Department of Medicine, Flinders University, Bedford Park, 5042, Australia.
J Med Screen. 2010;17(1):19-24. doi: 10.1258/jms.2010.009101.
To investigate the effect of general practice (GP) and general practitioner (GPR) endorsement for faecal occult blood test (FOBT)-based screening on maintenance of participation in screening over four successive screening rounds.
South Australian residents aged > or = 50 years.
Random selection of four groups (n = 600 per group): one from the Commonwealth electoral roll (ER) and three from the combined patient lists of two collaborating GPs (GP1, GP2, GP3). Subjects were mailed offers to screen using a faecal immunochemical test over four successive rounds, spaced approximately 18 months apart. The GP1 and ER groups were invited to screen without any endorsement from a GPR or medical practice; GP2 invitees received an invitation indicating support for screening from their medical practice; and GP3 invitations were printed on practice letterhead and were signed by a GPR.
Multivariate analyses indicated that initial participation as well as re-participation over four successive rounds was significantly enhanced in the GP2 (39%, 42%, 45% and 44%) and GP3 groups (42%, 47%, 48% and 49%) relative to the ER group (33%, 37%, 40% and 36%). The analyses also indicated that 60-69 year olds were most likely to participate in all rounds (relative risk [RR] 1.49, 1.39, 1.43 and 1.25), and men were generally less likely to participate than women in all screening rounds (RR 0.86, 0.84, 0.80 and 0.83).
Associating a GPR or medical practice of recent contact with an invitation to screen achieves better participation and re-participation than does an invitation from a centralized screening unit. Furthermore, enhanced participation can be achieved by practice endorsement alone without requiring actual GPR involvement.
研究全科医生（GP）和全科医生（GPR）对粪便潜血试验（FOBT）为基础的筛查的认可对连续四轮筛查中参与度的维持效果。
南澳大利亚年龄大于或等于 50 岁的居民。
随机选择四组（每组 600 人）：一组来自联邦选举名单（ER），三组来自两个合作全科医生（GP1、GP2、GP3）的合并患者名单。通过四次连续轮次的粪便免疫化学试验，向参与者邮寄筛查邀请，间隔约 18 个月。GP1 和 ER 组受邀进行筛查，无需 GPR 或医疗实践的认可；GP2 邀请者收到了来自他们医疗实践的支持筛查的邀请；GP3 的邀请则印在实践信笺抬头，并由 GPR 签署。
多变量分析表明，与 ER 组（33%、37%、40%和 36%）相比，GP2（39%、42%、45%和 44%）和 GP3 组（42%、47%、48%和 49%）的初始参与以及连续四轮的再参与显著增加。分析还表明，60-69 岁的人最有可能参加所有轮次（相对风险 [RR] 1.49、1.39、1.43 和 1.25），而男性总体上比女性更不可能参加所有筛查轮次（RR 0.86、0.84、0.80 和 0.83）。
将最近接触的 GPR 或医疗实践与筛查邀请联系起来，比从集中筛查单位发出的邀请更能提高参与度和再参与度。此外，仅通过实践认可就可以实现更高的参与度，而无需实际 GPR 的参与。
