The effects of reminders for colorectal cancer screening: participation and inequality
- 165 Downloads
To investigate the effect of sending out reminders for colorectal cancer screening on socioeconomic and demographic inequalities in screening uptake.
All citizens aged 50–74 in Denmark are invited every 2 years for colorectal cancer screening. Non-participants receive an electronically distributed reminder. Data for these analyses were derived from national registers. Socioeconomic status was measured by income and educational level. Demographic variables included age, gender and marital status, and the analyses were stratified by immigration status. Logistic regression analyses were conducted to estimate the odds of non-participation for invited citizens and for reminded citizens divided by socioeconomic and demographic predictors.
Of 763,511 native Danes invited for screening from 2014 to 2015, 387,116 (50.70%) participated after the initial invitation and 133,470 after receiving a reminder. Differences in participation were present in relation to all subgroups among both the invited citizens and reminded citizens. Differences persisted after full model adjustments with reductions for demographic variables. Odds ratio (OR) for non-participation in the eldest age group was 0.32 (95% CI, 0.32; 0.33) before and 1.11 (95% CI 1, 0.08; 1.14) after the reminder, compared to those under 55 years. OR for the 4th income quartile was 0.54 (95% CI, 0.53; 0.55) before and 0.44 (95% CI, 0.43; 0.45) after the reminder, compared to 1st quartile.
Reminders increased the overall participation, and the inequalities in participation in relation to demographic factors were reduced after the distribution of reminders. The age differences were especially reduced. The inequalities in participation related to socioeconomic status were, however, slightly increased after reminder distribution.
KeywordsColorectal cancer screening Reminder Socioeconomic status Inequality Screening
Compliance with ethical standards
The current study was approved by the Danish Data Protection Agency (Ref. 2008-58-0028, 2016-34). All data in the study were linked and stored in computers held by Statistics Denmark. Data were made available with de-identified personal information. This study only publishes aggregated statistical analyses and results.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Retrospective anonymized register-based studies do not require written informed consent and ethical approval . This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
- 2.Santare D, Kojalo I, Huttunen T, Rikacovs S, Rucevskis P, Boka V, Leja M (2015) Improving uptake of screening for colorectal cancer: a study on invitation strategies and different test kit use. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol 27:536–543. https://doi.org/10.1097/MEG.0000000000000314 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 3.Kerrison RS, McGregor LM, Marshall S et al (2016) Use of a 12 months’ self-referral reminder to facilitate uptake of bowel scope (flexible sigmoidoscopy) screening in previous non-responders: a London-based feasibility study. Br J Cancer 114:751–758. https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2016.43 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 4.Wardle J, Von Wagner C, Kralj-Hans I et al (2016) 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. Lancet 387:751–759. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01154-X CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 11.von Wagner C, Baio G, Raine R, Snowball J, Morris S, Atkin W, Obichere A, Handley G, Logan RF, Rainbow S, Smith S, Halloran S, Wardle J (2011) Inequalities in participation in an organized national colorectal cancer screening programme: results from the first 2.6 million invitations in England. Int J Epidemiol 40:712–718. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyr008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 19.OECD (2013) OECD framework for statistics on the distribution of household income, consumption and wealth. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264194830-en. Accessed 22 Jun 2018
- 20.Danmarks Statistik (2016) Statistikdokumentation for Indvandrere og efterkommere 2016. http://www.dst.dk/da/Statistik/dokumentation/statistikdokumentation/indvandrere-og-efterkommere/indhold. Accessed 22 Jun 2018
- 21.R Core Team (2016) R: a language and environment for statistical computingGoogle Scholar
- 22.Raine R, Moss SM, Von Wagner C et al (2016) A national cluster-randomised controlled trial to examine the effect of enhanced reminders on the socioeconomic gradient in uptake in bowel cancer screening. Br J Cancer 115:1479–1486. https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2016.365 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 23.Smith SG, Wardle J, Atkin W, Raine R, McGregor LM, Vart G, Morris S, Duffy SW, Moss S, Hackshaw A, Halloran S, Kralj-Hans I, Howe R, Snowball J, Handley G, Logan RF, Rainbow S, Smith S, Thomas M, Counsell N, von Wagner C (2017) Reducing the socioeconomic gradient in uptake of the NHS bowel cancer screening programme using a simplified supplementary information leaflet: a cluster-randomised trial. BMC Cancer 17:1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-017-3512-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 26.Hirst Y, Skrobanski H, Kerrison RS, Kobayashi LC, Counsell N, Djedovic N, Ruwende J, Stewart M, von Wagner C (2017) Text-message Reminders in Colorectal Cancer Screening (TRICCS): a randomised controlled trial. Br J Cancer 116:1408–1414. https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2017.117 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 27.Gregory T, Cole SR, Wilson CJ, Flight IH, Zajac IT, Turnbull D, Young GP (2013) Exploring the validity of the continuum of resistance model for discriminating early from late and non-uptake of colorectal cancer screening: implications for the design of invitation and reminder letters. Int J Behav Med 20:572–581. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12529-012-9254-1 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar