Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
Appears in Collections:Psychology Journal Articles
Peer Review Status: Refereed
Title: Using specialist screening practitioners (SSPs) to increase uptake of bowel scope (flexible sigmoidoscopy) screening: results of a feasibility single-stage phase II randomised trial
Author(s): McGregor, Lesley M
Skrobanski, Hanna
Ritchie, Mary
Berkman, Lindy
Miller, Hayley
Freeman, Madeleine
Patel, Nishma
Morris, Stephen
Rees, Colin
von Wagner, Christian
Contact Email:
Issue Date: Feb-2019
Citation: McGregor LM, Skrobanski H, Ritchie M, Berkman L, Miller H, Freeman M, Patel N, Morris S, Rees C & von Wagner C (2019) Using specialist screening practitioners (SSPs) to increase uptake of bowel scope (flexible sigmoidoscopy) screening: results of a feasibility single-stage phase II randomised trial. BMJ open, 9, Art. No.: e023801.
Abstract: Objective To determine the feasibility of specialist screening practitioners (SSPs) offering patient navigation (PN) to facilitate uptake of bowel scope screening (BSS) among patients who do not confirm or attend their appointment. Design A single-stage phase II trial. Setting South Tyneside District Hospital, Tyne and Wear, England, UK. Participants Individuals invited for BSS at South Tyneside District Hospital during the 6-month recruitment period were invited to participate in the study. Intervention Consenting individuals were randomly assigned to either the PN intervention or usual care group in a 4:1 ratio. The intervention involved BSS non-attenders receiving a phone call from an SSP to elicit their reasons for non-attendance and offer educational, practical and emotional support as required. If requested by the patient, another BSS appointment was then scheduled. Primary outcome measure The number of non-attenders in the intervention group who were navigated and then rebooked and attended their new BSS appointment. Secondary outcome measures Barriers to BSS attendance, patient-reported outcomes including informed choice and satisfaction with BSS and the PN intervention, reasons for study non-participation, SSPs’ evaluation of the PN process and a cost analysis. Results Of those invited to take part (n=1050), 152 (14.5%) were randomised into the study: PN intervention=109; usual care=43. Most participants attended their BSS appointment (PN: 79.8%; control: 79.1%) leaving 22 eligible for PN: only two were successfully contacted. SSPs were confident in delivering PN, but were concerned that low BSS awareness and information overload may have deterred patients from taking part in the study. Difficulty contacting patients was reported as a burden to their workload. Conclusions PN, as implemented, was not a feasible intervention to increase BSS uptake in South Tyneside. Interventions to increase BSS awareness may be better suited to this population.
DOI Link: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023801
Rights: © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ. This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See:

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
e023801.full.pdfFulltext - Published Version693.66 kBAdobe PDFView/Open

This item is protected by original copyright

Items in the Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.

If you believe that any material held in STORRE infringes copyright, please contact providing details and we will remove the Work from public display in STORRE and investigate your claim.