A cluster randomised trial of strategies to increase cervical screening uptake at first invitation (STRATEGIC)

Health Technology Assessment

Volumn 20, Issue 68, 2016, Pages 1-138

  Kitchener, Henry C ^a   Gittins, Matthew ^b   Rivero Arias, Oliver ^c   Tsiachristas, Apostolos ^c   Cruickshank, Margaret ^d   Gray, Alastair ^c   Brabin, Loretta ^a   Torgerson, David ^e   Crosbie, Emma J ^a   Sargent, Alexandra ^f   Roberts, Chris ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

^d ABERDEEN MATERNITY HOSPITAL   (United Kingdom)

^e UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

^f MANCHESTER UNIVERSITY NHS FOUNDATION TRUST   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADULT; CONFIDENCE INTERVAL; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; CONTROLLED STUDY; COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DOCTOR PATIENT RELATION; FEMALE; GENERAL PRACTICE; HUMAN; HUMAN TISSUE; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; NONHUMAN; NURSE; ODDS RATIO; PHASE 1 CLINICAL TRIAL; PHASE 2 CLINICAL TRIAL; PRIMARY MEDICAL CARE; QUALITY ADJUSTED LIFE YEAR; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; SAMPLING; SCOTLAND; SCREENING; URINALYSIS; VACCINATION; WART VIRUS; AGE; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; EARLY CANCER DIAGNOSIS; ECONOMICS; HOSPITAL MANAGEMENT; NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE; ORGANIZATION AND MANAGEMENT; PATIENT ATTITUDE; PATIENT CARE; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; PROCEDURES; STATISTICS AND NUMERICAL DATA; UTERINE CERVIX TUMOR; YOUNG ADULT;

WART VIRUS VACCINE;

AGE FACTORS; APPOINTMENTS AND SCHEDULES; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; FEMALE; GENERAL PRACTICE; HUMANS; PAPILLOMAVIRUS VACCINES; PATIENT ACCEPTANCE OF HEALTH CARE; PATIENT NAVIGATION; PATIENT PARTICIPATION; QUALITY-ADJUSTED LIFE YEARS; SCOTLAND; STATE MEDICINE; UTERINE CERVICAL NEOPLASMS; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 84989166242     PISSN: 13665278     EISSN: 20464924     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3310/hta20680     Document Type: Article

References (71)

1. Cancer Research UK. Cervical Cancer Incidence Statistics. URL: www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/statistics-by-cancer-type/cervical-cancer/incidence (accessed 10 December 2015).
2. Health and Social Care Information Centre. Cervical Screening Programme, England. Statistics for 2013–14. Leeds: Health and Social Care Information Centre; 2014.
3. Albrow R, Blomberg K, Kitchener H, Brabin L, Patnick J, Tishelman C, et al. Interventions to improve cervical cancer screening uptake amongst young women: a systematic review. Acta Oncol 2014;53:445–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.3109/0284186X.2013.869618
4. Jepson R, Clegg A, Forbes C, Lewis R, Sowden A, Kleijnen J. The determinants of screening uptake and interventions for increasing uptake: a systematic review. Health Technol Assess 2000;4(14).
5. Waller J, Jackowska M, Marlow L, Wardle J. Exploring age differences in reasons for nonattendance for cervical screening: a qualitative study. BJOG 2012;119:26–32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-0528.2011.03030.x
6. Cole SR, Smith A, Wilson C, Turnbull D, Esterman A, Young GP. An advance notification letter increases participation in colorectal cancer screening. J Med Screen 2007;14:73–5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1258/096914107781261927
7. Libby G, Bray J, Champion J, Brownlee LA, Birrell J, Gorman DR, et al. Pre-notification increases uptake of colorectal cancer screening in all demographic groups: a randomized controlled trial. J Med Screen 2011;18:24–9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1258/jms.2011.011002
8. Gök M, van Kemenade FJ, Heideman DA, Berkhof J, Rozendaal L, Spruyt JW, et al. Experience with high-risk human papillomavirus testing on vaginal brush-based self-samples of non-attendees of the cervical screening program. Int J Cancer 2012;130:1128–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ijc.26128
9. Szarewski A, Cadman L, Mesher D, Austin J, Ashdown-Barr L, Edwards R, et al. HPV self-sampling as an alternative strategy in non-attenders for cervical screening – a randomised controlled trial. Br J Cancer 2011;104:915–20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2011.48
10. Ritvo PG, Myers RE, Paszat LF, Tinmouth JM, McColeman J, Mitchell B, et al. Personal navigation increases colorectal cancer screening uptake. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2015;24:506–11. http://dx.doi.org/10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-14-0744
11. Sadler L, Albrow R, Shelton R, Kitchener H, Brabin L. Development of a pre-notification leaflet to encourage uptake of cervical screening at first invitation: a qualitative study. Health Educ Res 2013;28:793–802. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/her/cys103
12. UN3373. Biological Substances Transport. 2016. URL: www.un3373.com (accessed 14 July 2016).
13. Goldberg D, Schiff GD, McNutt R, Furumoto-Dawson A, Hammerman M, Hoffman A. Mailings timed to patients’ appointments: a controlled trial of fecal occult blood test cards. Am J Prev Med 2004;26:431–5. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2004.02.009
14. Torgerson DJ, Garton MJ, Donaldson C, Russell IT, Reid DM. Recruitment methods for screening programmes: trial of an improved method within a regional osteoporosis study. BMJ 1993;307:99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.307.6896.99
15. Raab GM, Butcher I. Balance in cluster randomized trials. Stat Med 2001;20:351–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1097-0258(20010215)20:3<351::AID-SIM797>3.0.CO;2-C
16. Jensen H, Svanholm H, Støvring H, Bro F. A primary healthcare-based intervention to improve a Danish cervical cancer screening programme: a cluster randomised controlled trial. J Epidemiol Community Health 2009;63:510–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jech.2008.077636
17. Schoenfeld D. Statistical considerations for pilot studies. Int J Radiat Oncol Biol Phys 1980;6:371–4. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0360-3016(80)90153-4
18. Dunnett CW. A multiple comparison procedure for comparing several treatments with a control. J Am Stat Assoc 1955;50:1097–121. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1955.10501294
19. Donner A, Klar N. Design and Analysis of Cluster Randomization Trials in Health Research. London: Arnold; 2000.
20. Goldstein H. Multilevel Statistical Models. 3rd edn. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell; 2003.
21. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Guide to the Methods of Technology Appraisal 2013. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence; 2013.
22. Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, Carswell C, Moher D, Greenberg D, et al. Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) statement. BMJ 2013;346:f1049. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.f1049
23. Kim EJ. Modelling the Cost-Effectiveness of Human Pappilomavirus (HPV) Testing for Triage of Women with Low-Grade Abnormal Cervical Smears: A Study within the TOMBOLA Trial. Sheffield: University of Sheffield; 2010.
24. Sherlaw-Johnson C, Philips Z. An evaluation of liquid-based cytology and human papillomavirus testing within the UK cervical cancer screening programme. Br J Cancer 2004;91:84–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/sj.bjc.6601884
25. Department of Health. Reference Costs 2013–14. 2014. URL: www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/380322/01_Final_2013-14_Reference:Costs_publication_v2.pdf (accessed 14 July 2016).
26. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Systematic Reviews – CRD’s Guidance for Undertaking Reviews in Health Care. York: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York; 2009.
27. Philips Z, Ginnelly L, Sculpher M, Claxton K, Golder S, Riemsma R, et al. Review of guidelines for good practice in decision-analytic modelling in health technology assessment. Health Technol Assess 2004;8(36). http://dx.doi.org/10.3310/hta8360
28. Riley RD, Higgins JP, Deeks JJ. Interpretation of random effects meta-analyses. BMJ 2011;342:d549. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d549
29. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). OECD Health Statistics 2015. 2015. URL: www.oecd.org/unitedkingdom/Country-Note-UNITED%20KINGDOM-OECD-Health-Statistics-2015.pdf (accessed 14 July 2016).
30. HM Revenue and Customs. Guidance: Average for the Year to 31 March 2015. 2016. URL: www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/421061/average310315-1.csv/preview (accessed 14 July 2016).
31. Bidus MA, Maxwell GL, Kulasingam S, Rose GS, Elkas JC, Chernofsky M, Myers ER. Cost-effectiveness analysis of liquid-based cytology and human papillomavirus testing in cervical cancer screening. Obstet Gynecol 2006;107:997–1005. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000210529.70226.0a
32. Bistoletti P, Sennfält K, Dillner J. Cost-effectiveness of primary cytology and HPV DNA cervical screening. Int J Cancer 2008;122:372–6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ijc.23124
33. Goldie SJ, Kim JJ, Wright TC. Cost-effectiveness of human papillomavirus DNA testing for cervical cancer screening in women aged 30 years or more. Obstet Gynecol 2004;103:619–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.AOG.0000120143.50098.c7
34. Kim JJ, Wright TC, Goldie SJ. Cost-effectiveness of human papillomavirus DNA testing in the United Kingdom, The Netherlands, France, and Italy. J Natl Cancer Inst 2005;97:888–95. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jnci/dji162
35. Vijayaraghavan A, Efrusy MB, Mayrand MH, Santas CC, Goggin P. Cost-effectiveness of high-risk human papillomavirus testing for cervical cancer screening in Québec, Canada. Can J Public Health 2010;101:220–5.
36. Voko Z, Nagyjanosi L, Kalo Z. Cost-effectiveness analysis of adding HPV vaccination to cervical cancer screening program in Hungary. Value Health 2010;13:A270–1. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1098-3015(11)71998-2
37. Payne N, Chilcott J, McGoogan E. Liquid-Based Cytology for Cervical Screening. Sheffield: School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield; 2000.
38. Murphy J, Gray A. Health Economics Report for Primary HPV Pilot. Oxford: Public Health England, HPV Primary Screening Pilot Group; 2015.
39. Health and Social Care Information Centre. Cervical Screening Programme, England. Statistics for 2013–2014. 2014. URL: www.hscic.gov.uk/catalogue/PUB15968/cerv-scre-prog-eng-2013-14-rep.pdf (accessed 14 July 2016).
40. Kim E-J. Modelling the Cost-Effectiveness of Human Papillomavirus (HPV) Testing for Triage of Women with Low-Grade Abnormal Cervical Smears: A Study Within the TOMBOLA Trial. PhD thesis. Sheffield: The University of Sheffield; 2010.
41. Clark MD, Determann D, Petrou S, Moro D, de Bekker-Grob EW. Discrete choice experiments in health economics: a review of the literature. PharmacoEconomics 2014;32:883–902. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s40273-014-0170-x
42. Watson V, Ryan M, Watson E. Valuing experience factors in the provision of chlamydia screening: an application to women attending the family planning clinic. Value Health 2009;12:621–3. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1524-4733.2008.00451.x
43. de Bekker-Grob EW, Rose JM, Donkers B, Essink-Bot ML, Bangma CH, Steyerberg EW. Men’s preferences for prostate cancer screening: a discrete choice experiment. Br J Cancer 2013;108:533–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2013.5
44. Wordsworth S, Ryan M, Skåtun D, Waugh N. Women’s preferences for cervical cancer screening: a study using a discrete choice experiment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 2006;22:344–50. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0266462306051245
45. Hensher DA, Rose JM, Greene WH. Applied Choice Analysis. 2nd edn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2015. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781316136232
46. McIntosh E, Louviere JJ, Frew E, Clarke PM. Applied Methods of Cost-Benefit Analysis in Health Care. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2010.
47. Louviere JJ, Hensher DA, Swait JD, Adamowicz W. Stated Choice Methods: Analysis and Application. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2000. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511753831
48. Hundley V, Ryan M, Graham W. Assessing women’s preferences for intrapartum care. Birth 2001;28:254–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-536X.2001.00254.x
49. Hall J, Kenny P, King M, Louviere J, Viney R, Yeoh A. Using stated preference discrete choice modelling to evaluate the introduction of varicella vaccination. Health Econ 2002;11:457–65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hec.694
50. Phillips KA, Maddala T, Johnson FR. Measuring preferences for health care interventions using conjoint analysis: an application to HIV testing. Health Serv Res 2002;37:1681–705. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1475-6773.01115
51. Coast J, Al-Janabi H, Sutton EJ, Horrocks SA, Vosper AJ, Swancutt DR, Flynn TN. Using qualitative methods for attribute development for discrete choice experiments: issues and recommendations. Health Econ 2012;21:730–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hec.1739
52. Ritchie J, Lewis J, McNaughton Nicholls C, Ormston R. Qualitative Research Practice: A Guide for Social Science Students and Researchers. 2nd edn. London: Sage; 2013.
53. Elo S, Kyngäs H. The qualitative content analysis process. J Adv Nurs 2008;62:107–15. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2007.04569.x
54. ChoiceMetrics. Ngene 1.1.1 User Manual & Reference Guide. Sydney, NSW: ChoiceMetrics; 2012.
55. Burgess L, Street DJ. Optimal designs for 2 k choice experiments. Commun Stat Theory Methods 2003;32:2185–206. http://dx.doi.org/10.1081/STA-120024475
56. Street DJ, Burgess L. Optimal and near-optimal pairs for the estimation of effects in 2-level choice experiments. J Stat Plan Inference 2004;118:185–99. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0378-3758(02)00399-3
57. Street DJ, Burgess L, Louviere JJ. Quick and easy choice sets: Constructing optimal and nearly optimal stated choice experiments. Int J Res Marketing 2005;22:459–70. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijresmar.2005.09.003
58. Reed Johnson F, Lancsar E, Marshall D, Kilambi V, Mühlbacher A, Regier DA, et al. Constructing experimental designs for discrete-choice experiments: report of the ISPOR Conjoint Analysis Experimental Design Good Research Practices Task Force. Value Health 2013;16:3–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jval.2012.08.2223
59. Witt J, Scott A, Osborne RH. Designing choice experiments with many attributes. An application to setting priorities for orthopaedic waiting lists. Health Econ 2009;18:681–96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hec.1396
60. Rose JM, Bliemer MCJ. Sample size requirements for stated choice experiments. Transportation 2013;40:1021–41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11116-013-9451-z
61. Ackerson K, Gretebeck K. Factors influencing cancer screening practices of underserved women. J Am Acad Nurse Pract 2007;19:591–601. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-7599.2007.00268.x
62. Ackerson K, Pohl J, Low LK. Personal influencing factors associated with pap smear testing and cervical cancer. Policy Polit Nurs Pract 2008;9:50–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1527154408318097
63. Knops-Dullens T, de Vries N, de Vries H. Reasons for non-attendance in cervical cancer screening programmes: an application of the Integrated Model for Behavioural Change. Eur J Cancer Prev 2007;16:436–45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.cej.0000236250.71113.7c
64. Tacken MA, Braspenning JC, Hermens RP, Spreeuwenberg PM, van den Hoogen HJ, de Bakker DH, et al. Uptake of cervical cancer screening in The Netherlands is mainly influenced by women’s beliefs about the screening and by the inviting organization. Eur J Public Health 2007;17:178–85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckl082
65. Huber J, Zwerina K. The importance of utility balance in efficient choice designs. J Marketing Res 1996;33:307–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3152127
66. Rosenstock IM. The Health Belief Model: Explaining Health Behaviour through Expectancies. In Glanz K, Lewis F, Rimer B, editors. Health Behaviour and Health Education: Theory, Research, and Practice. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass; 1990. pp. 39–62.
67. Greene GW, Rossi SR, Rossi JS, Velicer WF, Fava JL, Prochaska JO. Dietary applications of the stages of change model. J Am Diet Assoc 1999;99:673–8. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0002-8223(99)00164-9
68. Herweijer E, Feldman AL, Ploner A, Arnheim-Dahlström L, Uhnoo I, Netterlid E, et al. The participation of HPV-vaccinated women in a national cervical screening program: population-based cohort study. PLOS ONE 2015;10:e0134185. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0134185
69. Palmer TJ, McFadden M, Pollock KG, Kavanagh K, Cuschieri K, Cruickshank M, et al. HPV immunisation and increased uptake of cervical screening in Scottish women; observational study of routinely collected national data. Br J Cancer 2016;114:576–81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/bjc.2015.473
70. Spencer AM, Roberts SA, Verma A, Patnick J, Elton P, Brabin L. Effect of human papillomavirus vaccination of daughters on the cervical screening uptake of their non-vaccinated mothers. Eur J Public Health 2015;25:1097–100. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckv146
71. Hudson S, Brazil D, Teh W, Duffy SW, Myles JP. Effectiveness of timed and non-timed second appointments in improving uptake in breast cancer screening. J Med Screen 2016;23:160–3. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0969141315624937