Research Department of Behavioural Science and Health, University College London, London, UK.
Department of Fundamental Care and Medical-Surgical Nursing, University of Barcelona, L'Hospitalet de Llobregat, 08907 Barcelona, Spain.
Prev Med. 2019 Feb;119:58-62. doi: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2018.12.013. Epub 2018 Dec 28.
The aim of the study was to measure the effect of three cost-neutral behavioral interventions on participation compared to the standard invitation letter in a population-based colorectal cancer screening program in 2014. For that purpose, a four-arm randomized field trial was conducted among 5077 individuals aged 50 to 69 years. Over an 8-week period, each week was randomly allocated to the intervention or the control conditions. Individuals assigned to the intervention conditions additionally received a prompt to write down the date to pick up the screening test in a pharmacy. Two of the three intervention groups also included an additional paragraph in the invitation letter on either: 1) the high proportion of individuals participating regularly (social norms condition) or 2) the importance of regular participation (benefit condition). We measured screening participation before and after receiving a reminder letter six weeks after the screening invitation. An overall 8.0 percentage point increase in CRC screening was achieved as a direct result of receiving a reminder letter; however none of the intervention strategies influenced participation. The only significant difference was found for newly invited individuals. There, participation rates decreased from 34.9% to 24.2% when the invitation mailing mentioned the importance of regular participation (OR: 0.60; 95% CI: 0.38-0.95). While none of the intervention strategies improved participation rates we found that praising the benefit of regular screening may discourage individuals who have never been invited before as the continuous behavior may be perceived as a large request. Nevertheless, the reminder letter boosted participation rates independently of the intervention assigned.
本研究旨在比较三种非成本性行为干预措施与标准邀请信在 2014 年基于人群的结直肠癌筛查计划中对参与度的影响。为此,在 5077 名年龄在 50 至 69 岁的人群中开展了一项四臂随机现场试验。在 8 周的时间内,每周都随机分配到干预组或对照组。被分配到干预组的个体还会收到一个提示,要求他们在药店记下进行筛查测试的日期。在三个干预组中的两个组的邀请信中还会额外添加一个段落,分别是:1)定期参与的个体比例很高(社会规范条件)或 2)定期参与的重要性(受益条件)。我们在收到提醒信六周后,在接受邀请之前和之后测量了筛查参与度。由于收到提醒信,结直肠癌筛查的总体参与率提高了 8.0 个百分点;然而,干预策略都没有影响参与度。唯一的显著差异仅出现在新受邀的个体中。在邀请信中提到定期参与的重要性时,新受邀者的参与率从 34.9%下降到 24.2%(OR:0.60;95%CI:0.38-0.95)。虽然没有一种干预策略能提高参与率,但我们发现,称赞定期筛查的益处可能会使以前从未被邀请过的个体感到气馁,因为持续的行为可能被视为一个大的请求。尽管如此,提醒信还是独立于干预措施提高了参与率。