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
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2017 Jul;18(7):972-980.
doi: 10.1016/S1470-2045(17)30340-6. Epub 2017 May 15.

Effect of second timed appointments for non-attenders of breast cancer screening in England: a randomised controlled trial

Affiliations
Randomized Controlled Trial

Effect of second timed appointments for non-attenders of breast cancer screening in England: a randomised controlled trial

Prue C Allgood et al. Lancet Oncol. 2017 Jul.

Abstract

Background: In England, participation in breast cancer screening has been decreasing in the past 10 years, approaching the national minimum standard of 70%. Interventions aimed at improving participation need to be investigated and put into practice to stop this downward trend. We assessed the effect on participation of sending invitations for breast screening with a timed appointment to women who did not attend their first offered appointment within the NHS Breast Screening Programme (NHSBSP).

Methods: In this open, randomised controlled trial, women in six centres in the NHSBSP in England who were invited for routine breast cancer screening were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive an invitation to a second appointment with fixed date and time (intervention) or an invitation letter with a telephone number to call to book their new screening appointment (control) in the event of non-attendance at the first offered appointment. Randomisation was by SX number, a sequential unique identifier of each woman within the NHSBSP, and at the beginning of the study a coin toss decided whether women with odd or even SX numbers would be allocated to the intervention group. Women aged 50-70 years who did not attend their first offered appointment were eligible for the analysis. The primary endpoint was participation (ie, attendance at breast cancer screening) within 90 days of the date of the first offered appointment; we used Poisson regression to compare the proportion of women who participated in screening in the study groups. All analyses were by intention to treat. This trial is registered with Barts Health, number 009304QM.

Findings: We obtained 33 146 records of women invited for breast cancer screening at the six centres between June 2, 2014, and Sept 30, 2015, who did not attend their first offered appointment. 26 054 women were eligible for this analysis (12 807 in the intervention group and 13 247 in the control group). Participation within 90 days of the first offered appointment was significantly higher in the intervention group (2861 [22%] of 12 807) than in the control group (1632 [12%] of 13 247); relative risk of participation 1·81 (95% CI 1·70-1·93; p<0·0001).

Interpretation: These findings show that a policy of second appointments with fixed date and time for non-attenders of breast screening is effective in improving participation. This strategy can be easily implemented by the screening sites and, if combined with simple interventions, could further increase participation and ensure an upward shift in the participation trend nationally. Whether the policy should vary by time since last attended screen will have to be considered.

Funding: National Health Service Cancer Screening Programmes and Department of Health Policy Research Programme.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure
Figure
Trial profile SX=a sequential unique identifier of each woman within the NHS Breast Screening Programme. *Some records had more than one reason for exclusion.

Comment in

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Health and Social Care Information Centre Breast screening programme, England. Statistics for 2014–15. 2016. http://content.digital.nhs.uk/catalogue/PUB20018/bres-scre-prog-eng-2014... (accessed May 8, 2017).
    1. Maheswaran R, Pearson T, Jordan H, Black D. Socioeconomic deprivation, travel distance, location of service, and uptake of breast cancer screening in North Derbyshire, UK. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2006;60:208–212. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Douglas E, Waller J, Duffy SW, Wardle J. Socioeconomic inequalities in breast and cervical screening coverage in England: are we closing the gap? J Med Screen. 2016;23:98–103. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Department of Health Improving outcomes: a strategy for cancer. 2011. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/fil... (accessed April 3, 2017).
    1. Department of Health Public health functions to be exercised by NHS England. Service specification no. 24. Breast screening programme. 2013. https://www.england.nhs.uk/commissioning/wp-content/uploads/sites/12/201... (accessed May 9, 2017).

Publication types