How to increase uptake in oncologic screening: a systematic review of studies comparing population-based screening programs and spontaneous access.

BACKGROUND Cervical, breast and colorectal cancer (CRC) screenings are universally recommended interventions. High coverage of the target population represents the most important factor in determining their success. This systematic review aimed at assessing the effectiveness of population-based screening programs in increasing coverage compared to spontaneous access. METHODS Electronic databases and national and regional websites were searched. We included all studies on interventions aimed at increasing screening participation published between 1999 and 2009; for those published before, we consulted the Jepson et al. review (2000). We compared spontaneous access (including no intervention) vs population-based screening programs actively inviting the target population. Among the latter, we compared GP-based vs invitation letter-based interventions. RESULTS The invitation letter vs no intervention showed significantly more participation (RR=1.60 95%CI 1.33-1.92; RR=1.52 95%CI 1.28-1.82; RR=1.15 95%CI 1.12-1.19, for breast, cervical and CRC screenings, respectively). GP-based interventions, although more heterogeneous, showed a significant effect when compared with no intervention for breast (RR=1.74 95%CI 1.25-2.43), but not for cervical and CRC. No significant differences were found between invitation letter-based and GP-based organization (RR=0.99 95%CI 0.94-1.05; RR=1.08 95%CI 0.99-1.17, for breast and cervical cancer, respectively). CONCLUSION Population-based programs are more effective than spontaneous screening in obtaining higher testing uptake. Both invitation letter-based and GP-based programs are effective.