@article{Vives2024,

title = {The use of text messages as an alternative invitation method for breast cancer screening: A randomized controlled trial (M-TICS study)},

author = {Nuria Vives and Carmen Vidal and Ena Niño de Guzman and Albert Farre and Jon Aritz Panera and Gemma Binefa and Montse Garcia and },

editor = {Daniele Ugo Tari},

doi = {10.1371/journal.pone.0306720},

issn = {1932-6203},

year  = {2024},

date = {2024-08-29},

journal = {PLoS ONE},

volume = {19},

number = {8},

publisher = {Public Library of Science (PLoS)},

abstract = {This study aimed to determine whether a text message is as good as a postal letter as an invitation method for previous screenees in a breast cancer screening program, considering a non-inferiority margin of -2 percent points on participation rate. A non-inferiority randomized control trial was conducted. Women in the intervention group (n = 5,362) were invited by text message, and women in the control group (n = 5,482) were invited by letter, which is the standard invitation procedure of the program. In both groups, the invitation included a fixed appointment for mammography and a text message reminder 96 hours before the appointment. The primary outcome was screening participation rate (completing mammography within 12 weeks of invitation). Secondary outcomes included mammography attendance to initial or rescheduled appointments and cancellation rate. The intention-to-treat analysis showed a participation rate of 87.3% and 86.6% in the control and intervention groups, respectively. The difference in participation rate was -0.7 percentage points (95% confidence interval [CI], -1.8 to ∞), indicating non-inferiority of text messages compared to letter invitations. The per-protocol analysis showed similar results. Attendance at the initial appointment was higher in women who received the text message invitation compared to those in the control group (P<0.002). Women who received the invitation by letter canceled more the initial appointment scheduled compared to the text message group (21.1% and 15.1%, P<0.007). In conclusion, we found that a text message invitation for women who had previously participated in breast cancer screening was not inferior to the standard letter. This randomized controlled trial provides valuable insights into the use of alternative invitation methods for population-based cancer screening programs. However, further research is needed to determine the best timing and frequency of text messages for better outcomes and identify strategies for facilitating rescheduling or cancellation.

Trial Registration: Clinicaltrials.gov NCT04343950, (04/09/2020).},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{pmid39083331,

title = {Effectiveness and Acceptability of Targeted Text Message Reminders in Colorectal Cancer Screening: Randomized Controlled Trial (M-TICS Study)},

author = {Vives N and Travier N and Farre A and Binefa G and Vidal C and Pérez Lacasta MJ and Ibáñez-Sanz G and Niño de Guzmán EP and Panera JA and Garcia M and M-TICS Research Group},

doi = {10.2196/57959},

issn = {2369-2960},

year  = {2024},

date = {2024-07-01},

journal = {JMIR Public Health Surveill},

volume = {10},

pages = {e57959},

abstract = {BACKGROUND: Mobile phone-based SMS text message reminders have the potential to improve colorectal cancer screening participation rates.nnOBJECTIVE: This study assessed the effectiveness and acceptability of adding targeted SMS text message reminders to the standard procedure for those who picked up but did not return their screening kit at the pharmacy within 14 days in a colorectal cancer screening program in Catalonia, Spain.nnMETHODS: We performed a randomized control trial among individuals who picked up a fecal immunochemical test (FIT) kit for colorectal cancer screening at the pharmacy but did not return it within 14 days. The intervention group (n=4563) received an SMS text message reminder on the 14th day of kit pick up and the control group (n=4806) received no reminder. A 30-day reminder letter was sent to both groups if necessary. The main primary outcome was the FIT completion rate within 30, 60, and 126 days from FIT kit pick up (intention-to-treat analysis). A telephone survey assessed the acceptability and appropriateness of the intervention. The cost-effectiveness of adding an SMS text message reminder to FIT completion was also performed.nnRESULTS: The intervention group had higher FIT completion rates than the control group at 30 (64.2% vs 53.7%; P<.001), 60 (78.6% vs 72.0%; P<.001), and 126 (82.6% vs 77.7%; P<.001) days. Participation rates were higher in the intervention arm independent of sex, age, socioeconomic level, and previous screening behavior. A total of 339 (89.2%) interviewees considered it important and useful to receive SMS text message reminders for FIT completion and 355 (93.4%) preferred SMS text messages to postal letters. We observed a reduction of US $2.4 per participant gained in the intervention arm for invitation costs compared to the control arm.nnCONCLUSIONS: Adding an SMS text message reminder to the standard procedure significantly increased FIT kit return rates and was a cost-effective strategy. SMS text messages also proved to be an acceptable and appropriate communication channel for cancer screening programs.nnTRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04343950; https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT04343950.nnINTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1371/journal.pone.0245806.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{pmid38141149b,

title = {An Online HIV Self-Sampling Strategy for Gay, Bisexual and Other Men Who Have Sex with Men and Trans Women in Spain},

author = {Martínez-Riveros H and Díaz Y and Montoro-Fernandez M and Moreno-Fornés S and González V and Muntada E and Romano-deGea P and Muñoz R and Hoyos J and Casabona J and Agustí C},

doi = {10.1007/s10900-023-01311-8},

issn = {1573-3610},

year  = {2024},

date = {2024-06-01},

journal = {J Community Health},

volume = {49},

number = {3},

pages = {535--548},

abstract = {We aimed to evaluate the feasibility of an online self-sampling pilot intervention for HIV testing addressed to gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (GBMSM) and trans women (TW) users of dating apps in Spain. The website https://www.testate.org/ was designed to offer self-sampling kits for HIV testing and online consultation of the results. It was advertised on gay dating apps. Participants requested the delivery of a saliva self-sampling kit by mail and a postage-paid envelope to send the sample to the reference laboratory. An anonymous acceptability survey was conducted. The cascade of care was estimated. From November 2018 to December 2021, 4623 individual users ordered self-sampling kits, 3097 returned an oral fluid sample to the reference laboratory (67.5% return rate). 87 reactive results were detected. 76 were confirmed to be HIV-positive, we estimated an HIV prevalence of 2.45% (95% CI 1.9-3.0%). 100% of those referred to specialized care are in treatment. 45.8% of participants took more than one test. 23 incident cases were detected among repeat testers, of which 20 were confirmed. The estimated incidence was 1.00 confirmed case per 100 individual-years of follow-up. 98.01% of participants would recommend it to a friend. The most identified advantages were convenience and privacy. We demonstrated that the online offer of oral self-sampling kits for HIV detection and reporting results online among GBMSM and TW users of dating apps is feasible. The intervention counted with a high acceptability and high efficacy (in terms of reactivity, confirmation and linkage to care rates).},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{pmid38830535,

title = {Global review of COVID-19 mitigation strategies and their impact on cancer service disruptions},

author = {Shah R and Loo CE and Hanna NM and Hughes S and Mafra A and Fink H and McFerran E and Garcia M and Acharya S and Langselius O and Frick C and Niyigaba J and Lasebikan N and Steinberg J and Sullivan R and Bray F and Ilbawi AM and Ginsburg O and Chiam K and Cylus J and Caruana M and David M and Hui H and Canfell K and Soerjomataram I},

doi = {10.1016/j.jcpo.2024.100486},

issn = {2213-5383},

year  = {2024},

date = {2024-06-01},

journal = {J Cancer Policy},

volume = {41},

pages = {100486},

abstract = {During the COVID-19 pandemic, countries adopted mitigation strategies to reduce disruptions to cancer services. We reviewed their implementation across health system functions and their impact on cancer diagnosis and care during the pandemic. A systematic search was performed using terms related to cancer and COVID-19. Included studies reported on individuals with cancer or cancer care services, focusing on strategies/programs aimed to reduce delays and disruptions. Extracted data were grouped into four functions (governance, financing, service delivery, and resource generation) and sub-functions of the health system performance assessment framework. We included 30 studies from 16 countries involving 192,233 patients with cancer. Multiple mitigation approaches were implemented, predominantly affecting sub-functions of service delivery to control COVID-19 infection via the suspension of non-urgent cancer care, modified treatment guidelines, and increased telemedicine use in routine cancer care delivery. Resource generation was mainly ensured through adequate workforce supply. However, less emphasis on monitoring or assessing the effectiveness and financing of these strategies was observed. Seventeen studies suggested improved service uptake after mitigation implementation, yet the resulting impact on cancer diagnosis and care has not been established. This review emphasizes the importance of developing effective mitigation strategies across all health system (sub)functions to minimize cancer care service disruptions during crises. Deficiencies were observed in health service delivery (to ensure equity), governance (to monitor and evaluate the implementation of mitigation strategies), and financing. In the wake of future emergencies, implementation research studies that include pre-prepared protocols will be essential to assess mitigation impact across cancer care services.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}

@article{pmid38083979b,

title = {Risk of COVID-19 death for people with a pre-existing cancer diagnosis prior to COVID-19-vaccination: A systematic review and meta-analysis},

author = {Steinberg J and Hughes S and Hui H and Allsop MJ and Egger S and David M and Caruana M and Coxeter P and Carle C and Onyeka T and Rewais I and Monroy Iglesias MJ and Vives N and Wei F and Abila DB and Carreras G and Santero M and O'Dowd EL and Lui G and Tolani MA and Mullooly M and Lee SF and Landy R and Hanley SJB and Binefa G and McShane CM and Gizaw M and Selvamuthu P and Boukheris H and Nakaganda A and Ergin I and Moraes FY and Timilshina N and Kumar A and Vale DB and Molina-Barceló A and Force LM and Campbell DJ and Wang Y and Wan F and Baker AL and Singh R and Salam RA and Yuill S and Shah R and Lansdorp-Vogelaar I and Yusuf A and Aggarwal A and Murillo R and Torode JS and Kliewer EV and Bray F and Chan KKW and Peacock S and Hanna TP and Ginsburg O and Van Hemelrijck M and Sullivan R and Roitberg F and Ilbawi AM and Soerjomataram I and Canfell K},

doi = {10.1002/ijc.34798},

issn = {1097-0215},

year  = {2024},

date = {2024-04-01},

journal = {Int J Cancer},

volume = {154},

number = {8},

pages = {1394--1412},

abstract = {While previous reviews found a positive association between pre-existing cancer diagnosis and COVID-19-related death, most early studies did not distinguish long-term cancer survivors from those recently diagnosed/treated, nor adjust for important confounders including age. We aimed to consolidate higher-quality evidence on risk of COVID-19-related death for people with recent/active cancer (compared to people without) in the pre-COVID-19-vaccination period. We searched the WHO COVID-19 Global Research Database (20 December 2021), and Medline and Embase (10 May 2023). We included studies adjusting for age and sex, and providing details of cancer status. Risk-of-bias assessment was based on the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Pooled adjusted odds or risk ratios (aORs, aRRs) or hazard ratios (aHRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were calculated using generic inverse-variance random-effects models. Random-effects meta-regressions were used to assess associations between effect estimates and time since cancer diagnosis/treatment. Of 23 773 unique title/abstract records, 39 studies were eligible for inclusion (2 low, 17 moderate, 20 high risk of bias). Risk of COVID-19-related death was higher for people with active or recently diagnosed/treated cancer (general population: aOR = 1.48, 95% CI: 1.36-1.61, I  = 0; people with COVID-19: aOR = 1.58, 95% CI: 1.41-1.77, I  = 0.58; inpatients with COVID-19: aOR = 1.66, 95% CI: 1.34-2.06, I  = 0.98). Risks were more elevated for lung (general population: aOR = 3.4, 95% CI: 2.4-4.7) and hematological cancers (general population: aOR = 2.13, 95% CI: 1.68-2.68, I  = 0.43), and for metastatic cancers. Meta-regression suggested risk of COVID-19-related death decreased with time since diagnosis/treatment, for example, for any/solid cancers, fitted aOR = 1.55 (95% CI: 1.37-1.75) at 1 year and aOR = 0.98 (95% CI: 0.80-1.20) at 5 years post-cancer diagnosis/treatment. In conclusion, before COVID-19-vaccination, risk of COVID-19-related death was higher for people with recent cancer, with risk depending on cancer type and time since diagnosis/treatment.},

keywords = {},

pubstate = {published},

tppubtype = {article}

}