):1232-1244
pubmed: 30530530
BMJ. 2010 Mar 23;340:c332
pubmed: 20332509
Dtsch Arztebl Int. 2017 Feb 10;114(6):87-93
pubmed: 28266301
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2020 Oct;18(11):2535-2543.e3
pubmed: 31809916
N Engl J Med. 2013 Sep 19;369(12):1106-14
pubmed: 24047060
Eur J Cancer Prev. 2015 Jan;24(1):24-6
pubmed: 24584197
Am J Gastroenterol. 2018 Dec;113(12):1810-1818
pubmed: 30385831
Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2017 Aug;15(8):1265-1270.e1
pubmed: 28167157
Endoscopy. 2011 Sep;43(9):771-81
pubmed: 21830189
Gut. 2017 Jan;66(1):118-123
pubmed: 26370109