Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42129338›Full record

Trial reportBritish journal of cancer2026

The effect of different combinations of open invitations and timed appointments on breast screening attendance: service evaluation of invitation strategies in the NHS Breast Screening Programme.

Shuping J Li, Adam R Brentnall, Jacqui Cookson, Sue Hudson, Samantha L Quaife, Sharon Webb, Emma O'Sullivan, Jacquie Jenkins, Jo Waller, Stephen W Duffy and 1 more

Abstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Trial report in British journal of cancer, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

11 authors.

Shuping J LiCentre for Cancer Screening, Prevention and Early Diagnosis, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4362-4230
Adam R BrentnallCentre for Cancer Screening, Prevention and Early Diagnosis, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Jacqui CooksonNHS Breast Screening Programme, Primary Care, Community, Vaccinations & Screening (PCVS) Directorate, NHS England, London, UK.
Sue HudsonPeel & Schriek Consulting Ltd, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2175-4939
Samantha L QuaifeCentre for Cancer Screening, Prevention and Early Diagnosis, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Sharon WebbNHS Breast Screening Programme, Primary Care, Community, Vaccinations & Screening (PCVS) Directorate, NHS England, London, UK.
Emma O'SullivanNHS Breast Screening Programme, Primary Care, Community, Vaccinations & Screening (PCVS) Directorate, NHS England, London, UK.
Jacquie JenkinsNHS Breast Screening Programme, Primary Care, Community, Vaccinations & Screening (PCVS) Directorate, NHS England, London, UK.
Jo WallerCentre for Cancer Screening, Prevention and Early Diagnosis, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.
Stephen W DuffyCentre for Cancer Screening, Prevention and Early Diagnosis, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4901-7922
Judith OffmanCentre for Cancer Screening, Prevention and Early Diagnosis, Wolfson Institute of Population Health, Queen Mary University of London, London, UK. j.m.offman@qmul.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5604-1635

Funding

DH | National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) PR-PRU-1217-21601
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe NHS Breast Screening Programme invites eligible women using either a timed appointment letter (option to change), or an open invitation to make an appointment. Non-attenders receive a 'Timed' or 'Open' second invitation. NHS England commissioned a service evaluation to determine the effect of different combinations of timed and open invitations.

methodsSeven services, selected to ensure adequate representation of diverse socio-economic, ethnic, urban/rural, and current uptake groups, participated. Women were individually quasi-randomised to four combinations of Open/Timed invitations. The primary outcome was 90-day attendance.

results17,965 women (mean age 58 years, IQR: 47-69) invited from April-October 2023 were included. Attendance overall increased from 49.1% (95%CI 47.7-50.6%) for Open/Open to 67.9% (66.5-69.2%) for Timed/Timed. Attendance following Open/Timed or Timed/Open invitations was 60.0% (58.6-61.4%) and 64.7% (63.3-66.1%) respectively. The same pattern was observed across all deprivation quintiles. Attendance amongst the most deprived increased from 41.1% (38.2-44.1%; Open/Open) to 63.3% (60.6-66.2%; Timed/Timed), compared with 61.4% (57.6-65.2%) to 78.0% (74.5-81.4%) for the least deprived quintile.

conclusionSending timed appointment invitations increases attendance at breast screening. This might have a larger impact in the most deprived areas. Findings informed NHS England on the most effective invitation methodologies from April 2025.

Indexed as

Appointments and SchedulesBreast NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerMass ScreeningPatient Acceptance of Health CareAgedEnglandFemaleHumansMiddle AgedState Medicine

Identifiers

PMID42129338
PMCPMC13427739

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.