Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Our goal is to evaluate, in France, the effectiveness (in terms of participation) of the general practitioner involvement (signature) and a more personalized communication in invitation letters to organized screening of breast, colorectal and cervical cancers.
The hypothesis on which this project is based is that communication is probably more effective if the "receiver" feels personally targeted by invitation letters (Dear Martin, I am writing ...) and if he knows "the issuer "(his general practitioner rather an unknown person).
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Label | Type | Description | Intervention Names |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1: standard invitation | Other | Group 1: sending a standard invitation signed by the coordinating doctor (send by the structure responsible for organized screenings) Intervention : Normal invitation |
|
| 2: Revised invitation | Experimental | Group 2: Sending a revised invitation ( text, layout) signed by the coordinating doctor (send by the structure responsible for organized screenings) Intervention : revised invitation signed by the coordinating doctor |
|
| 3 : revised invitation signed by the attending physician | Experimental | Group 3: Sending a revised invitation signed by the attending physician (send by the structure responsible for organized screenings) Intervention : Revised invitation signed by the attending physician |
|
| Name | Type | Description | Arm Group Labels | Other Names |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Normal invitation | Other | No modification and signed by the coordinating doctor as usual |
|
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Evaluate the effect on the participation (of the population) in cancer screening of an intervention involving the general practitioner (integration of signature) in the invitation letters | The participation / non participation will be measured for each cancer screening (breast, colorectal and cervical) :
The participation rate is defined as the number of people having participated, divided by the total number of people in the group or subgroup considered. Analysis by comparing the participation rates between groups (Group 1, Group 2 and Group 3) and sub-groups will be done. | 9 or 12 months after the invitation letters |
| Measure | Description | Time Frame |
|---|---|---|
| Evaluate the effectiveness on the participation (of the population) of the use of a simplified and more focused communication in the invitation letters : comparison of the participation rates in arm 1 (normal invitation) and arm 2 (revised invitation) | 9 or 12 months after the invitation letters | |
| Evaluate the effectiveness on the participation (of the population) of the two types of general practitioner signature (typed versus typed + handwritten) by comparing the participation rates between two sub-groups in the arm 3. |
Not provided
Inclusion Criteria:
Exclusion Criteria:
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| Name | Affiliation | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Ken HAGUENOER | University Hospital of TOURS | Study Director |
| Facility | Status | City | State | ZIP | Country | Contacts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Centre de Coordination des Dépistages des Cancers (CCDC) | Tours | 37044 | France |
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
Not provided
| revised invitation signed by the coordinating doctor | Other | Invitation with revised text and layout and signed by the coordinating doctor as usual |
|
| Revised invitation signed by the attending physician | Other | signature typed or typed + handwritten |
|
| 9 or 12 months after the invitation letters |
| Cost-effectiveness of different strategies for each cancer screening (breast, colorectal and cervical) as measured by cost effectiveness ratio (total costs in Euros divided by total screened people) | 9 or 12 months after the invitation letters |
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D001943 | Breast Neoplasms |
| D015179 | Colorectal Neoplasms |
| D002583 | Uterine Cervical Neoplasms |
| ID | Term |
|---|---|
| D009371 | Neoplasms by Site |
| D009369 | Neoplasms |
| D001941 | Breast Diseases |
| D012871 | Skin Diseases |
| D017437 | Skin and Connective Tissue Diseases |
| D007414 | Intestinal Neoplasms |
| D005770 | Gastrointestinal Neoplasms |
| D004067 | Digestive System Neoplasms |
| D004066 | Digestive System Diseases |
| D005767 | Gastrointestinal Diseases |
| D003108 | Colonic Diseases |
| D007410 | Intestinal Diseases |
| D012002 | Rectal Diseases |
| D014594 | Uterine Neoplasms |
| D005833 | Genital Neoplasms, Female |
| D014565 | Urogenital Neoplasms |
| D002577 | Uterine Cervical Diseases |
| D014591 | Uterine Diseases |
| D005831 | Genital Diseases, Female |
| D052776 | Female Urogenital Diseases |
| D005261 | Female Urogenital Diseases and Pregnancy Complications |
| D000091642 | Urogenital Diseases |
| D000091662 | Genital Diseases |
Not provided
Not provided