Educational pamphlets for improving uptake of cancer screening: a systematic review
Boon See Teo 1 2 3 4 5 , Esther Li 1 , Clara Tan 2 , Yasmin Lynda Munro 41 Camry Medical Centre, Block 95 Toa Payoh Lorong 4, #01-66, Singapore
2 Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore
3 Duke-NUS Medical School, Singapore
4 Lee Kong Chian School of Medicine, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore
5 Corresponding author. Email: drteobs@gmail.com
Journal of Primary Health Care 11(3) 207-216 https://doi.org/10.1071/HC18093
Published: 30 September 2019
Journal Compilation © Royal New Zealand College of General Practitioners 2019 This is an open access article licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The effectiveness of cancer screening programmes is highly dependent on screening uptake. Many interventions have been tested to increase screening uptake.
AIM: The goal of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of cancer screening pamphlets as a standalone intervention. The outcome of interest was uptake of cancer screening tests.
METHODS: A systematic review was performed on the effectiveness of pamphlets compared to usual care without pamphlets. We searched five databases for research papers in English from 2000 up to May 2019. Randomised controlled trials were included. This research group independently selected studies, extracted data, assessed risk of bias and then compared the information as a group.
RESULTS: A total of nine trials involving 4912 participants met our inclusion criteria, of which five were about colorectal cancer screening, three were about prostate cancer screening and one was about lung cancer screening. Five of the nine trials showed that pamphlets alone increased uptake significantly, while the remaining four trials did not show significant effects.
DISCUSSION: There is some evidence that pamphlets increase uptake for cancer screenings, especially for colorectal cancer. Due to the small number of studies in this area, generalisability could be limited.
KEYWORDS: screening; health care education; health literacy; non-communicable diseases; randomized trials
References
[1] Brawley OW, Kramer BS. Cancer screening in theory and in practice. J Clin Oncol. 2005; 23 293–300.| Cancer screening in theory and in practice.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 15637392PubMed |
[2] Bonita R, Beaglehole R, Kjellström T. Basic epidemiology, 2nd edn. Chapter 6: Epidemiology and prevention: chronic noncommunicable diseases. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2006. pp. 110–114.
[3] Stewart BW, Wild CP. 4.8. Screening – implementation. World Cancer Report 2014. Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2014. pp. 330–335.
[4] Forman D, Forlay J. 1.1. The global and regional burden of cancer. World Cancer Report 2014. BW Stewart, CP Wild, eds. Lyon: International Agency for Research on Cancer; 2014.
[5] Weller DP, Campbell C. Uptake in cancer screening programmes: a priority in cancer control. Br J Cancer. 2009; 101 S55–9.
| Uptake in cancer screening programmes: a priority in cancer control.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 19956164PubMed |
[6] Weller DP, Patnick J, McIntosh HM, Dietrich AJ. Uptake in cancer screening programmes. Lancet Oncol. 2009; 10 693–9.
| Uptake in cancer screening programmes.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 19573798PubMed |
[7] Sequist TD, Zaslavsky AM, Marshall R, et al. Patient and physician reminders to promote colorectal cancer screening: a randomized controlled trial. Arch Intern Med. 2009; 169 364–71.
| Patient and physician reminders to promote colorectal cancer screening: a randomized controlled trial.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 19237720PubMed |
[8] Champion V, Skinner CS, Hui S, et al. The effect of telephone v. print tailoring for mammography adherence. Patient Educ Couns. 2012; 100 130–4.
[9] Maxwell AE, Hannon PA, Escoffery C, et al. Promotion and provision of colorectal cancer screening: a comparison of Colorectal Cancer Control Program grantees and nongrantees 2011–2012. Prev Chronic Dis. 2014; 11 140183
| Promotion and provision of colorectal cancer screening: a comparison of Colorectal Cancer Control Program grantees and nongrantees 2011–2012.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 25275807PubMed |
[10] Mahon SM. Using brochures to educate the public about the early detection of prostate and colorectal cancer. Oncol Nurs Forum. 1995; 22 1413–20.
| 8539182PubMed |
[11] Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network. Methodology Checklist 2: Controlled Trials. [cited 2018 May 26]. Available from: https://www.sign.ac.uk/sign-50.html
[12] Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009; 62(10):1006–12. [cited 2017 April 17]. Available from: http://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/prisma/.
[13] Denberg TD, Coombes JM, Byers TE, et al. Effect of a mailed brochure on appointment-keeping for screening colonoscopy. Ann Intern Med. 2006; 145 895–900.
| Effect of a mailed brochure on appointment-keeping for screening colonoscopy.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 17179058PubMed |
[14] Harris MA, Byles JE, Cockburn J, D’Este C. A general practice-based recruitment strategy for colorectal cancer screening. Aust N Z J Public Health. 2000; 24 441–3.
| A general practice-based recruitment strategy for colorectal cancer screening.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 11011475PubMed |
[15] Krist AH, Woolf SH, Johnson RE, William Kerns J. Patient education on prostate cancer screening and involvement in decision making. Ann Fam Med. 2007; 5 112–9.
| Patient education on prostate cancer screening and involvement in decision making.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 17389534PubMed |
[16] Landrey AR, Matlock DD, Andrews L, et al. Shared decision making in prostate-specific antigen testing. J Prim Care Community Health. 2013; 4 67–74.
| Shared decision making in prostate-specific antigen testing.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 23799692PubMed |
[17] Le V. Patient prompting of their physician resulted in increased colon cancer screening referrals. World J Gastrointest Oncol. 2014; 6 257–62.
| Patient prompting of their physician resulted in increased colon cancer screening referrals.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 25024817PubMed |
[18] Lee JK, Reis V, Liu S, et al. Improving fecal occult blood testing compliance using a mailed educational reminder. J Gen Intern Med. 2009; 24 1192–7.
| Improving fecal occult blood testing compliance using a mailed educational reminder.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 19774423PubMed |
[19] Stamatiou K, Skolarikos A, Heretis I, et al. Does educational printed material manage to change compliance with prostate cancer screening? World J Urol. 2008; 26 365–73.
| Does educational printed material manage to change compliance with prostate cancer screening?Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 18421460PubMed |
[20] Stephens JH, Moore JW. Can targeted intervention in CRC patients’ relatives influence screening behaviour? A pilot study. Colorectal Dis. 2008; 10 179–86.
| 17459064PubMed |
[21] Yoshida M, Kondo K, Nakanishi C, Tada T. Interventional study for improvement of lung cancer screening rate. J Med Invest. 2012; 59 127–35.
| Interventional study for improvement of lung cancer screening rate.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 22450001PubMed |
[22] McCambridge J, Witton J, Elbourne DR. Systematic review of the Hawthorne effect: new concepts are needed to study research participation effects. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014; 67 267–77.
| Systematic review of the Hawthorne effect: new concepts are needed to study research participation effects.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 24275499PubMed |
