Behavioural interventions to increase uptake of FIT colorectal screening in Scotland (TEMPO): a nationwide, eight-arm, factorial, randomised controlled trial
Guardado en:
| Publicado en: | The Lancet vol. 405, no. 10484 (Mar 29, 2025), p. 1081 |
|---|---|
| Autor principal: | |
| Otros Autores: | , , , , , , , , , |
| Publicado: |
Elsevier Limited
|
| Materias: | |
| Acceso en línea: | Citation/Abstract Full Text Full Text - PDF |
| Etiquetas: |
Sin Etiquetas, Sea el primero en etiquetar este registro!
|
MARC
| LEADER | 00000nab a2200000uu 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | 3182235546 | ||
| 003 | UK-CbPIL | ||
| 022 | |a 0140-6736 | ||
| 022 | |a 1474-547X | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1016/S0140-6736(24)02813-7 |2 doi | |
| 035 | |a 3182235546 | ||
| 045 | 0 | |b d20250329 | |
| 084 | |a 28154 |2 nlm | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Robb, Kathryn A |u School of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK | |
| 245 | 1 | |a Behavioural interventions to increase uptake of FIT colorectal screening in Scotland (TEMPO): a nationwide, eight-arm, factorial, randomised controlled trial | |
| 260 | |b Elsevier Limited |c Mar 29, 2025 | ||
| 513 | |a Journal Article | ||
| 520 | 3 | |a Summary Background Uptake of colorectal cancer screening is suboptimal. The TEMPO trial evaluated the impact of two evidence-based, theory-informed, and co-designed behavioural interventions on uptake of faecal immunochemical test (FIT) colorectal screening. Methods TEMPO was a 2 × 4 factorial, eight-arm, randomised controlled trial embedded in the nationwide Scottish Bowel Screening Programme. All 40 000 consecutive adults (aged 50–74 years) eligible for colorectal screening were allocated to one of eight groups using block randomisation: (1) standard invitation; (2) 1-week suggested FIT return deadline; (3) 2-week deadline; (4) 4-week deadline; (5) problem-solving planning tool (no deadline); (6) planning tool plus 1-week deadline; (7) planning tool plus 2-week deadline; (8) planning tool plus 4-week deadline. The primary outcome was the proportion of FITs returned correctly completed to be tested by the colorectal screening laboratory providing a positive or negative result, within 3 months of the FIT being mailed to a person. The trial is registered with <ce:inter-ref id="interrefs10" xlink:href="http://clinicaltrials.gov">clinicaltrials.gov</ce:inter-ref>, <ce:inter-ref id="interrefs20" xlink:href="ctgov:NCT05408169">NCT05408169</ce:inter-ref>. Findings From June 19 to July 3, 2022, 5000 participants were randomly assigned per group, with no loss to follow-up. 266 participants met the exclusion criteria; 39 734 (19 909 [50·1%] female and 19 825 [49·9%] male; mean age 61·2 [SD 7·3] years) were included in the analysis. The control group (no deadline, and no planning tool) had a 3-month FIT return rate of 66·0% (3275 of 4965). The highest return rate was seen with a 2-week deadline without the planning tool (3376 [68·0%] of 4964; difference vs control of 2·0% [95% CI 0·2 to 3·9]). The lowest return rate was seen when the planning tool was given without a deadline (3134 [63·2%] of 4958; difference vs control of –2·8% [–4·7 to –0·8]). The primary analysis, assuming independent effects of the two interventions, suggested a clear positive effect of giving a deadline (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] 1·13 [1·08 to 1·19]; p<0·0001), and no effect for use of a planning tool (aOR 0·98 [0·94 to 1·02]; p=0·34), though this was complicated by an interaction between the two interventions (p <ce:inf>interaction</ce:inf>=0·0041); among those who were given a deadline, there was no evidence that receiving a planning tool had any effect (aOR 1·02 [0·97 to 1·07]; p=0·53), but in the absence of a deadline, giving the planning tool appeared detrimental (aOR 0·88 [0·81 to 0·96]; p=0·0030). In the absence of the planning tool, there was little evidence that the use of a deadline had any effect on return rates at 3 months. However, secondary analyses indicated that the use of deadlines boosted earlier return rates (within 1, 2, and 4 weeks, particularly around the time of the deadline), and reduced the need to issue a reminder letter after 6 weeks, with no evidence that the planning tool had any positive impact, and without evidence of interactions between interventions. Interpretation Adding a single sentence suggesting a deadline for FIT return in the invitation letter to FIT colorectal screening resulted in more timely FIT return and reduced the need to issue reminder letters. This is a highly cost-effective intervention that could be easily implemented in routine practice. A planning tool had no positive effect on FIT return. Funding Scottish Government and Cancer Research UK. | |
| 651 | 4 | |a Scotland | |
| 651 | 4 | |a United Kingdom--UK | |
| 653 | |a Problem solving | ||
| 653 | |a Goal setting | ||
| 653 | |a Planning | ||
| 653 | |a Cancer | ||
| 653 | |a Intervention | ||
| 653 | |a Colorectal carcinoma | ||
| 653 | |a Randomization | ||
| 653 | |a Colorectal cancer | ||
| 653 | |a Medical screening | ||
| 653 | |a Deadlines | ||
| 653 | |a Health services | ||
| 653 | |a Cancer screening | ||
| 653 | |a Consent | ||
| 653 | |a Social | ||
| 700 | 1 | |a Young, Ben |u School of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Murphy, Marie K |u School of Medicine, Dentistry, and Nursing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Duklas, Patrycja |u Robertson Centre for Biostatistics, School of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK | |
| 700 | 1 | |a McConnachie, Alex |u Robertson Centre for Biostatistics, School of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Hollands, Gareth J |u EPPI Centre, UCL Social Research Institute, University College London, London, UK | |
| 700 | 1 | |a McCowan, Colin |u School of Medicine, University of St Andrews, St Andrews, UK | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Macdonald, Sara |u School of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK | |
| 700 | 1 | |a O'Carroll, Ronan E |u Division of Psychology, University of Stirling, Stirling, UK | |
| 700 | 1 | |a O'Connor, Rory C |u School of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow, UK | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Steele, Robert J C |u School of Medicine, University of Dundee, Dundee, UK | |
| 773 | 0 | |t The Lancet |g vol. 405, no. 10484 (Mar 29, 2025), p. 1081 | |
| 786 | 0 | |d ProQuest |t Science Database | |
| 856 | 4 | 1 | |3 Citation/Abstract |u https://www.proquest.com/docview/3182235546/abstract/embedded/75I98GEZK8WCJMPQ?source=fedsrch |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |3 Full Text |u https://www.proquest.com/docview/3182235546/fulltext/embedded/75I98GEZK8WCJMPQ?source=fedsrch |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |3 Full Text - PDF |u https://www.proquest.com/docview/3182235546/fulltextPDF/embedded/75I98GEZK8WCJMPQ?source=fedsrch |