Piloting the Impact of Three Interventions on Guaiac Faecal Occult Blood Test Uptake within the NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme

Table 5

Modelled absolute and relative differencesⁱ in gFOBT uptake across the intervention groupsⁱⁱ, at selected IMD scores (levels of deprivation).

	() Analysis of 60–69-year-olds						() Analysis of 70–74-year-olds
IMD score (deprivation level)	Control group; ( = 145,427)	(A) CRUK endorsement flyer only; ( = 8,093)	(B) CRUK endorsement flyer, plus kit enhancement pack; ( = 7,148)	(C) CRUK endorsement flyer, plus advertising campaign; ( = 4,332)	(D) CRUK endorsement flyer, plus kit enhancement pack and advertising campaign; ( = 3,980)		Control group; ( = 31,959)	(A) CRUK endorsement flyer only; ( = 1,609)	(B) CRUK endorsement flyer, plus kit enhancement pack; ( = 1,475)	(C) CRUK endorsement flyer, plus advertising campaign; ( = 466)	(D) CRUK endorsement flyer, plus kit enhancement pack and advertising campaign; ( = 1,052)
Predicted probability of uptake in each intervention group and control group
10—lower deprivation	48.6%	48.3%	50.3%	50.8%	54.8%		51.1%	49.5%	51.7%	48.0%	58.3%
20	44.7%	44.4%	46.4%	46.9%	50.9%		47.4%	45.8%	48.0%	44.3%	54.6%
30	40.9%	40.6%	42.6%	43.0%	47.0%		43.7%	42.1%	44.3%	40.7%	50.9%
40	37.2%	36.9%	38.8%	39.3%	43.1%		40.1%	38.6%	40.7%	37.2%	47.2%
50	33.6%	33.3%	35.2%	35.6%	39.3%		36.6%	35.1%	37.2%	33.8%	43.6%
60—higher deprivation	30.2%	29.9%	31.7%	32.1%	35.7%		33.2%	31.8%	33.8%	30.6%	40.0%
Absolute difference in modelled uptake in each significant intervention group, compared to control group
10—lower deprivation	48.6%	—	+1.7%	+2.2%	+6.2%		51.1%	—	—	—	+7.2%
20	44.7%	—	+1.7%	+2.2%	+6.2%		47.4%	—	—	—	+7.3%
30	40.9%	—	+1.7%	+2.1%	+6.1%		43.7%	—	—	—	+7.2%
40	37.2%	—	+1.6%	+2.1%	+5.9%		40.1%	—	—	—	+7.1%
50	33.6%	—	+1.6%	+2.0%	+5.7%		36.6%	—	—	—	+7.0%
60—higher deprivation	30.2%	—	+1.5%	+1.9%	+5.5%		33.2%	—	—	—	+6.7%
Relative difference in modelled uptake in each significant intervention group, compared to control group
10—lower deprivation	48.6%	—	+3.6%	+4.5%	+12.7%		51.1%	—	—	—	+0.7%
20	44.7%	—	+3.9%	+4.9%	+13.8%		47.4%	—	—	—	+0.4%
30	40.9%	—	+4.1%	+5.2%	+14.9%		43.7%	—	—	—	+0.2%
40	37.2%	—	+4.4%	+5.6%	+16.0%		40.1%	—	—	—	+0.2%
50	33.6%	—	+4.7%	+5.9%	+17.0%		36.6%	—	—	—	+0.1%
60—higher deprivation	30.2%	—	+4.9%	+6.2%	+18.0%		33.2%	—	—	—	+0.1%

Data shows the predicted probability of uptake using multivariate logistic regression models, after accounting for other factors known to affect uptake.
Data shown for separate analyses of () 60–69-year-olds and () 70–74-year-olds.
ⁱAbsolute and relative differences may not exactly equal differences in modelled uptake due to rounding.
ⁱⁱDifferences are not shown for intervention groups that were not statistically significant overall.