Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Sep;24(3):127-145.
doi: 10.1177/0969141316664757. Epub 2016 Oct 17.

Rapid review of evaluation of interventions to improve participation in cancer screening services

Affiliations

Rapid review of evaluation of interventions to improve participation in cancer screening services

Stephen W Duffy et al. J Med Screen. 2017 Sep.

Abstract

Objective Screening participation is spread differently across populations, according to factors such as ethnicity or socioeconomic status. We here review the current evidence on effects of interventions to improve cancer screening participation, focussing in particular on effects in underserved populations. Methods We selected studies to review based on their characteristics: focussing on population screening programmes, showing a quantitative estimate of the effect of the intervention, and published since 1990. To determine eligibility for our purposes, we first reviewed titles, then abstracts, and finally the full paper. We started with a narrow search and expanded this until the search yielded eligible papers on title review which were less than 1% of the total. We classified the eligible studies by intervention type and by the cancer for which they screened, while looking to identify effects in any inequality dimension. Results The 68 papers included in our review reported on 71 intervention studies. Of the interventions, 58 had significant positive effects on increasing participation, with increase rates of the order of 2%-20% (in absolute terms). Conclusions Across different countries and health systems, a number of interventions were found more consistently to improve participation in cancer screening, including in underserved populations: pre-screening reminders, general practitioner endorsement, more personalized reminders for non-participants, and more acceptable screening tests in bowel and cervical screening.

Keywords: Breast cancer; cancer screening; cervical cancer; colorectal cancer; ethnicity; intervention; participation; reminder; review; socioeconomic status; uptake.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Schematic diagram showing the categories of intervention by time point on the screening pathway at which the intervention takes place, with references to the relevant studies in parentheses.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. NHS Cancer Screening Programmes. Consent to cancer screening 2009, https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/fil... (accessed 15 January 2016).
    1. Marmot MG, Altman DG, Cameron DA, et al. The independent UK panel on breast cancer screening: the benefits and harms of breast cancer screening: an independent review. Br J Cancer 2013; 11: 2205–2240. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Von Wagner C, Baio G, Raine R, et al. Inequalities in participation in an organized national colorectal cancer screening programme: results from the first 2.6 million invitations in England. Int J Epidemiol 2011; 40: 712–718. - PubMed
    1. Whynes DK, Frew EJ, Manghan CM, et al. Colorectal cancer, screening and survival: the influence of socio-economic deprivation. BMC Public Health 2003; 117: 389–395. - PubMed
    1. Szczepura A, Price C, Gumber A. Breast and bowel cancer screening uptake patterns over 15 years for UK south Asian ethnic minority populations, corrected for differences in socio-demographic characteristics. BMC Public Health 2008; 8: 346. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources