Search

Objective: To evaluate the 'Call for a Kit' health promotion intervention that was initiated in Lancashire, England to improve bowel cancer screening uptake., Methods: Within the intervention, screening non-responders are called and invited to attend a consultation with a health promotion team member at their primary care practice. In this audit, we analysed the proportion of those contacted who attended the in-person clinic versus those who received a phone consultation, the number returning a test kit from in-person versus phone consultations, and the extent to which test kit return was moderated by sociodemographic characteristics., Results: In 2019, 68 practices participated in the intervention which led to 10,772 individuals being contacted; 2464 accepted the invitation to an in-person consultation, of whom 1943 attended. A further 1065 agreed to and attended a consultation over the phone. The 3008 consultations resulted in 2890 test kits being ordered, of which 1608 (55.6%) were returned. The intervention therefore yielded a 14.9% response rate in the total cohort; 71.5% of test kits came from individuals attending the in-person consultation. Women and those registered with a practice in socioeconomically deprived areas were less likely to return the test kit. Individuals with a black, mixed or a non-Indian/Pakistani Asian ethnic background were significantly more likely to accept the offer of an in-person consultation and return the test kit., Conclusion: Our analysis demonstrated the strong likelihood of people returning a test kit after an in-person appointment but also the usefulness of using phone consultations as a safety net for people unable or unwilling to attend in-person clinics.

Objectives: Type 2 diabetes has been identified as a risk factor for colorectal cancer, but little is known about whether it influences participation in colorectal cancer screening programmes. This study tested the extent to which Type 2 diabetes is negatively associated with colorectal cancer screening uptake., Methods: We analysed individual data of screening eligible men and women aged 60–75 without cancer diagnosis from wave 6 of the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (collected 2012–2013), to investigate whether Type 2 Diabetes influences colorectal cancer screening behaviour independently of demographic characteristics, body mass index, socio-economic status and other chronic diseases., Results: Individuals who reported to have Type 2 diabetes or had glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) levels of 48 mmol/mol or higher were less likely to have ever completed a screening test (faecal occult blood test; 62.8% vs. 75.8%, p < 0.01) or to be up-to-date with their biennial screening invitation (60.2% vs. 72.0%, p < 0.05). The negative associations of Type 2 diabetes on colorectal cancer screening were found both in unadjusted and adjusted regression models., Conclusions: Future qualitative and quantitative research should identify reasons for this discrepancy, to inform interventions to increase screening uptake in this high-risk population.

Objectives: A large proportion of women have a preference for a same-gender endoscopy practitioner. We tested how information about practitioner gender affected intention to have bowel scope screening in a sample of women disinclined to have the test., Methods: In an online experimental survey, women aged 35-54 living in England who did not intend to participate in bowel scope screening (N = 1060) were randomised to one of four experimental conditions: (1) control (practitioner's gender is unknown), (2) opposite-gender (male practitioner by default), (3) same gender (female practitioner by default), and (4) active choice (the patient could choose the gender of the practitioner). Intention was measured following the interventions., Results: Of 1010 (95.3%) women who completed the survey, most were White-British (83.6%), and working (63.3%). Compared with control, both active choice and same-gender conditions increased intention among disinclined women (9.3% vs. 16.0% and 17.9%; OR: 1.85; 95% CI: 1.07-3.20 and OR: 2.07; 95% CI: 1.23-3.50). There were no differences in intention between the opposite-gender and control conditions (9.8% vs. 9.3%; OR: 1.06; 95% CI: 0.60-1.90) or the active choice and same-gender conditions (16.0% vs. 17.9%: OR: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.55-1.46, using same gender as baseline)., Conclusions: Offering disinclined women a same-gender practitioner, either by choice or default, increased subsequent intention, while an opposite gender default did not negatively affect intention. Reducing uncertainty about gender of practitioner could positively affect uptake in women, and should be tested in a randomised controlled trial.