Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/1893/30114
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorSmith, Samuel Gen_UK
dc.contributor.authorWardle, Janeen_UK
dc.contributor.authorAtkin, Wendyen_UK
dc.contributor.authorRaine, Rosalinden_UK
dc.contributor.authorMcGregor, Lesley Men_UK
dc.contributor.authorVart, Gemmaen_UK
dc.contributor.authorMorris, Steveen_UK
dc.contributor.authorDuffy, Stephen Wen_UK
dc.contributor.authorMoss, Susanen_UK
dc.contributor.authorHackshaw, Allanen_UK
dc.contributor.authorHalloran, Stephenen_UK
dc.contributor.authorKralj-Hans, Inesen_UK
dc.contributor.authorHowe, Rosemaryen_UK
dc.contributor.authorSnowball, Juliaen_UK
dc.contributor.authorHandley, Grahamen_UK
dc.date.accessioned2019-09-20T00:01:44Z-
dc.date.available2019-09-20T00:01:44Z-
dc.date.issued2017-08-14en_UK
dc.identifier.other543en_UK
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1893/30114-
dc.description.abstractBackground Uptake of colorectal cancer screening is low in the English NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP). Participation in screening is strongly associated with socioeconomic status. The aim of this study was to determine whether a supplementary leaflet providing the ‘gist’ of guaiac-based Faecal Occult Blood test (gFOBt) screening for colorectal cancer could reduce the socioeconomic status (SES) gradient in uptake in the English NHS BCSP. Methods The trial was integrated within routine BCSP operations in November 2012. Using a cluster randomised controlled design all adults aged 59–74 years who were being routinely invited to complete the gFOBt were randomised based on day of invitation. The Index of Multiple Deprivation was used to create SES quintiles. The control group received the standard information booklet (‘SI’). The intervention group received the SI booklet and the Gist leaflet (‘SI + Gist’) which had been designed to help people with lower literacy engage with the invitation. Blinding of hubs was not possible and invited subjects were not made aware of a comparator condition. The primary outcome was the gradient in uptake across IMD quintiles. Results In November 2012, 163,525 individuals were allocated to either the ‘SI’ intervention (n = 79,104) or the ‘SI + Gist’ group (n = 84,421). Overall uptake was similar between the intervention and control groups (SI: 57.3% and SI + Gist: 57.6%; OR = 1.02, 95% CI: 0.92–1.13, p = 0.77). Uptake was 42.0% (SI) vs. 43.0% (SI + Gist) in the most deprived quintile and 65.6% vs. 65.8% in the least deprived quintile (interaction p = 0.48). The SES gradient in uptake was similar between the study groups within age, gender, hub and screening round sub-groups. Conclusions Providing supplementary simplified information in addition to the standard information booklet did not reduce the SES gradient in uptake in the NHS BCSP. The effectiveness of the Gist leaflet when used alone should be explored in future research.en_UK
dc.language.isoenen_UK
dc.publisherBMCen_UK
dc.relationSmith 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 (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, Art. No.: 543. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12885-017-3512-1en_UK
dc.rightsThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.en_UK
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/en_UK
dc.subjectCanceren_UK
dc.subjectoncologyen_UK
dc.subjectsocioeconomic inequalitiesen_UK
dc.subjectColorectal cancer screeningen_UK
dc.subjectFuzzy trace theoryen_UK
dc.subjectGisten_UK
dc.titleReducing the socioeconomic gradient in uptake of the NHS bowel cancer screening Programme using a simplified supplementary information leaflet: a cluster-randomised trialen_UK
dc.typeJournal Articleen_UK
dc.identifier.doi10.1186/s12885-017-3512-1en_UK
dc.identifier.pmid28806955en_UK
dc.citation.jtitleBMC Canceren_UK
dc.citation.issn1471-2407en_UK
dc.citation.volume17en_UK
dc.citation.publicationstatusPublisheden_UK
dc.citation.peerreviewedRefereeden_UK
dc.type.statusVoR - Version of Recorden_UK
dc.contributor.funderNational Institute for Health Researchen_UK
dc.citation.date14/08/2017en_UK
dc.description.notesAdditional co-authors: Richard F Logan, Sandra Rainbow, Steve Smith, Mary Thomas, Nicholas Counsell and Christian von Wagneren_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationPsychosocial Oncology and Clinical Practice Research Group, University of Leedsen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity College Londonen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationImperial College Londonen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity College Londonen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity College Londonen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity of Londonen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity College Londonen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationQueen Mary, University of Londonen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationQueen Mary, University of Londonen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity College Londonen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationRoyal Surrey County Hospital NHS Foundation Trusten_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationKing's College Londonen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationImperial College Londonen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationRoyal Surrey County Hospital NHS Foundation Trusten_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationGateshead Health NHS Foundation Trusten_UK
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000408031800002en_UK
dc.identifier.scopusid2-s2.0-85027247509en_UK
dc.identifier.wtid1399364en_UK
dc.contributor.orcid0000-0002-7093-1391en_UK
dc.date.accepted2017-07-28en_UK
dcterms.dateAccepted2017-07-28en_UK
dc.date.filedepositdate2019-09-17en_UK
rioxxterms.apcnot requireden_UK
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_UK
rioxxterms.versionVoRen_UK
local.rioxx.authorSmith, Samuel G|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorWardle, Jane|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorAtkin, Wendy|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorRaine, Rosalind|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorMcGregor, Lesley M|0000-0002-7093-1391en_UK
local.rioxx.authorVart, Gemma|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorMorris, Steve|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorDuffy, Stephen W|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorMoss, Susan|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorHackshaw, Allan|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorHalloran, Stephen|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorKralj-Hans, Ines|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorHowe, Rosemary|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorSnowball, Julia|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorHandley, Graham|en_UK
local.rioxx.projectProject ID unknown|National Institute for Health Research|http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000272en_UK
local.rioxx.freetoreaddate2019-09-19en_UK
local.rioxx.licencehttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/|2019-09-19|en_UK
local.rioxx.filenames12885-017-3512-1.pdfen_UK
local.rioxx.filecount1en_UK
local.rioxx.source1471-2407en_UK
Appears in Collections:Psychology Journal Articles

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
s12885-017-3512-1.pdfFulltext - Published Version419.47 kBAdobe PDFView/Open


This item is protected by original copyright



A file in this item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons

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

The metadata of the records in the Repository are available under the CC0 public domain dedication: No Rights Reserved https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/

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