Colorectal CancerNCT05609396
Interventions to Improve Bowel Cancer Screening Uptake in Ireland: a 2x2 Factorial Trial
A study testing Behaviorally enhanced reminder letter in people with Colorectal Cancer, run by Dublin City University at 1 site in Ireland.
Trial summary
High uptake is vital to population-based screening. BowelScreen (Irelands national organised population-based colorectal cancer screening programme) has not achieved recommended screening uptake targets. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 60 to 64 yearsHealthy volunteers can take part
- Conditions the study is for
- Colorectal Cancer
- What is being tested?
- Behaviorally enhanced reminder letter
- Type of treatment
- Lifestyle or therapy programme
- Could I receive a placebo?
- No, everyone receives an active treatment
- How many people
- 8,734 participants
- Where
- 1 siteIreland
- Study dates
- 3 May 2022to 24 Oct 2022
- Phase
- Interventional
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 60 to 64 years
- All sexes
- Healthy volunteers accepted
- Adult
Who may be able to join
- All new invitees of Irelands National BowelScreen Programme Individuals aged 60-64
Who cannot join
- All individuals who are within the screening age range of Irelands national bowel screening programme are eligible to be included.
Trial locations and contacts
1 site in 1 country.
About this study
High uptake is vital to population-based screening. BowelScreen (Irelands national organised population-based colorectal cancer screening programme) has not achieved recommended screening uptake targets. In Ireland sending the test kit in the screening invitation reminder may be an important strategy in targeting non-responders and would address a key difference between Ireland and other international screening programmes with higher uptake. In addition, few studies have focused on behavioural barriers to screening participation. Founded upon the MRC Guidelines for the Development of Complex Interventions, our systematic, theoretically-informed investigation of FIT screening participation has begun to identify behavioural antecedents to screening participation in Ireland. This study will implement a multilevel evidence-based, theoretically-informed intervention which includes the automatic inclusion of the test kit in the screening reminder, alone and in combination with an intervention to influence individuals' screening participation. This multilevel intervention will provide recommendations for the screening invitation delivery, potentially bringing the programme closer to recommended uptake targets (50%) and in the long-term influence reductions in bowel cancer incidence and mortality in Ireland.
Read the detailed description
To achieve population-level health gains, colorectal cancer screening programmes require high uptake. Guidelines recommend uptake of 65%-75%. In Ireland, faecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based screening uptake is considerably lower than this (around 40%), despite FIT being recommended as the screening test of choice given its potential to deliver higher uptake than other tests. As well as being suboptimal overall, uptake in Ireland is significantly lower among males and lower socioeconomic groups the very groups at higher underlying risk of colorectal cancer. While improving overall uptake is important, focus is also needed on reducing differentials in uptake; left unchecked these may lead to further disparities in health outcomes among those most at risk.
The main difference between Ireland's screening programme and programmes with higher uptake is that BowelScreen does not send the test kit with the screening invitation: invitees are required to contact a call-centre, consent to participate and request the kit. Uptake in Ireland is 10-30% lower than Scotland, the Netherlands and England and, indeed, in a pilot screening programme in Dublin that also sent the test automatically.
Internationally, various strategies to improve uptake have been tested. Some studies report increases using advance notification letters, postal mailing of home-based testing kits, and telephone contacts but many studies have been negative. Recent UK research points to potential in intervening among non-responders to the initial screening invitation, but few intervention studies have focussed on non-responders. An important limitation of existing studies is that most investigators failed to base their interventions on an understanding of what influences individuals' decisions about screening participation/non-participation.
A range of barriers to uptake have been identified and include fatalism, poor knowledge, being poorly informed about cancer and screening and holding negative attitudes, beliefs and emotions towards FIT screening. Following the MRC Framework for the Development of Complex Interventions and being theoretically informed, this work has the explicit intention of informing future interventions.
This proposal seeks to test efficacy in increasing uptake of two interventions among non responders: 1) including a test kit with the current reminder, and 2) an evidence-based and theoretically informed behavioural intervention (e.g. modified reminder letter, modified accompanying leaflet).
- Conditions
- Colorectal Cancer
- Being tested
- Behaviorally enhanced reminder letter
- Keywords
- colorectal cancer, Fecal Immunochemical test, cancer screening, Uptake, Participation
- Medical subject headings
- Colorectal Neoplasms
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Behaviorally enhanced reminder letterBehavioural
Also called Direct mailing of FIT test kit, Behaviorally enhanced reminder letter and direct mailing of FIT kit
Behavioral interventions to increase FIT-based colorectal cancer screening uptake
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| Usual care | No intervention | Standard reminder letter only |
| Enhanced reminder letter only | Experimental | Behaviorally enhanced reminder letter Receives: Behavioral: Behaviorally enhanced reminder letter |
| Usual care plus test kit | Experimental | Standard reminder letter plus test kit Receives: Behavioral: Behaviorally enhanced reminder letter |
| Enhanced reminder plus test kit | Experimental | Behaviorally enhanced reminder letter plus test kit Receives: Behavioral: Behaviorally enhanced reminder letter |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
Uptake
Participation rate in each arm
Measured: 3 months from intervention delivery
Secondary outcomes (1)
Uptake by deprivation, sex and age
Participation rate in each arm by deprivation, sex and age
Measured: 3 months from intervention delivery
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted8 Nov 2022
- Study start3 May 2022
- Primary completion24 Oct 2022
- Study completion24 Oct 2022
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Publications (24)Papers the sponsor has linked to this study.
- Other trials for Colorectal CancerStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Interventional
- Phase
- Phase N/A
- Primary purpose
- Screening
- Allocation
- Non-randomised
- Intervention model
- Factorial
- Model description
- This study is a 2x2 factorial design non-randomised control trial. This design will test main effects of each intervention and investigate whether the two interventions interact (25). Individuals between the ages of 60-62 (new invitees) will be sampled from invitees who do not respond to the initial screening invitation and allocated to one of four trial arms using batch randomisation. The four trial arms will be: 1. Usual care - Standard reminder and no test kit 2. Standard reminder plus test kit 3. Theoretically informed behavioural intervention (modified reminder letter) at reminder and no test kit 4. Theoretically informed behavioural intervention at reminder with test kit The main effect of the test kit is estimated by comparing 2+4 vs 1+3; main effect of behavioural intervention is estimated from 3+4 vs 1+2.
- Masking
- Single blind
- Who is masked
- Participant
- Enrolment
- 8,734 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Dublin City University
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- The National Screening Service, Newcastle University, University College, London, University of Dublin, Trinity College
- Responsible party
- Principal investigator, Nicholas Clarke, Dublin City University
- Investigators
- Nicholas Clarke, PhD, Principal investigator, DCU
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05609396
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- BSA_012
- Status last verified
- Nov 2022
- First submitted
- 1 Nov 2022
- Last updated
- 14 Nov 2022
- Results posted
- No
- Data monitoring committee
- No
- FDA-regulated drug
- No
- FDA-regulated device
- No
- Individual data sharing
- No
Publications
Weller DP, Patnick J, McIntosh HM, Dietrich AJ. Uptake in cancer screening programmes. Lancet Oncol. 2009 Jul;10(7):693-9. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(09)70145-7.
PubMed 19573798Essink-Bot ML, Dekker E. Equal access to colorectal cancer screening. Lancet. 2016 Feb 20;387(10020):724-6. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01221-0. Epub 2015 Dec 9. No abstract available.
PubMed 26680216European Colorectal Cancer Screening Guidelines Working Group; von Karsa L, Patnick J, Segnan N, Atkin W, Halloran S, Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, Malila N, Minozzi S, Moss S, Quirke P, Steele RJ, Vieth M, Aabakken L, Altenhofen L, Ancelle-Park R, Antoljak N, Anttila A, Armaroli P, Arrossi S, Austoker J, Banzi R, Bellisario C, Blom J, Brenner H, Bretthauer M, Camargo Cancela M, Costamagna G, Cuzick J, Dai M, Daniel J, Dekker E, Delicata N, Ducarroz S, Erfkamp H, Espinas JA, Faivre J, Faulds Wood L, Flugelman A, Frkovic-Grazio S, Geller B, Giordano L, Grazzini G, Green J, Hamashima C, Herrmann C, Hewitson P, Hoff G, Holten I, Jover R, Kaminski MF, Kuipers EJ, Kurtinaitis J, Lambert R, Launoy G, Lee W, Leicester R, Leja M, Lieberman D, Lignini T, Lucas E, Lynge E, Madai S, Marinho J, Maucec Zakotnik J, Minoli G, Monk C, Morais A, Muwonge R, Nadel M, Neamtiu L, Peris Tuser M, Pignone M, Pox C, Primic-Zakelj M, Psaila J, Rabeneck L, Ransohoff D, Rasmussen M, Regula J, Ren J, Rennert G, Rey J, Riddell RH, Risio M, Rodrigues V, Saito H, Sauvaget C, Scharpantgen A, Schmiegel W, Senore C, Siddiqi M, Sighoko D, Smith R, Smith S, Suchanek S, Suonio E, Tong W, Tornberg S, Van Cutsem E, Vignatelli L, Villain P, Voti L, Watanabe H, Watson J, Winawer S, Young G, Zaksas V, Zappa M, Valori R. European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis: overview and introduction to the full supplement publication. Endoscopy. 2013;45(1):51-9. doi: 10.1055/s-0032-1325997. Epub 2012 Dec 4.
PubMed 23212726BowelScreen. BowelScreen: Programme Statistical Bulletin 2016 - 2017 [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2019 Oct 29]. Available from: http://www.screeningservice.ie/publications/BowelScreen_statistical_bulletin_2016-2017_FINAL%203_7_19.pdf
Allison JE, Fraser CG, Halloran SP, Young GP. Population screening for colorectal cancer means getting FIT: the past, present, and future of colorectal cancer screening using the fecal immunochemical test for hemoglobin (FIT). Gut Liver. 2014 Mar;8(2):117-30. doi: 10.5009/gnl.2014.8.2.117. Epub 2014 Mar 11.
PubMed 24672652Digby J, McDonald PJ, Strachan JA, Libby G, Steele RJ, Fraser CG. Use of a faecal immunochemical test narrows current gaps in uptake for sex, age and deprivation in a bowel cancer screening programme. J Med Screen. 2013 Jun;20(2):80-5. doi: 10.1177/0969141313497197. Epub 2013 Jul 18.
PubMed 24009088Vart G, Banzi R, Minozzi S. Comparing participation rates between immunochemical and guaiac faecal occult blood tests: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Prev Med. 2012 Aug;55(2):87-92. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2012.05.006. Epub 2012 May 23.
PubMed 22634386Clarke N, Sharp L, Osborne A, Kearney PM. Comparison of uptake of colorectal cancer screening based on fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) in males and females: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2015 Jan;24(1):39-47. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-14-0774. Epub 2014 Nov 6.
PubMed 25378366Clarke N, McNamara D, Kearney PM, O'Morain CA, Shearer N, Sharp L. The role of area-level deprivation and gender in participation in population-based faecal immunochemical test (FIT) colorectal cancer screening. Prev Med. 2016 Dec;93:198-203. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2016.10.012. Epub 2016 Oct 18.
PubMed 27765660Wardle J, Robb K, Vernon S, Waller J. Screening for prevention and early diagnosis of cancer. Am Psychol. 2015 Feb-Mar;70(2):119-33. doi: 10.1037/a0037357.
PubMed 25730719Clarke N, Sharp L, O'Leary E, Richardson N. A report on the excess burden of cancer among men in the Republic of Ireland. 2013 [cited 2015 Aug 14]; Available from: https://www.lenus.ie/hse/handle/10147/316719
NHS Highland. DPH Annual Report 2019 and appendices [Internet]. Scotland; 2019 [cited 2020 Jan 17]. Available from: https://www.nhshighland.scot.nhs.uk/Publications/Documents/DPH-Annual-Report-2019-and-appendices.pdf
Douma LN, Uiters E, Timmermans DR. The Dutch public are positive about the colorectal cancer-screening programme, but is this a well-informed opinion? BMC Public Health. 2016 Nov 29;16(1):1208. doi: 10.1186/s12889-016-3870-7.
PubMed 27899154Hirst Y, Stoffel S, Baio G, McGregor L, von Wagner C. Uptake of the English Bowel (Colorectal) Cancer Screening Programme: an update 5 years after the full roll-out. Eur J Cancer. 2018 Nov;103:267-273. doi: 10.1016/j.ejca.2018.07.135. Epub 2018 Sep 7.
PubMed 30196989McNamara D, Leen R, Seng-Lee C, Shearer N, Crotty P, Neary P, Walsh P, Boran G, O'Morain C. Sustained participation, colonoscopy uptake and adenoma detection rates over two rounds of the Tallaght-Trinity College colorectal cancer screening programme with the faecal immunological test. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2014 Dec;26(12):1415-21. doi: 10.1097/MEG.0000000000000207.
PubMed 25244415
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 14 Nov 2022. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Interventions to Improve Bowel Cancer Screening Uptake in Ireland: a 2x2 Factorial Trial
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT05609396
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- BSA_012
- Conditions
- Colorectal Cancer
- Keywords
- colorectal cancer, Fecal Immunochemical test, cancer screening, Uptake, Participation
- Study type
- Interventional
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 8,734 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Dublin City UniversityUniversity, hospital or other
- Collaborators
- The National Screening Service, Newcastle University, University College, London, University of Dublin, Trinity College
- Study start
- 3 May 2022 (actual)
- Primary completion
- 24 Oct 2022 (actual)
- Study completion
- 24 Oct 2022 (actual)
- First posted
- 8 Nov 2022 (actual)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
High uptake is vital to population-based screening. BowelScreen (Irelands national organised population-based colorectal cancer screening programme) has not achieved recommended screening uptake targets. In Ireland sending the test kit in the screening invitation reminder may be an important strategy in targeting non-responders and would address a key difference between Ireland and other international screening programmes with higher uptake. In addition, few studies have focused on behavioural barriers to screening participation. Founded upon the MRC Guidelines for the Development of Complex Interventions, our systematic, theoretically-informed investigation of FIT screening participation has begun to identify behavioural antecedents to screening participation in Ireland. This study will implement a multilevel evidence-based, theoretically-informed intervention which includes the automatic inclusion of the test kit in the screening reminder, alone and in combination with an intervention to influence individuals' screening participation. This multilevel intervention will provide recommendations for the screening invitation delivery, potentially bringing the programme closer to recommended uptake targets (50%) and in the long-term influence reductions in bowel cancer incidence and mortality in Ireland.
Detailed description
To achieve population-level health gains, colorectal cancer screening programmes require high uptake. Guidelines recommend uptake of 65%-75%. In Ireland, faecal immunochemical test (FIT)-based screening uptake is considerably lower than this (around 40%), despite FIT being recommended as the screening test of choice given its potential to deliver higher uptake than other tests. As well as being suboptimal overall, uptake in Ireland is significantly lower among males and lower socioeconomic groups the very groups at higher underlying risk of colorectal cancer. While improving overall uptake is important, focus is also needed on reducing differentials in uptake; left unchecked these may lead to further disparities in health outcomes among those most at risk.
The main difference between Ireland's screening programme and programmes with higher uptake is that BowelScreen does not send the test kit with the screening invitation: invitees are required to contact a call-centre, consent to participate and request the kit. Uptake in Ireland is 10-30% lower than Scotland, the Netherlands and England and, indeed, in a pilot screening programme in Dublin that also sent the test automatically.
Internationally, various strategies to improve uptake have been tested. Some studies report increases using advance notification letters, postal mailing of home-based testing kits, and telephone contacts but many studies have been negative. Recent UK research points to potential in intervening among non-responders to the initial screening invitation, but few intervention studies have focussed on non-responders. An important limitation of existing studies is that most investigators failed to base their interventions on an understanding of what influences individuals' decisions about screening participation/non-participation.
A range of barriers to uptake have been identified and include fatalism, poor knowledge, being poorly informed about cancer and screening and holding negative attitudes, beliefs and emotions towards FIT screening. Following the MRC Framework for the Development of Complex Interventions and being theoretically informed, this work has the explicit intention of informing future interventions.
This proposal seeks to test efficacy in increasing uptake of two interventions among non responders: 1) including a test kit with the current reminder, and 2) an evidence-based and theoretically informed behavioural intervention (e.g. modified reminder letter, modified accompanying leaflet).
Study design
- Primary purpose
- Screening
- Allocation
- Non-randomised
- Intervention model
- Factorial
- Masking
- Single blind (participant)
- Number of arms
- 4
- Model description
- This study is a 2x2 factorial design non-randomised control trial. This design will test main effects of each intervention and investigate whether the two interventions interact (25). Individuals between the ages of 60-62 (new invitees) will be sampled from invitees who do not respond to the initial screening invitation and allocated to one of four trial arms using batch randomisation. The four trial arms will be: 1. Usual care - Standard reminder and no test kit 2. Standard reminder plus test kit 3. Theoretically informed behavioural intervention (modified reminder letter) at reminder and no test kit 4. Theoretically informed behavioural intervention at reminder with test kit The main effect of the test kit is estimated by comparing 2+4 vs 1+3; main effect of behavioural intervention is estimated from 3+4 vs 1+2.
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| Usual care | No intervention | –Standard reminder letter only |
| Enhanced reminder letter only | Experimental | Behavioral: Behaviorally enhanced reminder letterBehaviorally enhanced reminder letter |
| Usual care plus test kit | Experimental | Behavioral: Behaviorally enhanced reminder letterStandard reminder letter plus test kit |
| Enhanced reminder plus test kit | Experimental | Behavioral: Behaviorally enhanced reminder letterBehaviorally enhanced reminder letter plus test kit |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 60 to 64 years
- Sex
- All
- Healthy volunteers
- Accepted
- Age groups
- Adult
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- All new invitees of Irelands National BowelScreen Programme Individuals aged 60-64
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- All individuals who are within the screening age range of Irelands national bowel screening programme are eligible to be included.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Behaviorally enhanced reminder letterAlso: Direct mailing of FIT test kit, Behaviorally enhanced reminder letter and direct mailing of FIT kitBehavioral interventions to increase FIT-based colorectal cancer screening uptake | Behavioural | Enhanced reminder letter only, Enhanced reminder plus test kit, Usual care plus test kit |
Primary outcome
Uptake
Time frame: 3 months from intervention delivery
Participation rate in each arm
1 secondary outcome
Uptake by deprivation, sex and age
Time frame: 3 months from intervention delivery
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 14 Nov 2022.
- Background: PubMed 19573798Weller DP, Patnick J, McIntosh HM, Dietrich AJ. Uptake in cancer screening programmes. Lancet Oncol. 2009 Jul;10(7):693-9. doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(09)70145-7.
- Background: PubMed 26680216Essink-Bot ML, Dekker E. Equal access to colorectal cancer screening. Lancet. 2016 Feb 20;387(10020):724-6. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01221-0. Epub 2015 Dec 9. No abstract available.
- Background: PubMed 23212726European Colorectal Cancer Screening Guidelines Working Group; von Karsa L, Patnick J, Segnan N, Atkin W, Halloran S, Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, Malila N, Minozzi S, Moss S, Quirke P, Steele RJ, Vieth M, Aabakken L, Altenhofen L, Ancelle-Park R, Antoljak N, Anttila A, Armaroli P, Arrossi S, Austoker J, Banzi R, Bellisario C, Blom J, Brenner H, Bretthauer M, Camargo Cancela M, Costamagna G, Cuzick J, Dai M, Daniel J, Dekker E, Delicata N, Ducarroz S, Erfkamp H, Espinas JA, Faivre J, Faulds Wood L, Flugelman A, Frkovic-Grazio S, Geller B, Giordano L, Grazzini G, Green J, Hamashima C, Herrmann C, Hewitson P, Hoff G, Holten I, Jover R, Kaminski MF, Kuipers EJ, Kurtinaitis J, Lambert R, Launoy G, Lee W, Leicester R, Leja M, Lieberman D, Lignini T, Lucas E, Lynge E, Madai S, Marinho J, Maucec Zakotnik J, Minoli G, Monk C, Morais A, Muwonge R, Nadel M, Neamtiu L, Peris Tuser M, Pignone M, Pox C, Primic-Zakelj M, Psaila J, Rabeneck L, Ransohoff D, Rasmussen M, Regula J, Ren J, Rennert G, Rey J, Riddell RH, Risio M, Rodrigues V, Saito H, Sauvaget C, Scharpantgen A, Schmiegel W, Senore C, Siddiqi M, Sighoko D, Smith R, Smith S, Suchanek S, Suonio E, Tong W, Tornberg S, Van Cutsem E, Vignatelli L, Villain P, Voti L, Watanabe H, Watson J, Winawer S, Young G, Zaksas V, Zappa M, Valori R. European guidelines for quality assurance in colorectal cancer screening and diagnosis: overview and introduction to the full supplement publication. Endoscopy. 2013;45(1):51-9. doi: 10.1055/s-0032-1325997. Epub 2012 Dec 4.
- BackgroundBowelScreen. BowelScreen: Programme Statistical Bulletin 2016 - 2017 [Internet]. 2018 [cited 2019 Oct 29]. Available from: http://www.screeningservice.ie/publications/BowelScreen_statistical_bulletin_2016-2017_FINAL%203_7_19.pdf
- Background: PubMed 24672652Allison JE, Fraser CG, Halloran SP, Young GP. Population screening for colorectal cancer means getting FIT: the past, present, and future of colorectal cancer screening using the fecal immunochemical test for hemoglobin (FIT). Gut Liver. 2014 Mar;8(2):117-30. doi: 10.5009/gnl.2014.8.2.117. Epub 2014 Mar 11.
- Background: PubMed 24009088Digby J, McDonald PJ, Strachan JA, Libby G, Steele RJ, Fraser CG. Use of a faecal immunochemical test narrows current gaps in uptake for sex, age and deprivation in a bowel cancer screening programme. J Med Screen. 2013 Jun;20(2):80-5. doi: 10.1177/0969141313497197. Epub 2013 Jul 18.
- Background: PubMed 22634386Vart G, Banzi R, Minozzi S. Comparing participation rates between immunochemical and guaiac faecal occult blood tests: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Prev Med. 2012 Aug;55(2):87-92. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2012.05.006. Epub 2012 May 23.
- Background: PubMed 25378366Clarke N, Sharp L, Osborne A, Kearney PM. Comparison of uptake of colorectal cancer screening based on fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) in males and females: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2015 Jan;24(1):39-47. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-14-0774. Epub 2014 Nov 6.
- Background: PubMed 27765660Clarke N, McNamara D, Kearney PM, O'Morain CA, Shearer N, Sharp L. The role of area-level deprivation and gender in participation in population-based faecal immunochemical test (FIT) colorectal cancer screening. Prev Med. 2016 Dec;93:198-203. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2016.10.012. Epub 2016 Oct 18.
- Background: PubMed 25730719Wardle J, Robb K, Vernon S, Waller J. Screening for prevention and early diagnosis of cancer. Am Psychol. 2015 Feb-Mar;70(2):119-33. doi: 10.1037/a0037357.
- BackgroundClarke N, Sharp L, O'Leary E, Richardson N. A report on the excess burden of cancer among men in the Republic of Ireland. 2013 [cited 2015 Aug 14]; Available from: https://www.lenus.ie/hse/handle/10147/316719
- BackgroundNHS Highland. DPH Annual Report 2019 and appendices [Internet]. Scotland; 2019 [cited 2020 Jan 17]. Available from: https://www.nhshighland.scot.nhs.uk/Publications/Documents/DPH-Annual-Report-2019-and-appendices.pdf
- Individual participant dataSharing planned: No
Related trials for Colorectal Cancer
Not yet recruitingPhase 1
Hepatic Artery Infusion of Carfilzomib in Participants With Liver Metastatic Disease Previously Treated With Hepatic Artery Infusion Pump Therapy
Colorectal Neoplasms, Neoplasms
Active, not recruiting
Streamlined Geriatric and Oncological Evaluation Based On IC Technology
Breast Cancer, Comorbidities and Coexisting Conditions
RecruitingObservational study
Pre- and On-treatment Multi-omics Profiling of Locally Advanced Rectal Cancer
Rectal Neoplasms
Enrolling by invitationObservational study
Natural History Study of Early Life Exposures in Agriculture (ELEA)
Prostate Cancer, Leukemia
RecruitingPhase 2
Tislelizumab in People With Colorectal Cancer
Colorectal Cancer
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
Nicholas Clarke, PhD principal investigator
DCU
1 site in 1 country: see every site and its status.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
A study testing Behaviorally enhanced reminder letter in people with Colorectal Cancer, run by Dublin City University at 1 site in Ireland.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 14 Nov 2022. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
Where is the study taking place?
The record lists 1 site in Ireland. Whether a site is taking part right now should be confirmed with that site. See every site.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
Uptake (time frame: 3 months from intervention delivery). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
On the ClinicalTrials.gov record for NCT05609396, which also lists 24 linked publications.
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 14 Nov 2022.