Identification of Low-Uptake Population Segments in Cancer Screening

• Research type

  Research Study

• Full title

  Identification of Specific Low-Uptake Population Segments in Breast Cancer Screening

• IRAS ID

  286034

• Contact name

  Cheuk Wong

• Contact email

  cheuk-fung.wong@imperial.ac.uk

• Sponsor organisation

  Imperial College London

• Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier

  N/A, N/A

• Duration of Study in the UK

  0 years, 10 months, 1 days

• Research summary

  Breast cancer is the most common cancer amongst females in the UK. Cancer screening is offered to women every 3 years between 50 and 70. Detecting cancers at an earlier stage often requires less invasive treatment and have better outcomes. Breast screening is said to save approximately 1300 lives per year.

  Breast screening uptake is, however, falling nationally, with some regions failing to achieve the target of 70% of eligible females screened within 3 years. Previous studies have suggested factors, such as ethnicity and higher deprivation, are associated with screening non-compliance, but there is a lack of population-level analysis on the characteristics of patients whom are not compliant with screening, including an understanding of how the different predictors of screening combine.

  This project aims to assess the individual and combination of characteristics strongly associated with the poor uptake of Breast Cancer Screening. It will also establish whether the combination of characteristics associated with non-compliance differ among regions with poor uptake. The objective of which would be to define low-uptake subgroups. This would later inform a targeted intervention to increase breast screening uptake amongst the non-compliant population.

  Lay Summary of Results

  During the study period several changes to the data sharing infrastructure of screening data occurred. Firstly, Public Health England was ceased and NHS England became the data controllers. Subsequently data sharing policies and governance were stopped and then underwent review. These changes meant that no data was processed and the study was not started and required re-design.

  The study was therefore terminated prematurely due to changes in PHE/NHS Englands data sharing policies leading to delays and ultimately, changes to the project- requiring substantial re-design.
  Has the registry been updated to include summary results?: No
  If yes - please enter the URL to summary results:
  If no – why not?: Not a clinical trial - secondary data analysis. Study was terminated due to above re-design in NHSE policy.
  Did you follow your dissemination plan submitted in the IRAS application form (Q A51)?: No
  If yes, describe or provide URLs to disseminated materials:
  If pending, date when dissemination is expected:
  If no, explain why you didn't follow it: Study terminated prematurely due to changes in PHE/NHS Englands data sharing policies leading to delays and ultimately, changes to the project- requiring substantial re-design.

  Therefore no results from this version of the study were obtained to disseminate
  Have participants been informed of the results of the study?: No
  If yes, describe and/or provide URLs to materials shared and how they were shared:
  If pending, date when feedback is expected:
  If no, explain why they haven't: NA this was a secondary data study.
  Have you enabled sharing of study data with others?: No
  If yes, describe or provide URLs to how it has been shared:
  If no, explain why sharing hasn't been enabled: Study terminated prematurely due to changes in PHE/NHS Englands data sharing policies leading to delays and ultimately, changes to the project- requiring substantial re-design.

  Have you enabled sharing of tissue samples and associated data with others?: No
  If yes, describe or provide a URL:
  If no, explain why: NA no tissue samples.
  Captcha: 03AFcWeA41wJCRmaWeFChWlQXrS7RV5bh2tf-r1xDEYoqLNWDxkhqnYhPu0CHwngVNnOjmLX_KWzO1-p7UPMt5KY0Y1GRWa-jyIU48vjd90PicH9WVIy6n92jGoLdxV4LASLgtQKzZWv0eDb-ZqEQ-ISkUgxJen3Nq8GuDHb7EBd05N1mHyrjn2bkRih6nL1ojBxwi_PoA6uIl20FxNdJkvLw9RLleajs08bE9N7r-neVw-f2crJh0LywAViPGGSWYsDH4ev0YaNfkKccDA5wYkVP0CqImdy8w2vScFnr36qBlbcBW9LyB3KTye3wgMo2Gat6EwrVViWM6dbIZpw_3O9HG06X1Pe6YDEyyOJihifmlsJ-YMs-vTv-FvbavX08ahcDdJHw4WoWvCLlXFMry0DkpjG7nP8wk-QQtZgVs49qAFUSeW8o0CSVFyqtNCtvitmj1erdisM05kvNLX4FFMeWq0R1O11XBoYwYMlu2lEU3nWP_IzuzgkvD7TVmRIM2Sv_WlATyLKT9zjXsO6dl_phlF5izZp4YjHyl9LLqjQ4gqdH1QFouGx8qzetGep9Dv20jXPkpS61IOMBnCZA7q_AzdWdLW5433-lcikVKTO0M8RQTTGFG513hZsgPff-cmIod0M6Yd8Z0R28ieneWQy81IuuZXofaYDOU7UKsag4Xa3ejsZfZJDOcgROEbvChoJjhhuazhsfJ1te8IxiKmlS-i-kgBqWkrEBNvBldrVrEKBAex2c2vcz-0mgX2aCP_WN01laGp4HkBvDrK4c38voQsx78qNsrvmBjWc9XaxuDqyVpK9UEG8LqDYtgbmciZlJ9g4ziVKNlRMxBmUExUwYAXEHqwmVLR6lqSpAGOWayT-bS8EuQ2dHGD0F7vg9BsK-SdaT0UUAyEYM2bRyWl0yxA3FhCmf3yPstoOQhyPwNCVSZgHrIY8Z3jrmdcI0ffuCs7Dm7OciIEK4KbeUE8xIByBBDuhXhwPdsZDBTN2IlMAkUcaK2zuc7Yxmv6Vp810TPYvjDS-T9dFoMkiEJY4cQfoxPzP-z6nrsTnlno6Oe-ccswKam-hM
  

• REC name

  London - Surrey Borders Research Ethics Committee

• REC reference

  21/LO/0219

• Date of REC Opinion

  12 Apr 2021

• REC opinion

  Further Information Favourable Opinion