↓ Skip to main content

Reducing the socioeconomic gradient in uptake of the NHS bowel cancer screening Programme using a simplified supplementary information leaflet: a cluster-randomised trial

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Cancer, August 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (84th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
22 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
8 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
77 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Reducing the socioeconomic gradient in uptake of the NHS bowel cancer screening Programme using a simplified supplementary information leaflet: a cluster-randomised trial
Published in
BMC Cancer, August 2017
DOI 10.1186/s12885-017-3512-1
Pubmed ID
Authors

Samuel G. Smith, Jane Wardle, Wendy Atkin, Rosalind Raine, Lesley M. McGregor, Gemma Vart, Steve Morris, Stephen W. Duffy, Susan Moss, Allan Hackshaw, Stephen Halloran, Ines Kralj-Hans, Rosemary Howe, Julia Snowball, Graham Handley, Richard F. Logan, Sandra Rainbow, Steve Smith, Mary Thomas, Nicholas Counsell, Christian von Wagner

Abstract

Uptake of colorectal cancer screening is low in the English NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (BCSP). Participation in screening is strongly associated with socioeconomic status. The aim of this study was to determine whether a supplementary leaflet providing the 'gist' of guaiac-based Faecal Occult Blood test (gFOBt) screening for colorectal cancer could reduce the socioeconomic status (SES) gradient in uptake in the English NHS BCSP. The trial was integrated within routine BCSP operations in November 2012. Using a cluster randomised controlled design all adults aged 59-74 years who were being routinely invited to complete the gFOBt were randomised based on day of invitation. The Index of Multiple Deprivation was used to create SES quintiles. The control group received the standard information booklet ('SI'). The intervention group received the SI booklet and the Gist leaflet ('SI + Gist') which had been designed to help people with lower literacy engage with the invitation. Blinding of hubs was not possible and invited subjects were not made aware of a comparator condition. The primary outcome was the gradient in uptake across IMD quintiles. In November 2012, 163,525 individuals were allocated to either the 'SI' intervention (n = 79,104) or the 'SI + Gist' group (n = 84,421). Overall uptake was similar between the intervention and control groups (SI: 57.3% and SI + Gist: 57.6%; OR = 1.02, 95% CI: 0.92-1.13, p = 0.77). Uptake was 42.0% (SI) vs. 43.0% (SI + Gist) in the most deprived quintile and 65.6% vs. 65.8% in the least deprived quintile (interaction p = 0.48). The SES gradient in uptake was similar between the study groups within age, gender, hub and screening round sub-groups. Providing supplementary simplified information in addition to the standard information booklet did not reduce the SES gradient in uptake in the NHS BCSP. The effectiveness of the Gist leaflet when used alone should be explored in future research. ISRCTN74121020 , registered: 17/20/2012.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 22 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 77 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 77 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 23 30%
Researcher 7 9%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 8%
Student > Bachelor 5 6%
Other 5 6%
Other 10 13%
Unknown 21 27%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 22 29%
Psychology 7 9%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 5 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 6%
Social Sciences 5 6%
Other 5 6%
Unknown 28 36%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 13. 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 14 August 2022.
All research outputs
#2,509,305
of 23,314,015 outputs
Outputs from BMC Cancer
#487
of 8,442 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#49,304
of 318,384 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Cancer
#11
of 135 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,314,015 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 89th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 8,442 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its peers.
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 318,384 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 135 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.