Effects of evidence-based strategies to reduce the socioeconomic gradient of uptake in the English NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (ASCEND): four cluster-randomised controlled trials

Jane Wardle(University College London), Christian von Wagner(Public Health England), Ines Kralj‐Hans(King's College London), Stephen P Halloran(Royal Surrey County Hospital), Samuel G. Smith(Queen Mary University of London), Lesley McGregor(University College London), Gemma Vart(University College London), Rosemary Howe(Imperial College London), Julia Snowball(Royal Surrey County Hospital), Graham Handley(Gateshead Health NHS Foundation Trust), Richard F. Logan(Nottingham University Hospitals NHS Trust), Sandra Rainbow(St Mark's Hospital), Steve Smith(Queen Mary University of London), Mary C Thomas(University College London), Nicholas Counsell(London Cancer), Steve Morris(University College London), Stephen W. Duffy(Queen Mary University of London), Allan Hackshaw(London Cancer), Sue Moss(Queen Mary University of London), Wendy Atkin(Imperial College London), Rosalind Raine(University College London)
The Lancet
December 14, 2015
Cited by 146Open Access
Full Text

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Uptake in the national colorectal cancer screening programme in England varies by socioeconomic status. We assessed four interventions aimed at reducing this gradient, with the intention of improving the health benefits of screening. METHODS: All people eligible for screening (men and women aged 60-74 years) across England were included in four cluster-randomised trials. Randomisation was based on day of invitation. Each trial compared the standard information with the standard information plus the following supplementary interventions: trial 1 (November, 2012), a supplementary leaflet summarising the gist of the key information; trial 2 (March, 2012), a supplementary narrative leaflet describing people's stories; trial 3 (June, 2013), general practice endorsement of the programme on the invitation letter; and trial 4 (July-August, 2013) an enhanced reminder letter with a banner that reiterated the screening offer. Socioeconomic status was defined by the Index of Multiple Deprivation score for each home address. The primary outcome was the socioeconomic status gradient in uptake across deprivation quintiles. This study is registered, number ISRCTN74121020. FINDINGS: As all four trials were embedded in the screening programme, loss to follow-up was minimal (less than 0·5%). Trials 1 (n=163,525) and 2 (n=150,417) showed no effects on the socioeconomic gradient of uptake or overall uptake. Trial 3 (n=265 434) showed no effect on the socioeconomic gradient but was associated with increased overall uptake (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1·07, 95% CI 1·04-1·10, p<0·0001). In trial 4 (n=168 480) a significant interaction was seen with socioeconomic status gradient (p=0·005), with a stronger effect in the most deprived quintile (adjusted OR 1·11, 95% CI 1·04-1·20, p=0·003) than in the least deprived (1·00, 0·94-1·06, p=0·98). Overall uptake was also increased (1·07, 1·03-1·11, p=0·001). INTERPRETATION: Of four evidence-based interventions, the enhanced reminder letter reduced the socioeconomic gradient in screening uptake, but further reducing inequalities in screening uptake through written materials alone will be challenging. FUNDING: National Institute for Health Research.


Related Papers

No related papers found

Powered by citation graph analysis