Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Randomized Controlled Trial
. 2016 Feb 20;387(10020):751-9.
doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01154-X. Epub 2015 Dec 9.

Effects of Evidence-Based Strategies to Reduce the Socioeconomic Gradient of Uptake in the English NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (ASCEND): Four Cluster-Randomised Controlled Trials

Free PMC article
Randomized Controlled Trial

Effects of Evidence-Based Strategies to Reduce the Socioeconomic Gradient of Uptake in the English NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (ASCEND): Four Cluster-Randomised Controlled Trials

Jane Wardle et al. Lancet. .
Free PMC article


Background: Uptake in the national colorectal cancer screening programme in England varies by socioeconomic status. We assessed four interventions aimed at reducing this gradient, with the intention of improving the health benefits of screening.

Methods: All people eligible for screening (men and women aged 60-74 years) across England were included in four cluster-randomised trials. Randomisation was based on day of invitation. Each trial compared the standard information with the standard information plus the following supplementary interventions: trial 1 (November, 2012), a supplementary leaflet summarising the gist of the key information; trial 2 (March, 2012), a supplementary narrative leaflet describing people's stories; trial 3 (June, 2013), general practice endorsement of the programme on the invitation letter; and trial 4 (July-August, 2013) an enhanced reminder letter with a banner that reiterated the screening offer. Socioeconomic status was defined by the Index of Multiple Deprivation score for each home address. The primary outcome was the socioeconomic status gradient in uptake across deprivation quintiles. This study is registered, number ISRCTN74121020.

Findings: As all four trials were embedded in the screening programme, loss to follow-up was minimal (less than 0·5%). Trials 1 (n=163,525) and 2 (n=150,417) showed no effects on the socioeconomic gradient of uptake or overall uptake. Trial 3 (n=265 434) showed no effect on the socioeconomic gradient but was associated with increased overall uptake (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1·07, 95% CI 1·04-1·10, p<0·0001). In trial 4 (n=168 480) a significant interaction was seen with socioeconomic status gradient (p=0·005), with a stronger effect in the most deprived quintile (adjusted OR 1·11, 95% CI 1·04-1·20, p=0·003) than in the least deprived (1·00, 0·94-1·06, p=0·98). Overall uptake was also increased (1·07, 1·03-1·11, p=0·001).

Interpretation: Of four evidence-based interventions, the enhanced reminder letter reduced the socioeconomic gradient in screening uptake, but further reducing inequalities in screening uptake through written materials alone will be challenging.

Funding: National Institute for Health Research.


Figure 1
Figure 1
Trial 1 profile (gist leaflet) IMD=Index of Multiple Deprivation.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Trial 2 profile (narrative leaflet) IMD=Index of Multiple Deprivation.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Trial 3 profile (general practice endorsement) IMD=Index of Multiple Deprivation.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Trial 4 profile (enhanced reminder letter) IMD=Index of Multiple Deprivation.

Comment in

  • Equal access to colorectal cancer screening.
    Essink-Bot ML, Dekker E. Essink-Bot ML, et al. Lancet. 2016 Feb 20;387(10020):724-6. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01221-0. Epub 2015 Dec 9. Lancet. 2016. PMID: 26680216 No abstract available.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 33 articles

See all "Cited by" articles


    1. Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Ervik M. GLOBOCAN 2012 v1.0, Cancer incidence and mortality worldwide: IARC CancerBase No. 11. 2013. (accessed Jan 20, 2015).
    1. Cancer Research UK Bowel cancer mortality statistics. 2014. (accessed Jan 20, 2015).
    1. Whyte S, Chilcott J, Halloran S. Reappraisal of the options for colorectal cancer screening in England. Colorectal Dis. 2012;14:e547–e561. - PubMed
    1. Maheswaran R, Pearson T, Jordan H, Black D. Socioeconomic deprivation, travel distance, location of service, and uptake of breast cancer screening in North Derbyshire, UK. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2006;60:208–212. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bang JY, Yadegarfar G, Soljak M, Majeed A. Primary care factors associated with cervical screening coverage in England. J Public Health (Oxf) 2012;34:532–538. - PubMed

Publication types

Associated data