TY - JOUR
T1 - Rescue" of nonparticipants in colorectal cancer screening
T2 - a randomized controlled trial of three noninvasive test options
AU - Young, Graeme Paul
AU - Chen, Gang
AU - Wilson, Carlene J.
AU - McGrane, Ellen
AU - Hughes-Barton, Donna Lee-Ann
AU - Flight, Ingrid Helen K.
AU - Symonds, Erin Leigh
N1 - Funding Information:
G.P. Young reports personal fees from Clinical Genomics Inc NJ USA and grants from Eiken Chemical Co. Japan during the conduct of the study. G. Chen reports grants from National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) of Australia during the conduct of the study. E.L. Symonds reports grants from NHMRC during the conduct of the study; grants from Eiken Chemical Company and grants from Clinical Genomics outside the submitted work. No disclosures were reported by the other authors.
Funding Information:
Financial support was provided by NHMRC Australia Project Grant (APP1101837; to E.L. Symonds, G.P. Young, G. Chen, and C.J. Wilson. Eiken Chemical Company Tokyo, Japan, provided institutional support for E.L. Symonds.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2021 American Association for Cancer Research.
Copyright:
Copyright 2021 Elsevier B.V., All rights reserved.
PY - 2021/8
Y1 - 2021/8
N2 - Few studies have directly targeted nonparticipants in colorectal cancer screening to identify effective engagement strategies. We undertook a randomized controlled trial that targeted nonparticipants in a previous trial of average-risk subjects which compared participation rates for mailed invitations offering a fecal test, a blood test or a choice of either. Nonparticipants (n 899) were randomized to be offered a kit containing a fecal immunochemical test (FIT), directions on how to arrange a bloodDNAtest, or the option of doing either. Screening participation was assessed 12 weeks after the offer. To assess the cognitive and attitudinal variables related to participation and invitee choice, invitees were surveyed after 12 weeks, and associations were investigated using multinomial logistic regression. Participation rates were similar between groups (P 0.88): 12.0% for FIT (35/292), 13.3% for the blood test (39/293), and 13.4% for choice (39/290). Within the choice group, participation was significantly higher with FIT (9.7%, 28/290) compared with the blood test (3.8%, 11/290, P 0.005). The only variable significantly associated with participation was socioeconomic status when offered FIT, and age when offered choice but there was none when offered the blood test. Survey respondents indicated that convenience, timesaving, comfort, and familiarity were major influences on participation. There was no clear advantage between a fecal test, blood test, or choice of test although, when given a choice, the fecal test was preferred. Differences in variables associated with participation according to invitation strategy warrant consideration when deciding upon an invitation strategy for screening nonparticipants. Prevention Relevance: This trial of screening for those at average risk for colorectal cancer targeted past fecal-test nonparticipants and compared participation rates for mailed invitations offering a fecal test, blood test, or choice of either. Although there was no clear advantage between strategies, factors associated with participation differed between each strategy
AB - Few studies have directly targeted nonparticipants in colorectal cancer screening to identify effective engagement strategies. We undertook a randomized controlled trial that targeted nonparticipants in a previous trial of average-risk subjects which compared participation rates for mailed invitations offering a fecal test, a blood test or a choice of either. Nonparticipants (n 899) were randomized to be offered a kit containing a fecal immunochemical test (FIT), directions on how to arrange a bloodDNAtest, or the option of doing either. Screening participation was assessed 12 weeks after the offer. To assess the cognitive and attitudinal variables related to participation and invitee choice, invitees were surveyed after 12 weeks, and associations were investigated using multinomial logistic regression. Participation rates were similar between groups (P 0.88): 12.0% for FIT (35/292), 13.3% for the blood test (39/293), and 13.4% for choice (39/290). Within the choice group, participation was significantly higher with FIT (9.7%, 28/290) compared with the blood test (3.8%, 11/290, P 0.005). The only variable significantly associated with participation was socioeconomic status when offered FIT, and age when offered choice but there was none when offered the blood test. Survey respondents indicated that convenience, timesaving, comfort, and familiarity were major influences on participation. There was no clear advantage between a fecal test, blood test, or choice of test although, when given a choice, the fecal test was preferred. Differences in variables associated with participation according to invitation strategy warrant consideration when deciding upon an invitation strategy for screening nonparticipants. Prevention Relevance: This trial of screening for those at average risk for colorectal cancer targeted past fecal-test nonparticipants and compared participation rates for mailed invitations offering a fecal test, blood test, or choice of either. Although there was no clear advantage between strategies, factors associated with participation differed between each strategy
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85111751460&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-21-0080
DO - 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-21-0080
M3 - Article
C2 - 34127509
AN - SCOPUS:85111751460
VL - 14
SP - 803
EP - 810
JO - Cancer Prevention Research
JF - Cancer Prevention Research
SN - 1940-6207
IS - 8
ER -
