Please note this application is under active development. If you spot any errors or something isn't working, please contact us at evidence.service@wales.nhs.uk.

Addition of financial incentives to mailed outreach for promoting colorectal cancer screening: A systematic review and meta-analysis

Facciorusso et al (2021)

Health Evidence - 10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.22581

Evidence Categories

  • Care setting: Not described
  • Population group: Men
  • Population group: Women
  • Population group: Older adults
  • Population group: Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic populations
  • Population group: Low socioeconomic status
  • Intervention: Incentives / Competitions
  • Outcome: Screening: Uptake of colorectal cancer screening

Type of Evidence

Systematic Review

Aims

To evaluate the relative and absolute benefit associated with adding financial incentives to the uptake of colorectal cancer screening.

Findings

A total of 8 RCTs that were conducted in the United States and reported between January 1, 2014, and December 31, 2020, were included. The trials involved 110 644 participants, of whom 53 444 (48.3%) were randomized to the intervention group (received financial incentives) and 57 200 (51.7%) were randomized to the control group (received no financial incentives).

Participants were predominantly male, with 59 113 men (53.4%). Low-quality evidence (rated down for risk of bias and heterogeneity) suggested that adding financial incentives may be associated with a small benefit of increasing CRC screening vs no financial incentives (odds ratio [OR], 1.25; 95% CI, 1.05-1.49).

With mailed outreach having a 30% estimated CRC screening completion rate, adding financial incentives may increase the rate to 33.5% (95% CI, 30.8%-36.2%). On metaregression, the magnitude of benefit decreased as the proportion of participants with low income and/or from racial/ethnic minority groups increased. No significant differences were observed by type of behavioral economic intervention (fixed amount: OR, 1.26 [95% CI, 1.05-1.52] vs lottery: OR, 1.06 [95% CI, 0.80-1.40]; P = .32), amount of incentive (≤$5: OR, 1.09 [95% CI, 1.01-1.18] vs >$5: OR, 1.25 [95% CI, 1.02-1.54]; P = .22), or screening modality (stool-based test: OR, 1.14 [95% CI, 0.92-1.41] vs colonoscopy: OR, 1.63 [95% CI, 1.01-2.64]; P = .18).

Conclusions

Adding financial incentives appeared to be associated with a small benefit of increasing CRC screening uptake, with marginal benefits in underserved populations with adverse social determinants of health. Alternative approaches to enhancing CRC screening uptake are warranted.

Also In This Category

    No other evidence in this category.