FOBT
Delivery of kits and collection of stool samples
The test kit may be delivered by mail, at GPs’ offices or outpatient clinics, by pharmacists, or in other
community facilities, and in some cases with the support of volunteers. There is no evidence that any
of these strategies may have an impact on the proportion of inadequate samples, provided that clear
and simple instruction sheets are included with the kit
The choice of the provider should aim to maximise accessibility, taking into account local conditions,
settings and cultural factors.
Mailing of the FOBT kit with instructions, together with the invitation letter and the information leaflet,
is effective in increasing participation rates (Church et al. 2004; Segnan et al. 2005). These results are
consistent with previous reports indicating that the GP’s letter and mailing of FOBT kits represent the
most important factors for improving compliance (King et al. 1992). Mailing of the FOBT kit might not
always represent a cost-effective strategy, if the baseline participation rate and the expected increase
in participation are low. Compared to mailing a second FOBT kit to all non-responders, mailing a recall
letter with a test order coupon resulted in a substantial decrease in the programme costs, but also in
a significant decrease in participation (Tifratene et al. 2007). The authors of the trial suggested, however,
that the spared costs might be allocated more efficiently to communication interventions that
might have a higher impact on compliance.
Several test providers close to the target population should be available when the subject is required
to reach health or community facilities to get the kit. A recent study (Federici et al. 2006) showed that
the time required to reach the test provider was the strongest determinant of compliance: OR (<15
minutes versus 15–30 or >30 minutes):0.8 (0.5–1.3) and 0.3 (0.2–0.7) respectively.
Volunteers or non-health professionals may also be involved in the distribution and collection of kits.
Delivery of kits may represent in this case an additional opportunity for counselling, for conveying information
about the programme and for providing instructions for test utilisation. Subjects contacted
at home by a trained non-health professional who delivered the kit and collected the sample from the
participant’s home showed a substantially higher completion rate of iFOBT, as compared to the group
who received the kit by mail with an invitation from their primary care physician, (Courtier et al.
2002).
Community volunteers, who have received some general training by the programme staff, have been
involved in the kit distribution in the context of ongoing organised programmes and their involvement
has been consistently associated with high participation rates (Zorzi et al. 2007). As no randomised
comparison is available, it is difficult to dissociate their specific effect from other characteristics of the
communities or target populations involved. Sustainability over time represents an important issue to
be taken into account when planning to use volunteer support.
The modalities adopted for stool collection, storage and shipping of the sample to the laboratory are
mainly dependent on the characteristics of the test adopted, i.e. its stability at environment temperature.
Based on these considerations mailing of the samples may be an option that can be implemented
more easily for guaiac than for immunochemical tests, which need to be processed faster.
Accessibility of the collection facilities remains an important goal, but the logistics of the sample han-dling may promote reducing the number of collection facilities in order to ensure an appropriate storage
or timely shipping to the laboratories.
Summary of evidence
There is no evidence that the proportion of inadequate samples may be affected by the provider
used to deliver the kit, if clear and simple instruction sheets are provided with the kit (II - V).
The time required to reach the test provider represents a strong determinant of compliance (II).
Sending the FOBT kit together with the invitation letter may be more effective than sending a letter
alone, but this strategy may not be cost-effective (II).
No comments:
Post a Comment