TY - JOUR
T1 - A Randomized Controlled Trial Testing Provision of Fecal and Blood Test Options on Participation for Colorectal Cancer Screening
AU - Symonds, Erin L.
AU - Hughes, Donna
AU - Flight, Ingrid
AU - Woodman, Richard
AU - Chen, Gang
AU - Ratcliffe, Julie
AU - Pedersen, Susanne K.
AU - Fraser, Robert J.L.
AU - Wilson, Carlene J.
AU - Young, Graeme P.
PY - 2019/9/1
Y1 - 2019/9/1
N2 - Suboptimal participation is commonly observed in colorectal cancer screening programs utilizing fecal tests. This randomized controlled trial tested whether the offer of a blood test as either a "rescue" strategy for fecal test nonparticipants or an upfront choice, could improve participation. A total of 1,800 people (50-74 years) were randomized to control, rescue, or choice groups (n = 600/group). All were mailed a fecal immunochemical test (FIT, OC-Sensor, Eiken Chemical Company) and a survey assessing awareness of the screening tests. The rescue group was offered a blood test 12 weeks after FIT nonparticipation. The choice group was given the opportunity to choose to do a blood test (Colvera, Clinical Genomics) instead of FIT at baseline. Participation with any test after 24 weeks was not significantly different between groups (control, 37.8%; rescue, 36.9%; choice, 33.8%; P > 0.05). When the rescue strategy was offered after 12 weeks, an additional 6.5% participated with the blood test, which was greater than the blood test participation when offered as an upfront choice (1.5%; P < 0.001). Awareness of the tests was greater for FIT than for blood (96.2% vs. 23.1%; P < 0.0001). In a population familiar with FIT screening, provision of a blood test either as a rescue of FIT nonparticipants or as an upfront choice did not increase overall participation. This might reflect a lack of awareness of the blood test for screening compared with FIT.
AB - Suboptimal participation is commonly observed in colorectal cancer screening programs utilizing fecal tests. This randomized controlled trial tested whether the offer of a blood test as either a "rescue" strategy for fecal test nonparticipants or an upfront choice, could improve participation. A total of 1,800 people (50-74 years) were randomized to control, rescue, or choice groups (n = 600/group). All were mailed a fecal immunochemical test (FIT, OC-Sensor, Eiken Chemical Company) and a survey assessing awareness of the screening tests. The rescue group was offered a blood test 12 weeks after FIT nonparticipation. The choice group was given the opportunity to choose to do a blood test (Colvera, Clinical Genomics) instead of FIT at baseline. Participation with any test after 24 weeks was not significantly different between groups (control, 37.8%; rescue, 36.9%; choice, 33.8%; P > 0.05). When the rescue strategy was offered after 12 weeks, an additional 6.5% participated with the blood test, which was greater than the blood test participation when offered as an upfront choice (1.5%; P < 0.001). Awareness of the tests was greater for FIT than for blood (96.2% vs. 23.1%; P < 0.0001). In a population familiar with FIT screening, provision of a blood test either as a rescue of FIT nonparticipants or as an upfront choice did not increase overall participation. This might reflect a lack of awareness of the blood test for screening compared with FIT.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85071785882&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://purl.org/au-research/grants/
U2 - 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-19-0089
DO - 10.1158/1940-6207.CAPR-19-0089
M3 - Article
C2 - 31266825
AN - SCOPUS:85071785882
SN - 1940-6215
VL - 12
SP - 631
EP - 639
JO - Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.)
JF - Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.)
IS - 9
ER -