Increasing uptake of cervical screening through behavioural insight

  • Research type

    Research Study

  • Full title

    Does use of an invitation letter optimised based on behavioural insights increase uptake of cervical screening appointments? A randomised controlled trial study

  • IRAS ID

    180795

  • Contact name

    Annabelle Bonus

  • Contact email

    annabelle.bonus@dh.gsi.gov.uk

  • Sponsor organisation

    Department of Health

  • Duration of Study in the UK

    0 years, 7 months, 16 days

  • Research summary

    The purpose of this research is to look at ways to increase take up of cervical screening appointments. This study uses a randomised controlled trial to see whether changes to the invitation letter sent to women who are eligible for a screening appointment can increase take up of screening appointments. The intervention letters are based on behavioural insights (i.e. an understanding of how people behave). The setting is the inner North East London region (covering Newham, City and Hackney and Tower Hamlets). The NHS Shared Business Service for North East London is responsible for the administration of the invitation letters for this region . All women eligible for a screening appointment during the 9-week trial period will be included in the trial. The trial will recruit just under 27,000 women in total. In each of the 9 weeks of the trial, women will be randomised to one of three groups: the standard invitation letter based on the national template (control/letter A), intervention 1 (letter B) or intervention 2 (letter C). The primary outcome is the rate of attendance at a cervical screening appointment within three months following the letter being sent, comparing intervention and control groups. Secondary outcomes will look at whether demographics (age and deprivation) are related to response to the interventions.

  • REC name

    East of England - Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire Research Ethics Committee

  • REC reference

    15/EE/0375

  • Date of REC Opinion

    29 Sep 2015

  • REC opinion

    Further Information Favourable Opinion