Including a date and time for a flexible sigmoidoscopy in an invitation letter was more effective compared with approaches with intermediate steps.
In England, colorectal cancer screening is done using guaiac-based fecal occult blood testing. Flexible sigmoidoscopy at age ≥55 years is also being introduced. In a pilot study of the flexible sigmoidoscopy program, investigators assessed patient adherence to multiple screening invitation processes.
At one screening center, eligible people were mailed a health questionnaire and asked to return it to the center. If patients passed the screening questionnaire, they were contacted to book a flexible sigmoidoscopy appointment. In a second center, a letter invited patients to contact the screening center and book a telephone assessment, after which a flexible sigmoidoscopy appointment was made if they were deemed eligible. In a third center, patients were sent an invitation letter that included an appointment date and time for flexible sigmoidoscopy; they were asked to respond to the center if interested.
The proportion of invited patients who participated in screening was 32% in the center that made the screening appointment up front versus 27% in the other two centers combined (P=0.0015).
Reviewing Author
DisclosuresConsultant/Advisory BoardOlympus Corporation America; Boston Scientific
Speaker’s BureauOlympus
Grant/Research SupportMedtronic; Boston Scientific; Colonary Solutions; Paion Medical; Medivators; Braintree Laboratories
Editorial BoardsWorld Journal of Gastroenterology; The Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology; Techniques in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy; Gastroenterology & Hepatology; Expert Review of Gastroenterology & Hepatology; Medscape Gastroenterology; World Journal of Gastrointestinal Pharmacology and Therapeutics; Annals of Gastroenterology & Hepatology; World Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology; Comparative Effectiveness Research; Journal of Anesthesia & Clinical Research; Gastroenterology; World Journal of Gastrointestinal Pathophysiology; Gastroenterology Research and Practice; GI & Hepatology News; Gastroenterology Report; Clinical Epidemiology Reviews; JSM Gastroenterology and Hepatology; GI Journal Watch; Austin Journal of Gastroenterology; World Journal of Gastrointestinal Pharmacology & Therapeutics
Leadership Positions in Professional SocietiesAmerican Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (Treasurer); US Multi-Society Task Force (AGA, ACG, ASGE) (Chair)
DisclosuresConsultant/Advisory BoardOlympus Corporation America; Boston Scientific
Speaker’s BureauOlympus
Grant/Research SupportMedtronic; Boston Scientific; Colonary Solutions; Paion Medical; Medivators; Braintree Laboratories
Editorial BoardsWorld Journal of Gastroenterology; The Journal of Clinical Gastroenterology; Techniques in Gastrointestinal Endoscopy; Gastroenterology & Hepatology; Expert Review of Gastroenterology & Hepatology; Medscape Gastroenterology; World Journal of Gastrointestinal Pharmacology and Therapeutics; Annals of Gastroenterology & Hepatology; World Journal of Gastrointestinal Oncology; Comparative Effectiveness Research; Journal of Anesthesia & Clinical Research; Gastroenterology; World Journal of Gastrointestinal Pathophysiology; Gastroenterology Research and Practice; GI & Hepatology News; Gastroenterology Report; Clinical Epidemiology Reviews; JSM Gastroenterology and Hepatology; GI Journal Watch; Austin Journal of Gastroenterology; World Journal of Gastrointestinal Pharmacology & Therapeutics
Leadership Positions in Professional SocietiesAmerican Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy (Treasurer); US Multi-Society Task Force (AGA, ACG, ASGE) (Chair)
Comment
These data suggest that patients respond best to direct instruction about what to do and how to get screened for colorectal cancer. Similarly, available literature indicates that sequential testing (offering a single favored test first and other tests in sequence to patients who decline the first test) is more straightforward and leads to higher screening rates compared with offering multiple choices simultaneously.