↓ Skip to main content

Increasing participation in colorectal cancer screening: Results from a cluster randomized trial of directly mailed gFOBT kits to previous nonresponders

Overview of attention for article published in International Journal of Cancer, September 2014
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 tweeter

Citations

dimensions_citation
13 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
33 Mendeley
Title
Increasing participation in colorectal cancer screening: Results from a cluster randomized trial of directly mailed gFOBT kits to previous nonresponders
Published in
International Journal of Cancer, September 2014
DOI 10.1002/ijc.29191
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jill Tinmouth, Jigisha Patel, Peter C. Austin, Nancy N. Baxter, Melissa C. Brouwers, Craig Earle, Cheryl Levitt, Yan Lu, Marnie Mackinnon, Lawrence Paszat, Linda Rabeneck

Abstract

Regular screening using guaiac fecal occult blood test (gFOBT) reduces mortality from colorectal cancer (CRC). The objective of this study was to determine whether the addition of a gFOBT kit to a second mailed invitation compared to a second mailed invitation alone increases CRC screening among eligible persons who did not respond to an initial mailed invitation. We conducted a cluster randomized controlled trial, with the physician as the unit of randomization. Participants were persons who had been invited but who had not responded to an invitation for CRC screening in an earlier pilot project. The intervention group received a mailed gFOBT kit and second mailed CRC screening invitation (n = 2,008) while the control group received a second mailed CRC screening invitation alone (n = 1,586). The primary outcome was the uptake of gFOBT within 6 months of the second mailing. We found that the uptake of gFOBT was more than twice as high in the intervention group (20.1%) compared to the control group (9.6%). The absolute difference between the two groups was 10.5% (95% CI: 7.5-13.4%, p ≤ 0.0001). In a subsequent adjusted analysis, participants in the intervention group were twice as likely to complete the test as those in the control group (OR = 2.1; 95% CI: 1.6-2.6). These findings suggest that directly mailed gFOBT kits increase CRC screening participation among previous nonresponders to a mailed invitation and that approximately 10 gFOBT kits would have to be sent by mail in order to screen 1 additional person. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01629004).

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 tweeter who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 33 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
France 1 3%
Unknown 32 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 7 21%
Unspecified 5 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 15%
Student > Postgraduate 3 9%
Other 3 9%
Other 10 30%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 19 58%
Unspecified 6 18%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 9%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 1 3%
Economics, Econometrics and Finance 1 3%
Other 3 9%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 September 2014.
All research outputs
#9,735,543
of 12,177,190 outputs
Outputs from International Journal of Cancer
#7,808
of 8,806 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#141,633
of 211,701 outputs
Outputs of similar age from International Journal of Cancer
#103
of 141 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 12,177,190 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 11th percentile – i.e., 11% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,806 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.2. This one is in the 5th percentile – i.e., 5% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 211,701 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 141 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.