Directly Mailing gFOBT Kits to Previous Responders Being Recalled for Colorectal Cancer Screening Increases Participation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening with guaiac fecal occult blood test (gFOBT) reduces CRC-related death. Average risk individuals should be recalled for screening with gFOBT every 2 years in order to maximize effectiveness. However, adherence with repeated testing is often suboptimal. Our aim was to evaluate whether adding a gFOBT kit to a mailed recall letter improves participation compared with a mailed recall letter alone, among previous responders to a mailed invitation. Methods We conducted a cluster randomized controlled trial, with the primary care provider as the unit of randomization. Eligible patients had completed a gFOBT and tested negative in an earlier pilot study and were now due for recall. The intervention group received a mailed CRC screening recall letter from their primary care provider plus a gFOBT kit (n = 431) while the control group received a mailed CRC screening mailed recall letter alone (n = 452). The primary outcome was the uptake of gFOBT or colonoscopy within 6 months. Results gFOBT uptake was higher in the intervention group (61.3%, n = 264) compared with the control group (50.4%, n = 228) with an absolute difference between the two groups of 10.8% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.4 to 20.2%, P = <0.01). Patients in the intervention group were more likely to complete the gFOBT compared with the control group (odds ratio [OR] = 1.4; 95% CI: 1.1 to 1.9). Conclusion Our findings show that adding gFOBT kits to the mailed recall letter increased participation among persons recalled for screening. Nine gFOBT kits would have to be sent by mail in order to screen one additional person.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".