Advance notification letters increase adherence in colorectal cancer screening: A population-based randomized trial
Preventive Medicine , Volume 52 - Issue 6 p. 448- 451
Objective: The population benefit of screening depends not only on the effectiveness of the test, but also on adherence, which, for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening remains low. An advance notification letter may increase adherence, however, no population-based randomized trials have been conducted to provide evidence of this. Method: In 2008, a representative sample of the Dutch population (aged 50-74. years) was randomized. All 2493 invitees in group A were sent an advance notification letter, followed two weeks later by a standard invitation. The 2507 invitees in group B only received the standard invitation. Non-respondents in both groups were sent a reminder 6. weeks after the invitation. Results: The advance notification letters resulted in a significantly higher adherence (64.4% versus 61.1%, p-value 0.019). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed no significant interactions between group and age, sex, or socio-economic status. Cost analysis showed that the incremental cost per additional detected advanced neoplasia due to sending an advance notification letter was €957. Conclusion: This population-based randomized trial demonstrates that sending an advance notification letter significantly increases adherence by 3.3%. The incremental cost per additional detected advanced neoplasia is acceptable. We therefore recommend that such letters are incorporated within the standard CRC-screening invitation process.
|Adherence, Advance notification letter, Colorectal cancer screening, Population-based, Randomized trial|
|Organisation||Erasmus MC: University Medical Center Rotterdam|
Roon, A.H.C, Hol, L, Wilschut, J.A, Reijerink, J.C.I.Y, van Vuuren, A.J, van Ballegooijen, M, … Kuipers, E.J. (2011). Advance notification letters increase adherence in colorectal cancer screening: A population-based randomized trial. Preventive Medicine, 52(6), 448–451. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2011.01.032