Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/1893/30182
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorRaine, Rosalinden_UK
dc.contributor.authorDuffy, Stephen Wen_UK
dc.contributor.authorWardle, Janeen_UK
dc.contributor.authorSolmi, Francescaen_UK
dc.contributor.authorMorris, Stephenen_UK
dc.contributor.authorHowe, Rosemaryen_UK
dc.contributor.authorKralj-Hans, Inesen_UK
dc.contributor.authorSnowball, Juliaen_UK
dc.contributor.authorCounsell, Nicholasen_UK
dc.contributor.authorMoss, Sueen_UK
dc.contributor.authorHackshaw, Allanen_UK
dc.contributor.authorvon Wagner, Christianen_UK
dc.contributor.authorVart, Gemmaen_UK
dc.contributor.authorMcGregor, Lesley Men_UK
dc.contributor.authorSmith, Samuel Gen_UK
dc.date.accessioned2019-09-26T00:05:35Z-
dc.date.available2019-09-26T00:05:35Z-
dc.date.issued2016-02-02en_UK
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/1893/30182-
dc.description.abstractBackground: There is a socioeconomic gradient in the uptake of screening in the English NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP), potentially leading to inequalities in outcomes. We tested whether endorsement of bowel cancer screening by an individual’s general practice (GP endorsement; GPE) reduced this gradient. Methods: A cluster-randomised controlled trial. Over 20 days, individuals eligible for screening in England from 6480 participating general practices were randomly allocated to receive a GP-endorsed or the standard invitation letter. The primary outcome was the proportion of people adequately screened and its variation by quintile of Index of Multiple Deprivation. Results: We enrolled 265 434 individuals. Uptake was 58.2% in the intervention arm and 57.5% in the control arm. After adjusting for age, sex, hub and screening episode, GPE increased the overall odds of uptake (OR=1.07, 95% CI 1.04–1.10), but did not affect its socioeconomic gradient. We estimated that implementing GPE could result in up to 165 more people with high or intermediate risk colorectal adenomas and 61 cancers detected, and a small one-off cost to modify the standard invitation (£78 000). Conclusions: Although GPE did not improve its socioeconomic gradient, it offers a low-cost approach to enhancing overall screening uptake within the NHS BCSP.en_UK
dc.language.isoenen_UK
dc.publisherCancer Research UKen_UK
dc.relationRaine R, Duffy SW, Wardle J, Solmi F, Morris S, Howe R, Kralj-Hans I, Snowball J, Counsell N, Moss S, Hackshaw A, von Wagner C, Vart G, McGregor LM & Smith SG (2016) Impact of general practice endorsement on the social gradient in uptake in bowel cancer screening. British Journal of Cancer, 114, pp. 321-326. https://doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2015.413en_UK
dc.rightsFrom twelve months after its original publication, this work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-Share Alike 4.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/en_UK
dc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/en_UK
dc.subjectcancer epidemiologyen_UK
dc.subjectcancer screeningen_UK
dc.subjectcolorectal canceren_UK
dc.subjecteconomicsen_UK
dc.titleImpact of general practice endorsement on the social gradient in uptake in bowel cancer screeningen_UK
dc.typeJournal Articleen_UK
dc.identifier.doi10.1038/bjc.2015.413en_UK
dc.identifier.pmid26742011en_UK
dc.citation.jtitleBritish Journal of Canceren_UK
dc.citation.issn1532-1827en_UK
dc.citation.issn0007-0920en_UK
dc.citation.volume114en_UK
dc.citation.spage321en_UK
dc.citation.epage326en_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.date07/01/2016en_UK
dc.description.notesAdditional co-authors: Stephen Halloran, Graham Handley, Richard F Logan, Sandra Rainbow, Steve Smith, Mary C Thomas, Wendy Atkinen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity College Londonen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationQueen Mary, University of Londonen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity College Londonen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity College Londonen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity College Londonen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationImperial College Londonen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationKing's College Londonen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationRoyal Surrey County Hospital NHS Foundation Trusten_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity College Londonen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationQueen Mary, University of Londonen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity College Londonen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity College Londonen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity College Londonen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationUniversity College Londonen_UK
dc.contributor.affiliationQueen Mary, University of Londonen_UK
dc.identifier.isiWOS:000369223600012en_UK
dc.identifier.scopusid2-s2.0-84956746428en_UK
dc.identifier.wtid1399374en_UK
dc.contributor.orcid0000-0002-7093-1391en_UK
dc.date.accepted2015-10-24en_UK
dcterms.dateAccepted2015-10-24en_UK
dc.date.filedepositdate2019-09-13en_UK
rioxxterms.apcnot requireden_UK
rioxxterms.typeJournal Article/Reviewen_UK
rioxxterms.versionVoRen_UK
local.rioxx.authorRaine, Rosalind|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorDuffy, Stephen W|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorWardle, Jane|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorSolmi, Francesca|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorMorris, Stephen|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorHowe, Rosemary|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorKralj-Hans, Ines|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorSnowball, Julia|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorCounsell, Nicholas|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorMoss, Sue|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorHackshaw, Allan|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorvon Wagner, Christian|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorVart, Gemma|en_UK
local.rioxx.authorMcGregor, Lesley M|0000-0002-7093-1391en_UK
local.rioxx.authorSmith, Samuel G|en_UK
local.rioxx.projectProject ID unknown|National Institute for Health Research|http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100000272en_UK
local.rioxx.freetoreaddate2019-09-16en_UK
local.rioxx.licencehttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/|2019-09-16|en_UK
local.rioxx.filenamebjc2015413.pdfen_UK
local.rioxx.filecount1en_UK
local.rioxx.source1532-1827en_UK
Appears in Collections:Psychology Journal Articles

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
bjc2015413.pdfFulltext - Published Version145.1 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.