Please note that the copy function is not enabled for this field.
If you wish to
modify
existing outcomes, please copy and paste the current outcome text into the Update field.
LOGIN
CREATE ACCOUNT
LOGIN
CREATE ACCOUNT
MY TRIALS
REGISTER TRIAL
FAQs
HINTS AND TIPS
DEFINITIONS
Trial Review
The ANZCTR website will be unavailable from 1pm until 3pm (AEDT) on Wednesday the 30th of October for website maintenance. Please be sure to log out of the system in order to avoid any loss of data.
The safety and scientific validity of this study is the responsibility of the study sponsor and investigators. Listing a study does not mean it has been endorsed by the ANZCTR. Before participating in a study, talk to your health care provider and refer to this
information for consumers
Download to PDF
Trial registered on ANZCTR
Registration number
ACTRN12605000461695
Ethics application status
Approved
Date submitted
9/09/2005
Date registered
22/09/2005
Date last updated
22/09/2005
Type of registration
Retrospectively registered
Titles & IDs
Public title
The value of GP endorsement on participation in rescreening for colorectal cancer
Query!
Scientific title
The value of GP endorsement on participation in rescreening for colorectal cancer
Query!
Universal Trial Number (UTN)
Query!
Trial acronym
Query!
Linked study record
Query!
Health condition
Health condition(s) or problem(s) studied:
Screening for bowel cancer
578
0
Query!
Condition category
Condition code
Cancer
652
652
0
0
Query!
Bowel - Back passage (rectum) or large bowel (colon)
Query!
Intervention/exposure
Study type
Interventional
Query!
Description of intervention(s) / exposure
The aim is to determine the value of GP endorsement for faecal occult blood test based re-screening colorectal cancer. The interventions are conducted within the setting of a population screening program where invitees are recruited from general practice patient lists.
Intervention 1: Invitation letter to re-screen on central screening facility letterhead with statement from invitee's general practice endorsing participation in screening, signed by screening coordinator.
Intervention 2: Invitation letter to rescreen on practice letterhead with statement from practice endorsing screening, signed by invitee's general practitioner.
Comparison group: recruited from electoral roll receiving control invitation to rescreen.
Duration: Four annual rounds of screening offers.
All people received the same invitation type over the 4 rounds of screening invitations.
Query!
Intervention code [1]
446
0
Early detection / Screening
Query!
Comparator / control treatment
Control: Generic invitation to re-screen for colorectal cancer letter on central screening facility letterhead, signed by screening coordinator.
Query!
Control group
Active
Query!
Outcomes
Primary outcome [1]
772
0
Paricipation in screening defined as return of a screening kit 12 weeks from offer.
Query!
Assessment method [1]
772
0
Query!
Timepoint [1]
772
0
Query!
Secondary outcome [1]
1565
0
Test positivity rate
Query!
Assessment method [1]
1565
0
Query!
Timepoint [1]
1565
0
Query!
Secondary outcome [2]
1566
0
Yield of neoplasia
Query!
Assessment method [2]
1566
0
Query!
Timepoint [2]
1566
0
Query!
Eligibility
Key inclusion criteria
All people on patient lists of 2 general practices.
Query!
Minimum age
50
Years
Query!
Query!
Maximum age
80
Years
Query!
Query!
Sex
Both males and females
Query!
Can healthy volunteers participate?
No
Query!
Key exclusion criteria
People identified by the collaborating practices and practitioners as having gastrointestinal conditions that invalidate screening results, people with mental and physical disabilities that prevent them from following the study protocol, people known to have had a neoplasia negative colonoscopy 5 years prior to a screening offer, people who inform the screening facility that they do not want further contact.
Query!
Study design
Purpose of the study
Prevention
Query!
Allocation to intervention
Randomised controlled trial
Query!
Procedure for enrolling a subject and allocating the treatment (allocation concealment procedures)
Invitees are randomised to one of 4 invitation groups that differ by invitation type or source of subjects. Allocation to invitation group is not concealed from the investigators and office staff who print and package invitation kits for postal delivery, but there is no direct contact with between investigators and invitees. Invitees are unaware that there are more than one invitation type. A help line is available and inquiries are answered without knowledge of invitation type.
Query!
Methods used to generate the sequence in which subjects will be randomised (sequence generation)
Group sizes of 600 each were determined by power analysis assuming that an intervention that produces a 10% increase in participation over control is a significant program improvement. For people aged 50-80 recruited from general practices, practice lists were were firstly combined. All people were assigned a random number using the MicroSoft Excel RAND function. The listing was ordered by ascending random number. The first 600 people were assigned to Intervention group 1 (Generic letter), the second 600 to Intervention group 2 (endorsement from practice) and the third 600 to the Intervention group 3 (strong endorsement, signed by GP). For the comparison group (people recruited from the electoral roll), 600 people aged 50-80 were randomly selected. All were allocated to a single group.
Query!
Masking / blinding
Blinded (masking used)
Query!
Who is / are masked / blinded?
Query!
Query!
Query!
Query!
Intervention assignment
Parallel
Query!
Other design features
Query!
Phase
Phase 3
Query!
Type of endpoint/s
Efficacy
Query!
Statistical methods / analysis
Query!
Recruitment
Recruitment status
Completed
Query!
Date of first participant enrolment
Anticipated
6/12/2000
Query!
Actual
Query!
Date of last participant enrolment
Anticipated
Query!
Actual
Query!
Date of last data collection
Anticipated
Query!
Actual
Query!
Sample size
Target
2400
Query!
Accrual to date
Query!
Final
Query!
Recruitment in Australia
Recruitment state(s)
Query!
Funding & Sponsors
Funding source category [1]
717
0
Commercial sector/Industry
Query!
Name [1]
717
0
Beckman Coulter Inc
Query!
Address [1]
717
0
Query!
Country [1]
717
0
Query!
Funding source category [2]
718
0
Commercial sector/Industry
Query!
Name [2]
718
0
Enterix Australia
Query!
Address [2]
718
0
Query!
Country [2]
718
0
Australia
Query!
Funding source category [3]
719
0
Charities/Societies/Foundations
Query!
Name [3]
719
0
Bushel Fund
Query!
Address [3]
719
0
Query!
Country [3]
719
0
Query!
Primary sponsor type
Individual
Query!
Name
Prof. Graeme Young MD, FRACP
Query!
Address
Query!
Country
Query!
Secondary sponsor category [1]
597
0
Individual
Query!
Name [1]
597
0
Mr Stephen Cole
Query!
Address [1]
597
0
Query!
Country [1]
597
0
Query!
Ethics approval
Ethics application status
Approved
Query!
Ethics committee name [1]
1919
0
Repatriation General Hospital Daw Park
Query!
Ethics committee address [1]
1919
0
Daws Rd, Daw Park, SA 5041
Query!
Ethics committee country [1]
1919
0
Australia
Query!
Date submitted for ethics approval [1]
1919
0
Query!
Approval date [1]
1919
0
Query!
Ethics approval number [1]
1919
0
Query!
Summary
Brief summary
Improved participation in screening for bowel cancer is desirable. Large scale screening programs must recruit invitees through comprehensive population registers. Depending on the country and health system these may be primary care practice lists or other registers such as the electoral roll. If primary care patient lists are available, considerable practice time may be required to organise the screening program, alternatively the implicit practice endorsement of screening may increase the participation rate to make that investment worthwhile. As screening is most effective when conducted regularly, it is important to determine if any increase in participation rate due to practice or practitioner endorsement is maintained over several rounds of screening offers. This study aims to follow screening participation over 4 rounds of offers in 4 treatment groups, and to use innovative statistical methods to determine the value of practice involvement in re-sceening participation.
Query!
Trial website
Query!
Trial related presentations / publications
Query!
Public notes
Query!
Contacts
Principal investigator
Name
35777
0
Query!
Address
35777
0
Query!
Country
35777
0
Query!
Phone
35777
0
Query!
Fax
35777
0
Query!
Email
35777
0
Query!
Contact person for public queries
Name
9635
0
Ms Alicia Smith
Query!
Address
9635
0
Bowel Health Service
Repatriation General Hospital Daw Park
Daws Rd
Daw Park SA 5041
Query!
Country
9635
0
Australia
Query!
Phone
9635
0
+61 8 82751075
Query!
Fax
9635
0
+61 8 02751083
Query!
Email
9635
0
[email protected]
Query!
Contact person for scientific queries
Name
563
0
Mr Stephen Cole
Query!
Address
563
0
Bowel Health Service
Repatriation General Hospital Daw Park
Daws Road
Daw Park SA 5041
Query!
Country
563
0
Australia
Query!
Phone
563
0
+61 8 82751838
Query!
Fax
563
0
+61 8 82751083
Query!
Email
563
0
[email protected]
Query!
No information has been provided regarding IPD availability
What supporting documents are/will be available?
No Supporting Document Provided
Results publications and other study-related documents
Documents added manually
No documents have been uploaded by study researchers.
Documents added automatically
No additional documents have been identified.
Download to PDF