Text Messaging Versus Postal Reminders to Improve Participation in a Colorectal Cancer Screening Program: Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Mobile phone SMS text message reminders have shown moderate effects in improving participation rates in ongoing colorectal cancer screening programs. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of SMS text messages as a replacement for routine postal reminders in a fecal immunochemical test-based colorectal cancer screening program in Catalonia, Spain. METHODS: We conducted a randomized controlled trial among individuals aged 50 to 69 years who were invited to screening but had not completed their fecal immunochemical test within 6 weeks. The intervention group (n=12,167) received an SMS text message reminder, while the control group (n=12,221) followed the standard procedure of receiving a reminder letter. The primary outcome was participation within 18 weeks of the invitation. The trial was stopped early, and a recovery strategy was implemented for nonparticipants in the intervention group. We performed a final analysis to evaluate the impact of the recovery strategy on the main outcome of the trial. Participation was assessed using a logistic regression model adjusting for potential confounders (sex, age, and deprivation score index) globally and by screening behavior. RESULTS: The trial was discontinued early in September 2022 due to the results of the interim analysis. The interim analysis included 5570 individuals who had completed 18 weeks of follow-up (intention-to-treat). The SMS text message group had a participation rate of 17.2% (477/2781), whereas the control group had a participation rate of 21.9% (610/2789; odds ratio 0.71, 95% CI 0.62-0.82; P<.001). As a recovery strategy, 7591 (72.7%) out of 10,442 nonparticipants in the SMS text message group had an open screening episode and received a second reminder by letter, reaching a participation rate of 23% (1748/7591). The final analysis (N=24,388) showed a participation rate of 29.3% (3561/12,167) in the intervention group, which received 2 reminders, while the participation rate was 26.5% (3235/12,221) in the control group (odds ratio 1.16, 95% CI 1.09-1.23; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS: Replacing SMS text messages with reminder letters did not increase the participation rate but also led to a decline in participation among nonparticipants 6 weeks after the invitation. However, sending a second reminder by letter significantly increased participation rates among nonparticipants within 6 weeks in the SMS text message group compared with those who received 1 postal reminder (control group). Additional research is essential to determine the best timing and frequency of reminders to boost participation without being intrusive in their choice of participation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04343950; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04343950.
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 | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 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".