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 Jun 6;116(12):1551-1557.
doi: 10.1038/bjc.2017.129. Epub 2017 May 18.

GP participation in increasing uptake in a national bowel cancer screening programme: the PEARL project

Sally C Benton  1   2 , Piers Butler  1 , Katy Allen  1 , Michelle Chesters  3 , Sally Rickard  4 , Sally Stanley  4 , Richard Roope  4 , Daniel Vulkan  5 , Stephen W Duffy  5
Affiliations

GP participation in increasing uptake in a national bowel cancer screening programme: the PEARL project

Sally C Benton et al. Br J Cancer. .

Abstract

Background: The NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP) in England does not involve general practitioners (GPs). Uptake is ∼58%. The Practice Endorsed Additional Reminder Letter (PEARL) study piloted a GP-endorsed reminder letter.

Methods: General practices in Wessex with uptake <55% (prevalent invitations) were invited to participate. Subjects who had been invited for screening, sent a standard 28-day BCSP reminder letter but had not returned a test kit within 30 days of the standard reminder were sent a second reminder letter bearing the GP's letterhead and signature. Uptake was compared between PEARL and non-PEARL practices by standardised uptake ratio (standardised for prior prevalent uptake and other confounders). In addition, 25 non-PEARL practices were matched with PEARL practices for prior prevalent uptake and number of invitees.

Results: Twenty-five practices agreed to participate. A total of 3149 GP-endorsed reminders were sent. Uptake in the PEARL practices was 54% compared with 51% in the matched-control practices. The adjusted RR for uptake was 1.08 (95% CI: 1.05, 1.11, P<0.001) for all invitees and 2.18 (1.79, 2.66, P<0.001) for invitees who had not returned a kit following the standard reminder.

Conclusions: The GP-endorsed reminder was associated with significantly increased uptake among subjects not responding to the standard reminder letter.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Schematic representation of PEARL process. 1BCSS: Bowel Cancer Screening System; 2Non-responders defined as subjects who had not returned a test kit within 30–60 days of a standard reminder letter.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Allgood PC, Maxwell AJ, Hudson S, Offman J, Hutchison G, Beattie C, Tuano-Donnelly R, Threlfall A, Summersgill T, Bellis L, Robinson C, Heaton S, Patnick J, Duffy SW (2016) A randomised trial of the effect of postal reminders on attendance for breast screening. Br J Cancer 114: 171–176. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Camilloni L, Ferroni E, Cendales BJ, Pezzarossi A, Furnari G, Borgia P, Guasticchi G, Giorgi Rossi P (2013) Methods to increase participation in organised screening programs: a systematic review. BMC Public Health 13: 464. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Cole SR, Young GP, Byrne D, Guy JR, Morcom J (2002) Participation in screening for colorectal cancer based on a faecal occult blood test is improved by endorsement by the primary care practitioner. J Med Screen 9: 147–152. - PubMed
    1. Cummings P (2009) Methods for estimating adjusted risk ratios. Stata J 9: 175–196.
    1. Douglas E, Waller J, Duffy SW, Wardle J (2016) Socioeconomic inequalities in breast and cervical screening coverage in England: are we closing the gap? J Med Screen 23: 98–103. - PMC - PubMed