Suppr超能文献

评估一项服务干预措施,以提高种族多样化地区对肠癌筛查的认知和接受程度。

Evaluation of a service intervention to improve awareness and uptake of bowel cancer screening in ethnically-diverse areas.

作者信息

Shankleman J, Massat N J, Khagram L, Ariyanayagam S, Garner A, Khatoon S, Rainbow S, Rangrez S, Colorado Z, Hu W, Parmar D, Duffy S W

机构信息

Public Health, London Borough of Tower Hamlets, 4th Floor Mulberry Place, 5 Clove Crescent, London E14 1BY, UK.

Centre for Cancer Prevention, Wolfson Institute of Preventive Medicine, Queen Mary University of London, London EC1M 6BQ, UK.

出版信息

Br J Cancer. 2014 Sep 23;111(7):1440-7. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2014.363. Epub 2014 Jul 1.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Uptake of bowel cancer screening is lowest in London, in populations of lower socio-economic status, and in particular ethnic or religious groups.

METHODS

We report on the evaluation of two interventions to improve uptake in an area including populations of low socio-economic status and considerable ethnic diversity. The interventions were face-to-face health promotion on bowel cancer screening at invitees' general practice and health promotion delivered by telephone only. Nine large general practices in East London were chosen at random to offer face-to-face health promotion, and nine other large practices to offer telephone health promotion, with 24 practices of similar size as comparators. Data at practice level were analysed by Mann-Whitney-Wilcoxon tests and grouped-logistic regression.

RESULTS

There were 2034 invitees in the telephone intervention practices, 1852 in the face-to-face intervention practices and 5227 in the comparison practices. Median gFOBt kit uptake in the target population (aged 59-70) was 46.7% in the telephone practices, 43.8% in the face-to-face practices and 39.1% in the comparison practices. Significant improvements in the odds of uptake were observed following telephone intervention in both males (OR=1.39, 95% CI=1.20-1.61, P<0.001) and females (OR=1.49, 95% CI=1.29-1.73, P<0.001), while the face-to-face intervention mainly impacted uptake in males (OR=1.23, 95% CI=1.10-1.36), P<0.001) but did not lead to a significant increase in females (OR=1.12, 95% CI=0.96-1.29, P=0.2).

CONCLUSIONS

Personally delivered health promotion improved uptake of bowel cancer screening in areas of low socio-economic status and high ethnic diversity. The intervention by telephone appears to be the most effective method.

摘要

背景

在伦敦,社会经济地位较低的人群以及特定种族或宗教群体中,肠癌筛查的参与率最低。

方法

我们报告了对两种干预措施的评估情况,这两种措施旨在提高一个包含社会经济地位较低人群且种族多样性显著的地区的筛查参与率。干预措施分别是在受邀者的全科诊所进行面对面的肠癌筛查健康促进活动,以及仅通过电话进行健康促进。随机选择了东伦敦的9家大型全科诊所提供面对面健康促进,另外9家大型诊所提供电话健康促进,还有24家规模类似的诊所作为对照。通过曼-惠特尼-威尔科克森检验和分组逻辑回归对诊所层面的数据进行分析。

结果

电话干预组有2034名受邀者,面对面干预组有1852名受邀者,对照组有5227名受邀者。目标人群(年龄59 - 70岁)中,电话干预组粪便潜血检测试剂盒的中位使用率为46.7%,面对面干预组为43.8%,对照组为39.1%。电话干预后,男性(OR = 1.39,95% CI = 1.20 - 1.61,P < 0.001)和女性(OR = 1.49,95% CI = 1.29 - 1.73,P < 0.001)的使用几率均有显著提高,而面对面干预主要影响男性的使用率(OR = 1.23,95% CI = 1.10 - 1.36,P < 0.001),但未导致女性使用率显著增加(OR = 1.12,95% CI = 0.96 - 1.29,P = 0.2)。

结论

亲自开展的健康促进活动提高了社会经济地位较低且种族多样性高的地区的肠癌筛查参与率。电话干预似乎是最有效的方法。

相似文献

1
Evaluation of a service intervention to improve awareness and uptake of bowel cancer screening in ethnically-diverse areas.
Br J Cancer. 2014 Sep 23;111(7):1440-7. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2014.363. Epub 2014 Jul 1.
2
A telephone reminder intervention to improve breast screening information and access.
Public Health. 2014 Nov;128(11):1017-22. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2014.09.007. Epub 2014 Nov 18.
6
Text Reminders in Colorectal Cancer Screening (TRICCS): Protocol for a randomised controlled trial.
BMC Public Health. 2016 Jan 25;16:74. doi: 10.1186/s12889-016-2733-6.
8
Text-message Reminders in Colorectal Cancer Screening (TRICCS): a randomised controlled trial.
Br J Cancer. 2017 May 23;116(11):1408-1414. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2017.117. Epub 2017 Apr 25.
9
Face-to-face vs telephone pre-colonoscopy consultation in colorectal cancer screening; a randomised trial.
Br J Cancer. 2012 Sep 25;107(7):1051-8. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2012.358. Epub 2012 Aug 23.

引用本文的文献

2
Evaluation of the Call for a Kit intervention to increase bowel cancer screening uptake in Lancashire, England.
J Med Screen. 2022 Sep;29(3):166-171. doi: 10.1177/09691413221089184. Epub 2022 Apr 12.
3
Recognising Colorectal Cancer in Primary Care.
Adv Ther. 2021 May;38(5):2732-2746. doi: 10.1007/s12325-021-01726-6. Epub 2021 Apr 17.
5
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.
8
GP participation in increasing uptake in a national bowel cancer screening programme: the PEARL project.
Br J Cancer. 2017 Jun 6;116(12):1551-1557. doi: 10.1038/bjc.2017.129. Epub 2017 May 18.
9
Rapid review of evaluation of interventions to improve participation in cancer screening services.
J Med Screen. 2017 Sep;24(3):127-145. doi: 10.1177/0969141316664757. Epub 2016 Oct 17.
10
Structuring Health in Colorectal Cancer Screening Conversations: An Analysis of Intersecting Activity Systems.
South Commun J. 2015;80(5):416-432. doi: 10.1080/1041794X.2015.1081974. Epub 2015 Nov 4.

本文引用的文献

3
Integrating men's health and masculinity theories to explain colorectal cancer screening behavior.
Am J Mens Health. 2014 Jan;8(1):54-65. doi: 10.1177/1557988313492171. Epub 2013 Jun 27.
4
The impact of age, sex and socioeconomic deprivation on outcomes in a colorectal cancer screening programme.
PLoS One. 2013 Jun 12;8(6):e66063. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0066063. Print 2013.
5
What types of interventions generate inequalities? Evidence from systematic reviews.
J Epidemiol Community Health. 2013 Feb;67(2):190-3. doi: 10.1136/jech-2012-201257. Epub 2012 Aug 8.
10
Outcomes of the Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) in England after the first 1 million tests.
Gut. 2012 Oct;61(10):1439-46. doi: 10.1136/gutjnl-2011-300843. Epub 2011 Dec 7.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验