Skip to content
DraconiticResearch
Search Sources API
197,768 studies31 sourcesUpdated 16 min ago
Peer-reviewedCC BY-NC 4.0The European Journal of Public Health

Nudging Hard-to-Reach Populations Toward Spanish Colorectal Cancer Screening (JA PreventNCD study)

Abstract

Introduction: Men over 60 are the least likely to participate in the Colorectal Cancer Screening Programme of the Valencia Community (CRCSP-VC). This study assesses three invitation-based behavioural nudges of increasing intensity to boost screening participation among never-screened men over 60 (hard-to-reach population).

Methods: A randomized controlled trial within the CRCSP-VC (Spain, Feb–Sep 2025) targeting never-screened men over 60 from the screening-eligible population, randomly assigned to one control and three intervention groups. The control group (n = 1,600) received the usual invitation (letter plus pre-paid card to accept the invitation; if accepted, the screening test was mailed home); Intervention groups (I) received escalating nudges: I1 (n = 1,600), usual invitation plus a modified letter using behavioural change messages; I2 (n = 1,600), I1 plus choice of pre-paid card or SMS to accept; I3 (n = 1,200), I1 plus direct home delivery of the screening test. Descriptive and multivariate (logit CI95%) analysis of the outcome variable (participation in CRCSP-VC), by region, age and socio-economic status (SES) (Q1=best to Q4=worst). Randomised Control Trial Registry: https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN52248153. Ethics Committee approval (20241220/03/E).

Results: Participation rates were 5.4% (control group), 6.5% (I1), 7.7% (I2), and 19.7% (I3). Compared to controls, adjusted ORs were: I1 (OR1.20; CI 0.73-1.97); I2 (OR1.53; CI 0.94-2.50); and I3 (OR 4.30; CI 2.67-6.95). Participation increases in I3 vs control group in all SES levels (p < 0.05): (Q1: 4.2% vs 19.1%; Q2: 6.3% vs 22.0%; Q3: 1.7%-16.1%; Q4: 8.9% vs 20.8%).

Conclusions: Nudge intensity strongly predicts screening uptake. Directly mailing the screening test to participantśhome produced a four-fold participation increase, with consistent gains across all socioeconomic groups, suggesting this strategy can meaningfully reduce screening inequalities in hard-to-reach populations.

Key messages: • Participation rates increase significantly when the screening test is included directly with the invitation letter.

• Sending the screening test directly with the invitation letter reduces screening inequalities in hard-to-reach populations.

Related

  1. Improving cancer prevention literacy in a Spanish cancer screening population (JA PreventNCD study)
    M Vanaclocha-Espí, P Romeo-Cervera, E Pérez-Sanz +1
    The European Journal of Public HealthPeer-reviewedCC BY-NC 4.0Full textOncologyPMCEurope PMC
  2. A clinical prediction nomogram for hemorrhoid risk in health screening populations in Beijing, China: a retrospective cohort study of 35,256 adults
    Jia Wu, Keyang Zheng, Haixiang Liu +1
    Frontiers in medicinePeer-reviewedCC BYFull textGeneral medicineEurope PMC
  3. Toward Precision Colorectal Cancer Screening: Integrating Clinical Risk Stratification, Molecular Biomarkers, and Artificial Intelligence
    Sorinel Lunca, Stefan Morarasu, Gabriel Mihail Dimofte
    Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania)Peer-reviewedCC BYFull textGeneral medicineEurope PMC
  4. Evaluation of a colorectal cancer screening program composed of successive waves of different tests: The experience of the French Calvados County
    Adrien Grancher, Véronique Bouvier, Marie-Christine Quertier +3
    Cancer EpidemiologyPeer-reviewedLicence not stated1 citedOncologyHAL
  5. Cost-Effectiveness of Colorectal Cancer Screening Tests: Reply to Response.
    Chris Estes, Paul J Limburg
    Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive OncologyPeer-reviewedCC BY-NC-NDFull textOncologyEurope PMC
BibTeX
@article{molinabarcelo2026nudging,
  title = {{Nudging Hard-to-Reach Populations Toward Spanish Colorectal Cancer Screening (JA PreventNCD study)}},
  author = {A Molina-Barceló and E Pérez-Sanz and P Romeo-Cervera and I Iturbe-Ormaeche and D Jiménez-Gómez and S Castán-Cameo and M Besó and M Vanaclocha-Espí},
  journal = {The European Journal of Public Health},
  year = {2026},
  month = oct,
  doi = {10.1093/eurpub/ckag169.547},
  url = {https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckag169.547},
  note = {CC BY-NC 4.0},
}
RIS
TY  - JOUR
TI  - Nudging Hard-to-Reach Populations Toward Spanish Colorectal Cancer Screening (JA PreventNCD study)
AU  - A Molina-Barceló
AU  - E Pérez-Sanz
AU  - P Romeo-Cervera
AU  - I Iturbe-Ormaeche
AU  - D Jiménez-Gómez
AU  - S Castán-Cameo
AU  - M Besó
AU  - M Vanaclocha-Espí
PY  - 2026
DA  - 2026/10/01
JO  - The European Journal of Public Health
DO  - 10.1093/eurpub/ckag169.547
UR  - https://doi.org/10.1093/eurpub/ckag169.547
AB  - Introduction: Men over 60 are the least likely to participate in the Colorectal Cancer Screening Programme of the Valencia Community (CRCSP-VC). This study assesses three invitation-based behavioural nudges of increasing intensity to boost screening participation among never-screened men over 60 (hard-to-reach population).  Methods: A randomized controlled trial within the CRCSP-VC (Spain, Feb–Sep 2025) targeting never-screened men over 60 from the screening-eligible population, randomly assigned to one control and three intervention groups. The control group (n = 1,600) received the usual invitation (letter plus pre-paid card to accept the invitation; if accepted, the screening test was mailed home); Intervention groups (I) received escalating nudges: I1 (n = 1,600), usual invitation plus a modified letter using behavioural change messages; I2 (n = 1,600), I1 plus choice of pre-paid card or SMS to accept; I3 (n = 1,200), I1 plus direct home delivery of the screening test. Descriptive and multivariate (logit CI95%) analysis of the outcome variable (participation in CRCSP-VC), by region, age and socio-economic status (SES) (Q1=best to Q4=worst). Randomised Control Trial Registry: https://doi.org/10.1186/ISRCTN52248153. Ethics Committee approval (20241220/03/E).  Results: Participation rates were 5.4% (control group), 6.5% (I1), 7.7% (I2), and 19.7% (I3). Compared to controls, adjusted ORs were: I1 (OR1.20; CI 0.73-1.97); I2 (OR1.53; CI 0.94-2.50); and I3 (OR 4.30; CI 2.67-6.95). Participation increases in I3 vs control group in all SES levels (p < 0.05): (Q1: 4.2% vs 19.1%; Q2: 6.3% vs 22.0%; Q3: 1.7%-16.1%; Q4: 8.9% vs 20.8%).  Conclusions: Nudge intensity strongly predicts screening uptake. Directly mailing the screening test to participantśhome produced a four-fold participation increase, with consistent gains across all socioeconomic groups, suggesting this strategy can meaningfully reduce screening inequalities in hard-to-reach populations.  Key messages: • Participation rates increase significantly when the screening test is included directly with the invitation letter.  • Sending the screening test directly with the invitation letter reduces screening inequalities in hard-to-reach populations.
SN  - 1101-1262
SN  - 1464-360X
ER  -