Effective strategies for Fecal Immunochemical Tests (FIT) programs to improve colorectal cancer screening uptake among populations with limited access to the healthcare system: a rapid review.
Cancer prevention
Cancer screening
Colorectal cancer
Fecal immunochemical test (FIT)
Health equity
Public health
Rapid review
Journal
BMC health services research
ISSN: 1472-6963
Titre abrégé: BMC Health Serv Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088677
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
23 Jan 2024
23 Jan 2024
Historique:
received:
25
07
2023
accepted:
06
01
2024
medline:
24
1
2024
pubmed:
24
1
2024
entrez:
23
1
2024
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the leading causes of cancer death globally. CRC screening can reduce the incidence and mortality of CRC. However, socially disadvantaged groups may disproportionately benefit less from screening programs due to their limited access to healthcare. This poor access to healthcare services is further aggravated by intersecting, cumulative social factors associated with their sociocultural background and living conditions. This rapid review systematically reviewed and synthesized evidence on the effectiveness of Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) programs in increasing CRC screening in populations who do not have a regular healthcare provider or who have limited healthcare system access. We used three databases: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and EBSCOhost CINAHL. We searched for systematic reviews, meta-analysis, and quantitative and mixed-methods studies focusing on effectiveness of FIT programs (request or receipt of FIT kit, completion rates of FIT screening, and participation rates in follow-up colonoscopy after FIT positive results). For evidence synthesis, deductive and inductive thematic analysis was conducted. The findings were also classified using the Cochrane Methods Equity PROGRESS-PLUS framework. The quality of the included studies was assessed. Findings from the 25 included primary studies were organized into three intervention design-focused themes. Delivery of culturally-tailored programs (e.g., use of language and interpretive services) were effective in increasing CRC screening. Regarding the method of delivery for FIT, specific strategies combined with mail-out programs (e.g., motivational screening letter) or in-person delivery (e.g., demonstration of FIT specimen collection procedure) enhanced the success of FIT programs. The follow-up reminder theme (e.g., spaced out and live reminders) were generally effective. Additionally, we found evidence of the social determinants of health affecting FIT uptake (e.g., place of residence, race/ethnicity/culture/language, gender and/or sex). Findings from this rapid review suggest multicomponent interventions combined with tailored strategies addressing the diverse, unique needs and priorities of the population with no regular healthcare provider or limited access to the healthcare system may be more effective in increasing FIT screening. Decision-makers and practitioners should consider equity and social factors when developing resources and coordinating efforts in the delivery and implementation of FIT screening strategies.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is one of the leading causes of cancer death globally. CRC screening can reduce the incidence and mortality of CRC. However, socially disadvantaged groups may disproportionately benefit less from screening programs due to their limited access to healthcare. This poor access to healthcare services is further aggravated by intersecting, cumulative social factors associated with their sociocultural background and living conditions. This rapid review systematically reviewed and synthesized evidence on the effectiveness of Fecal Immunochemical Test (FIT) programs in increasing CRC screening in populations who do not have a regular healthcare provider or who have limited healthcare system access.
METHODS
METHODS
We used three databases: Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, and EBSCOhost CINAHL. We searched for systematic reviews, meta-analysis, and quantitative and mixed-methods studies focusing on effectiveness of FIT programs (request or receipt of FIT kit, completion rates of FIT screening, and participation rates in follow-up colonoscopy after FIT positive results). For evidence synthesis, deductive and inductive thematic analysis was conducted. The findings were also classified using the Cochrane Methods Equity PROGRESS-PLUS framework. The quality of the included studies was assessed.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Findings from the 25 included primary studies were organized into three intervention design-focused themes. Delivery of culturally-tailored programs (e.g., use of language and interpretive services) were effective in increasing CRC screening. Regarding the method of delivery for FIT, specific strategies combined with mail-out programs (e.g., motivational screening letter) or in-person delivery (e.g., demonstration of FIT specimen collection procedure) enhanced the success of FIT programs. The follow-up reminder theme (e.g., spaced out and live reminders) were generally effective. Additionally, we found evidence of the social determinants of health affecting FIT uptake (e.g., place of residence, race/ethnicity/culture/language, gender and/or sex).
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Findings from this rapid review suggest multicomponent interventions combined with tailored strategies addressing the diverse, unique needs and priorities of the population with no regular healthcare provider or limited access to the healthcare system may be more effective in increasing FIT screening. Decision-makers and practitioners should consider equity and social factors when developing resources and coordinating efforts in the delivery and implementation of FIT screening strategies.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38263112
doi: 10.1186/s12913-024-10573-4
pii: 10.1186/s12913-024-10573-4
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
128Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s).
Références
International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). Colorectal cancer screening. 2019. 300 p.
Ferlay J, Ervik M, Lam F, Colombet M, Mery L, Piñeros M et al. Global Cancer Observatory: Cancer Today. [Internet]. Lyon, France: Internaional Agency for Research on Cancer 2020 [Available from: https://gco.iarc.fr/today/about .
Fitzpatrick-Lewis D, Ali M, Warren R, Kenny M, Sherifali D, Raina P. Screening for Colorectal Cancer: a systematic review and Meta-analysis. Clin Colorectal Cancer. 2016;15(4):298–313. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clcc.2016.03.003 .
doi: 10.1016/j.clcc.2016.03.003
pubmed: 27133893
Health Quality Council of Alberta. Patient completion of screening tests [Internet]. 2019. Available from: https://focus.hqca.ca/primaryhealthcare/screening/ .
Heitman SJ, Hilsden RJ, Au F, Dowden S, Manns BJ. Colorectal cancer screening for average-risk North americans: an economic evaluation. PLoS Med. 2010;7(11):e1000370. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000370 .
doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000370
pubmed: 21124887
pmcid: 2990704
Coldman A, Flanagan W, Nadeau C, Wolfson M, Fitzgerald N, Memon S, et al. Projected effect of fecal immunochemical test threshold for colorectal cancer screening on outcomes and costs for Canada using the OncoSim microsimulation model. J Cancer Policy. 2017;13:38–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcpo.2017.07.004 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jcpo.2017.07.004
Charters TJ, Strumpf EC, Sewitch MJ. Effectiveness of an organized colorectal cancer screening program on increasing adherence in asymptomatic average-risk canadians. BMC Health Serv Res. 2013;13:449. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-13-449 .
doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-13-449
pubmed: 24168208
pmcid: 4231607
Adhikari K, Yang H, Teare GF. Patterns of up-to-date status for colorectal cancer screening in Alberta: a cross-sectional study using survey data. Can Med Association Open Access J. 2022;10(1):e203–12. https://doi.org/10.9778/cmajo.20210051 .
doi: 10.9778/cmajo.20210051
Davis MM, Renfro S, Pham R, Lich KH, Shannon J, Coronado GD, et al. Geographic and population-level disparities in colorectal cancer testing: a multilevel analysis of Medicaid and commercial claims data. Prev Med. 2017;101:44–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2017.05.001 .
doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2017.05.001
pubmed: 28506715
pmcid: 6067672
Zapka JG, Puleo E, Vickers-Lahti M, Luckmann R. Healthcare system factors and colorectal cancer screening. Am J Prev Med. 2002;23(1):28–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0749-3797(02)00444-0 .
doi: 10.1016/S0749-3797(02)00444-0
pubmed: 12093420
Hughes AE, Tiro JA, Balasubramanian BA, Skinner CS, Pruitt SL, Social Disadvantage. Healthcare utilization, and Colorectal Cancer Screening: leveraging longitudinal patient address and Health Records Data. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2018;27(12):1424–32. https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-18-0446 .
doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-18-0446
pubmed: 30135072
pmcid: 6279539
He E, Lew J-B, Egger S, Banks E, Ward RL, Beral V, et al. Factors associated with participation in colorectal cancer screening in Australia: results from the 45 and up study cohort. Prev Med. 2018;106:185–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2017.10.032 .
doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2017.10.032
pubmed: 29109015
Venturelli F, Sampaolo L, Carrozzi G, Working Group PASSI, Zappa M, Rossi PG. Associations between cervical, breast and colorectal cancer screening uptake, chronic diseases and health-related behaviours: data from the Italian PASSI nationwide surveillance. Prev Med. 2019;120:60–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2019.01.007 .
doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2019.01.007
pubmed: 30659908
Clarke RB, Therkildsen C, Gram MA, Andersen KK, Mørch LS, Tybjerg AJ. Use of primary health care and participation in colorectal cancer screening–a Danish national register-based study. Acta Oncol. 2020;59(8):1002–6. https://doi.org/10.1080/0284186X.2020.1750697 .
doi: 10.1080/0284186X.2020.1750697
pubmed: 32286136
Sibley L, Weiner J. An evaluation of access to health care services along the rural-urban continuum in Canada. BMC Health Serv Res. 2011;1:1. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6963-11-20 .
doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-11-20
Canadian Institute for Health Information. Population grouping methodology [information sheet] [Internet]. Ottawa, ON: CIHI.; 2017. Available from: https://www.cihi.ca/sites/default/files/document/Infosheet-PopGroupMethod-2020-en.pdf .
McDonald JT, Conde H. Does geography matter? The health service use and unmet health care needs of older canadians. Can J Aging/La Revue Canadienne Du Vieillissement. 2010;29(1):23–37. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0714980809990389 .
doi: 10.1017/s0714980809990389
Wong ST, Regan S. Patient perspectives on primary health care in rural communities: effects of geography on access, continuity and efficiency. Rural Remote Health. 2009;9(1):1–2. https://doi.org/10.22605/RRH1142 .
doi: 10.22605/RRH1142
Mohan G, Chattopadhyay SK, Ekwueme DU, Sabatino SA, Okasako-Schmucker DL, Peng Y, et al. Economics of Multicomponent interventions to increase breast, cervical, and Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Community Guide systematic review. Am J Preventative Med. 2019;57(4):557–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2019.03.006 .
doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2019.03.006
Davis MM, Freeman M, Shannon J, Coronado GD, Stange KC, Guise J-M, et al. A systematic review of clinic and community intervention to increase fecal testing for colorectal cancer in rural and low-income populations in the United States– How, what and when? BMC Cancer. 2018;18(1):40. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-017-3813-4 .
doi: 10.1186/s12885-017-3813-4
pubmed: 29304835
pmcid: 5756384
Dougherty MK, Brenner AT, Crockett SD, Gupta S, Wheeler SB, Coker-Schwimmer M, et al. Evaluation of interventions intended to increase Colorectal Cancer Screening Rates in the United States: a systematic review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Intern Med. 2018;178(12):1645–58. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.4637 .
doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2018.4637
pubmed: 30326005
pmcid: 6583619
Sabatino SA, Lawrence B, Elder R, Mercer SL, Wilson KM, DeVinney B, et al. Effectiveness of interventions to increase screening for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers: nine updated systematic reviews for the guide to community preventive services. Am J Prev Med. 2012;43(1):97–118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2012.04.009 .
doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2012.04.009
pubmed: 22704754
Community Preventive Task Force. Increasing Colorectal Cancer Screening: Multicomponent Interventions [Internet]. Community Preventive Task Force; 2016 Available from: https://www.thecommunityguide.org/media/pdf/Cancer-Screening-Multicomponent-Colorectal.pdf .
The Community Guide. Increasing Colorectal Cancer Screening: Multicomponent Interventions [Internet]. n.d. Available from: https://www.thecommunityguide.org/findings/cancer-screening-multicomponent-interventions-colorectal-cancer .
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71 .
doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71
pubmed: 33782057
pmcid: 8005924
Veritas Health Innovation. Covidence systematic review software. Melbourne, Australia. n.d.
Cochrane Methods Equity. PROGRESS-Plus Cochrane Methods Equityn.d. Available from: https://methods.cochrane.org/equity/projects/evidence-equity/progress-plus .
Effective Public Healthcare Panacea Project. Quality Assessment Tool for Quantitative Studies n.d. Available from: https://www.ephpp.ca/quality-assessment-tool-for-quantitative-studies/ .
Garritty C, Gartlehner G, Kamel C, King V, Nussbaumer-Streit B, Stevens A, et al. Cochrane Rapid Reviews Interim Guidance from the Cochrane. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021;130:13–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.10.007 .
doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.10.007
pubmed: 33068715
Bartholomew K, Zhou L, Crengle S, Buswell E, Buckley A, Sandiford P. 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. BMC Public Health. 2019;19(1):1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-019-7582-7 .
doi: 10.1186/s12889-019-7582-7
Botteri E, Hoff G, Randel KR, Holme Ø, de Lange T, Bernklev T, et al. Characteristics of nonparticipants in a randomised colorectal cancer screening trial comparing sigmoidoscopy and faecal immunochemical testing. Int J Cancer. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.34025 .
doi: 10.1002/ijc.34025
pubmed: 36346118
pmcid: 10098820
Christy SM, Davis SN, Williams KR, Zhao X, Govindaraju SK, Quinn GP, et al. A community-based trial of Educational interventions with Fecal Immunochemical Test for Colorectal Cancer Screening Uptake among blacks in Community settings. Cancer. 2016;122(21):3288–96. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.30207 .
doi: 10.1002/cncr.30207
pubmed: 27420119
Clarke N, McNamara D, Kearney PM, O’Morain CA, Shearer N, Sharp L. The role of area-level deprivation and gender in participation in population-based faecal immunochemical test (FIT) colorectal cancer screening. Preventative Med. 2016;93:198–203. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2016.10.012 .
doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2016.10.012
Crosby RA, Stradtman L, Collins T, Vanderpool R. Community-based Colorectal Cancer Screening in a Rural Population: who returns fecal immunochemical test (FIT) kits? J Rural Health. 2017;33(4):371–4. https://doi.org/10.1111/jrh.12210 .
doi: 10.1111/jrh.12210
pubmed: 27650560
Davis SN, Christy SM, Chavarria EA, Abdulla R, Sutton SK, Schmidt AR, et al. A randomized controlled trial of a multicomponent, targeted, low-literacy educational intervention compared with a nontargeted intervention to boost colorectal cancer screening with fecal immunochemical testing in community clinics. Cancer. 2017;123(8):1390–400. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.30481 .
doi: 10.1002/cncr.30481
pubmed: 27906448
de Klerk CM, van der Vlugt M, Smagge BA, Toes-Zoutendijk E, Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, Dekker E, et al. Urban density differences in colorectal cancer screening participation and screening yield in the Netherlands. Preventative Med Rep. 2022;27:101791. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pmedr.2022.101791 .
doi: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2022.101791
Gomes FS, Kislaya I, Seabra D, Cordeiro E, Nunes B. Factors Associated with the Use of Fecal Immunochemical tests and Colonoscopy in the INSEF Portuguese Population. Portuguese J Public Health. 2021;39(1):48–57. https://doi.org/10.1159/000516502 .
doi: 10.1159/000516502
Gupta S, Halm EA, Rockey DC, Hammons M, Koch M, Carter E, et al. Comparative effectiveness of Fecal Immunochemical Test Outreach, Colonoscopy Outreach, and Usual Care for boosting Colorectal Cancer Screening among the Underserved: a Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(18):1725–32. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.9294 .
doi: 10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.9294
pubmed: 23921906
pmcid: 5228201
Hillyer GC, Basch CE, Schmitt KM, Neugut AI. Feasibility and efficacy of pairing fecal immunochemical testing with mammography for increasing colorectal cancer screening among uninsured latinas in northern Manhattan. Preventative Med. 2011;53(3):194–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2011.06.011 .
doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2011.06.011
Hillyer GC, Schmitt KM, Freedberg DE, Kramer RA, Su Y, Rosenberg RM, et al. Fecal-based Colorectal Cancer Screening among the Uninsured in Northern Manhattan. Am J Preventative Med. 2014;47(2):182–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2014.03.011 .
doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2014.03.011
Hirko KA, Lennon SA, Lucas T, Miller DC, Jimbo M, Leibfritz SJ, et al. Improving Colorectal Cancer Screening in a rural setting: a randomized study. J Preventative Med. 2020;59(3):404–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2020.03.019 .
doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2020.03.019
Lee B, Keyes E, Rachocki C, Grimes B, Chen E, Vittinghoff E, et al. Increased Colorectal Cancer Screening sustained with mailed fecal immunochemical test Outreach. Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2022;20(6):1326–33. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cgh.2021.07.022 .
doi: 10.1016/j.cgh.2021.07.022
pubmed: 34280552
Lee B, Patel S, Rachocki C, Issaka R, Vittinghoff E, Shapiro JA, et al. Advanced notification calls prior to mailed fecal immunochemical test in previously screened patients: a Randomized Controlled Trial. J Gen Intern Med. 2020;35(10):2858–64. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-020-06009-4 .
doi: 10.1007/s11606-020-06009-4
pubmed: 32748345
pmcid: 7572934
Lucas T, Thompson HS, Blessman J, Dawadi A, Drolet CE, Hirko KA, et al. Effects of culturally targeted message framing on Colorectal Cancer Screening among African americans. Health Psychol. 2021;40(5):305. https://doi.org/10.1037/hea0001073 .
doi: 10.1037/hea0001073
pubmed: 34152784
pmcid: 8330134
Prakash S, Merza N, Hosseini O, Ward H, Mansi T, Balducci M, et al. Increasing Fecal Immunochemical Test Return Rates by implementing effective reminder to complete kit communication with participants: a Quality Improvement Study. Cureus. 2022;14(5). https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.25169 .
Ritzenthaler D, Deshpande S, Ryan M, Daprano J. Colorectal Cancer screening with mailed fecal immunochemical tests and Telephone Outreach at a Community Health Center during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2022;33(2):973–83. https://doi.org/10.1353/hpu.2022.0075 .
doi: 10.1353/hpu.2022.0075
pubmed: 35574888
Sali L, Mascalchi M, Falchini M, Ventura L, Carozzi F, Castiglione G, et al. Reduced and full-Preparation CT Colonography, Fecal Immunochemical Test, and Colonoscopy for Population Screening of Colorectal Cancer: a Randomized Trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2016;108(2):djv319. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djv319 .
doi: 10.1093/jnci/djv319
pubmed: 26719225
Sali L, Ventura L, Mascalchi M, Falchini M, Mantellini P, Delsanto S, et al. Faecal immunochemical test in subjects not attending screening computed tomography colonography and colonoscopy in a randomized trial. Eur J Cancer Prev. 2018;1(2):105–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/CEJ.0000000000000284 .
doi: 10.1097/CEJ.0000000000000284
Somsouk M, Rachocki C, Mannalithara A, Garcia D, Laleau V, Grimes B, et al. Effectiveness and cost of Organized Outreach for Colorectal Cancer Screening: a Randomized, Controlled Trial. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2020;112(3):305–13. https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djz110 .
doi: 10.1093/jnci/djz110
pubmed: 31187126
Stone R, Stone JD, Collins T, Barletta-Sherwin E, Martin O, Crosby R. Colorectal Cancer Screening in African American HOPE VI Public Housing residents. Fam Community Health. 2019;42(9):227–34. https://doi.org/10.1097/fch.0000000000000229 .
doi: 10.1097/fch.0000000000000229
pubmed: 31107734
Symonds EL, Hughes D, Flight I, Woodman R, Chen G, Ratcliffe J, et al. A Randomized Controlled Trial Testing Provision of Fecal and Blood Test options on participation for Colorectal Cancer Screening. Cancer Prev Res. 2019;12(9):631–40. https://doi.org/10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-19-0089 .
doi: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-19-0089
Turrin A, Zorzi M, Rossi PG, Senore C, Campari C, Fedato C, et al. Colorectal cancer screening of immigrants to Italy. Figures from the 2013 National Survey. Prev Med. 2015;81:132–7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2015.08.016 .
doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2015.08.016
pubmed: 26358527
van der Meulen MP, Toes-Zoutendijk E, Spaander MC, Dekker E, Bonfrer JM, van Vuuren AJ, et al. Socioeconomic differences in participation and diagnostic yield within the Dutch national colorectal cancer screening programme with faecal immunochemical testing. PLoS ONE. 2022;17(2):e0264067. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0264067 .
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0264067
pubmed: 35176116
pmcid: 8853540
Young GP, Chen G, Wilson CJ, McGrane E, Hughes-Barton DL, Flight IH, et al. Rescue of nonparticipants in Colorectal Cancer Screening: a randomized controlled trial of three noninvasive Test options. Cancer Prev Res. 2021;14(8):803–10. https://doi.org/10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-21-0080 .
doi: 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-21-0080
Weiss JM, Pandhi N, Kraft S, Potvien A, Carayon P, Smith MA. Primary care colorectal cancer screening correlates with breast cancer screening: implications for colorectal cancer screening improvement interventions. Clin Translational Gastroenterol. 2018;9(4):148. https://doi.org/10.1038/2Fs41424-018-0014-7 .
doi: 10.1038/s41424-018-0014-7
Lam WW, Murphy CC, Vernon SW,‘Colorectal Cancer Screening’, in, Breitbart W and others, editors. Psycho-Oncology, 4 edn. 2021; online edn, Oxford Academic. 2021.
Issaka RB, Avila P, Whitaker E, Bent S, Somsouk M. Population health interventions to improve colorectal cancer screening by fecal immunochemical tests: a systematic review. Prev Med. 2019;118:113–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2018.10.021 .
doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2018.10.021
pubmed: 30367972
Dressler J, Johnsen AT, Madsen LJ, Rasmussen M, Jorgensen LN. Factors affecting patient adherence to publicly funded colorectal cancer screening programmes: a systematic review. Public Health. 2021;190:67–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2020.10.025 .
doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2020.10.025
pubmed: 33360029
Clarke N, Sharp L, Osborne A, Kearney PM. Comparison of uptake of colorectal cancer screening based on fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) in males and females: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2015;24(1):39–47. https://doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-14-0774 .
doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-14-0774
pubmed: 25378366
Jager M, Demb J, Asghar A, Selby K, Mello EM, Heskett KM, et al. Mailed Outreach is Superior to Usual Care alone for Colorectal Cancer Screening in the USA: a systematic review and Meta-analysis. Dig Dis Sci. 2019;64(9):2489–96. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10620-019-05587-6 .
doi: 10.1007/s10620-019-05587-6
pubmed: 30915656
pmcid: 6706307
Wang H, Roy S, Kim J, Farazi PA, Siahpush M, Su D. Barriers of colorectal cancer screening in rural USA: a systematic review. Rural Remote Health. 2019;19(3):5181. https://doi.org/10.22605/rrh5181 .
doi: 10.22605/rrh5181
pubmed: 31394041