BACKGROUND: Population mail-out bowel cancer screening programs save lives through prevention and early detection; however, their effectiveness is constrained by low participation rates. Many non-participants are \"intenders\"; that is, they intend to screen but fail to do so, often forgetting or procrastinating. This study aimed to co-design interventions to increase screening participation among intenders in the Australian National Bowel Cancer Screening Program.
METHODS: Three semi-structured interviews, and one online cross-sectional survey, were conducted between August 2021 and December 2022. Interviews with people who had completed and returned their latest screening kit (\"completers\") were first conducted to identify the planning strategies they had used. Using survey data, logistic regressions were conducted to analyse strategies predictive of participants having returned their latest bowel cancer screening kit. Then, intenders were interviewed to explore their opinions of these strategies and worked with researchers to adapt these strategies into prototype interventions to facilitate screening participation. All interviews were analysed using the framework approach of codebook thematic analysis.
RESULTS: Interview participants who returned their kit shared their effective planning strategies, such as putting the kit in a visible place or by the toilet, planning a time at home to complete the kit, and using reminders. Survey participants who reported using such strategies were more likely to have completed their screening kit compared to those who did not. Prototype interventions developed and endorsed by intenders included providing a prompt to place the kit or a sticker near the toilet as a reminder, a deadline for kit return, the option to sign up for reminders, and a bag to store the sample in the fridge.
CONCLUSIONS: These novel, consumer-led interventions that are built upon the needs and experience of screening invitees provide potential solutions to improve participation in population bowel cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: Sexually transmitted infections (STIs) are a serious public health issue in many countries. Online postal self-sampling (OPSS) is increasingly used to test for STIs, a trend accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic. There remains limited understanding of how service users experience OPSS and what leads them to access it over clinic-based services, or vice versa. This research seeks to address these gaps, by undertaking a large qualitative study which sits within the ASSIST study, a mixed-methods, realist evaluation of OPSS.
METHODS: Participants were recruited via clinic-based and online sexual health services in three case study areas in England. Purposive sampling was used to over-represent populations disproportionately affected by poor sexual health: young people; people of colour; men who have sex with men; and trans and non-binary people. Semi-structured interviews were analysed using Levesque\'s conceptual framework of access to healthcare.
RESULTS: We interviewed 100 service users. Participants typically became aware of OPSS from sexual health services, the internet or word of mouth. Acceptability of OPSS was facilitated by the perceived privacy it offered over clinic-based services, which some participants found embarrassing to access. OPSS also enabled participants to overcome barriers to reaching clinic-based services, such as a lack of appointment availability, although difficulty obtaining OPSS kits in some areas undermined this. As all services in our case study areas were free to use, affordability did not significantly shape access, although OPSS enabled some participants to avoid costs associated with travelling to clinic-based services. Participants were usually able to engage with OPSS, finding it easy to use and reliable, although blood self-sampling was challenging for most. Participants valued the support offered by clinic-based services beyond STI testing, including the opportunity to access contraception or ask staff questions, and felt this was more appropriate when they had specific concerns about their sexual health, such as STI symptoms.
CONCLUSIONS: Our findings constitute one of the largest qualitative studies to have explored OPSS and offer valuable insights to providers. OPSS shapes access to STI testing in a number of ways, including facilitating access in many circumstances, but users also want to retain access to clinic-based services, particularly for when they believe they need support beyond STI testing.

BACKGROUND: Recruitment for clinical trials and large-scale studies is challenging, especially for patients with complex conditions like chronic pain. Email recruitment has the potential to increase efficiency, to reduce costs, and to improve access for underrepresented patient populations. The objective of this study was to examine the effectiveness, efficiency, and equitability of email versus postal mail recruitment for the Learning to Apply Mindfulness to Pain (LAMP) study, a three-site clinical trial of mindfulness-based interventions for chronic pain.
METHODS: Patients with chronic pain diagnoses were recruited from three United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) facilities using the VA electronic health record (EHR). Recruitment materials were sent using either postal mail (n = 7986) or email (n = 19,333). Patients in the email recruitment group were also mailed introductory postcards before any emails. Mailing addresses and email addresses were obtained from the EHR. Effectiveness was measured by the response rate of patients who logged into the secure LAMP study website. Efficiency was measured by the number of days from when the recruitment materials were sent to when patients logged into the LAMP portal as well as the estimated costs of each recruitment approach. To assess equitability, we examined whether email recruitment was less effective for underrepresented populations, based on demographic information from the EHR.
RESULTS: Effectiveness-unadjusted response rates were greater for email versus postal-mail recruitment (18.9% versus 6.3%), and adjusted response rates were over three times greater for email recruitment (RR = 3.5, 95% CI 3.1-3.8) based on a multivariable analysis controlling for age, gender, race, ethnicity, rurality, and site. Efficiency-email recruitment had a significantly lower mean response time (1 day versus 8 days) and a lower cost. Equity-email recruitment led to higher response rates for all subpopulations, including older, non-White, Hispanic, rural, and female Veterans.
CONCLUSIONS: Email recruitment is an effective, efficient, and equitable way to recruit VA patients to large-scale, chronic pain clinical trials.
BACKGROUND: Clinical Trial Registration Number: NCT04526158. Patient enrollment began on December 4, 2020.

BACKGROUND: This qualitative study aims to assess perspectives of clinicians and clinic staff on mail-order pharmacy dispensing for medication abortion.
METHODS: Participants included clinicians and staff involved in implementing a mail-order dispensing model for medication abortion at eleven clinics in seven states as part of a prospective cohort study, which began in January 2020 (before the FDA removed the in-person dispensing requirement for mifepristone). From June 2021 to July 2022, we invited participants at the participating clinics, including six primary care and five abortion clinics, to complete a semi-structured video interview about their experiences. We then conducted qualitative thematic analysis of interview data, summarizing themes related to perceived benefits and concerns about the mail-order model, perceived patient interest, and potential barriers to larger-scale implementation.
RESULTS: We conducted 24 interviews in total with clinicians (13 physicians and one nurse practitioner) and clinic staff (n = 10). Participants highlighted perceived benefits of the mail-order model, including its potential to expand abortion services into primary care, increase patient autonomy and privacy, and to normalize abortion services. They also highlighted key logistical, clinical, and feasibility concerns about the mail-order model, and specific challenges related to integrating abortion into primary care.
CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians and clinic staff working in primary care and abortion clinics were optimistic that mail-order dispensing of medication abortion can improve the ability of some providers to provide abortion and enable more patients to access services. The feasibility of mail-order pharmacy dispensing of medication abortion following the Supreme Court Dobbs decision is to be determined.
BACKGROUND: Registry: Clinicaltrials.gov.
BACKGROUND: NCT03913104. Date of registration: first submitted on April 3, 2019 and first posted on April 12, 2019.

People who use drugs (PWUD) are at increased risk for HIV infection. HIV self-testing (HIVST) is a promising method for identifying new infections, but optimal distribution strategies remain understudied.
To characterize PWUD by HIVST distribution strategy (peers vs. mail), we examined data from July 2022 to June 2023 collected from a real-world HIVST program led by the non-profit, Florida Harm Reduction Collective. We used descriptive statistics and Poisson regressions with robust error variance to compare those who received HIVST through peers or via mail by socio-demographics, Ending the HIV Epidemic (EHE) county designation, and HIV testing experience.
Among 728 participants, 78% received HIVST from peers, 47% identified as cisgender female, 48% as heterosexual, and 45% as non-White; 66% resided in an EHE county, and 55% had no HIV testing experience. Compared to those who received an HIV self-test from peers, those who received tests via mail were less likely to be cisgender male (vs. cisgender female; prevalence ratio [PR] = 0.59, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.43, 0.81), non-Hispanic Black (vs. non-Hispanic White; PR = 0.57, 95% CI: 0.36, 0.89) or from EHE counties (vs. non-EHE counties; PR = 0.33, 95% CI: 0.25, 0.44). Those who received tests via mail were also more likely to identify their sexual orientation as \"Other/Undisclosed\" (vs. straight/heterosexual; PR = 2.00, 95% CI: 1.51, 2.66).
Our findings support the role of community-based HIVST distribution strategies in increasing HIV testing coverage among PWUD. Additional research could help inform the equitable reach of HIVST.

To evaluate whether providing family physicians with feedback on their antibiotic prescribing compared with that of their peers reduces antibiotic prescriptions. To also identify effects on antibiotic prescribing from case-mix adjusted feedback reports and messages emphasising antibiotic associated harms.
Pragmatic, factorial randomised controlled trial.
Primary care physicians in Ontario, Canada PARTICIPANTS: All primary care physicians were randomly assigned a group if they were eligible and actively prescribing antibiotics to patients 65 years or older. Physicians were excluded if had already volunteered to receive antibiotic prescribing feedback from another agency, or had opted out of the trial.
A letter was mailed in January 2022 to physicians with peer comparison antibiotic prescribing feedback compared with the control group who did not receive a letter (4:1 allocation). The intervention group was further randomised in a 2x2 factorial trial to evaluate case-mix adjusted versus unadjusted comparators, and emphasis, or not, on harms of antibiotics.
Antibiotic prescribing rate per 1000 patient visits for patients 65 years or older six months after intervention. Analysis was in the modified intention-to-treat population using Poisson regression.
5046 physicians were included and analysed: 1005 in control group and 4041 in intervention group (1016 case-mix adjusted data and harms messaging, 1006 with case-mix adjusted data and no harms messaging, 1006 unadjusted data and harms messaging, and 1013 unadjusted data and no harms messaging). At six months, mean antibiotic prescribing rate was 59.4 (standard deviation 42.0) in the control group and 56.0 (39.2) in the intervention group (relative rate 0.95 (95% confidence interval 0.94 to 0.96). Unnecessary antibiotic prescribing (0.89 (0.86 to 0.92)), prolonged duration prescriptions defined as more than seven days (0.85 (0.83 to 0.87)), and broad spectrum prescribing (0.94 (0.92 to 0.95)) were also significantly lower in the intervention group compared with the control group. Results were consistent at 12 months post intervention. No significant effect was seen for including emphasis on harms messaging. A small increase in antibiotic prescribing with case-mix adjusted reports was noted (1.01 (1.00 to 1.03)).
Peer comparison audit and feedback letters significantly reduced overall antibiotic prescribing with no benefit of case-mix adjustment or harms messaging. Antibiotic prescribing audit and feedback is a scalable and effective intervention and should be a routine quality improvement initiative in primary care.
ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04594200.

UNASSIGNED: Before 2021, the US Food and Drug Administration required mifepristone to be dispensed in person, limiting access to medication abortion.
UNASSIGNED: To estimate the effectiveness, acceptability, and feasibility of dispensing mifepristone for medication abortion using a mail-order pharmacy.
UNASSIGNED: This prospective cohort study was conducted from January 2020 to May 2022 and included 11 clinics in 7 states (5 abortion clinics and 6 primary care sites, 4 of which were new to abortion provision). Eligible participants were seeking medication abortion at 63 or fewer days\' gestation, spoke English or Spanish, were age 15 years or older, and were willing to take misoprostol buccally. After assessing eligibility for medication abortion through an in-person screening, mifepristone and misoprostol were prescribed using a mail-order pharmacy. Patients had standard follow-up care with the clinic. Clinical information was collected from medical records. Consenting participants completed online surveys about their experiences 3 and 14 days after enrolling. A total of 540 participants were enrolled; 10 withdrew or did not take medication. Data were analyzed from August 2022 to December 2023.
UNASSIGNED: Mifepristone, 200 mg, and misoprostol, 800 µg, prescribed to a mail-order pharmacy and mailed to participants instead of dispensed in person.
UNASSIGNED: Proportion of patients with a complete abortion with medications only, reporting satisfaction with the medication abortion, and reporting timely delivery of medications.
UNASSIGNED: Clinical outcome information was obtained and analyzed for 510 abortions (96.2%) among 506 participants (median [IQR] age, 27 [23-31] years; 506 [100%] female; 194 [38.3%] Black, 88 [17.4%] Hispanic, 141 [27.9%] White, and 45 [8.9%] multiracial/other individuals). Of these, 436 participants (85.5%; 95% CI, 82.2%-88.4%) received medications within 3 days. Complete abortion occurred after medication use in 499 cases (97.8%; 95% CI, 96.2%-98.9%). There were 24 adverse events (4.7%) for which care was sought for medication abortion symptoms; 3 patients (0.6%; 95% CI, 0.1%-1.7%) experienced serious adverse events requiring hospitalization (1 with blood transfusion); however, no adverse events were associated with mail-order dispensing. Of 477 participants, 431 (90.4%; 95% CI, 87.3%-92.9%) indicated that they would use mail-order dispensing again for abortion care, and 435 participants (91.2%; 95% CI, 88.3%-93.6%) reported satisfaction with the medication abortion. Findings were similar to those of other published studies of medication abortion with in-person dispensing.
UNASSIGNED: The findings of this cohort study indicate that mail-order pharmacy dispensing of mifepristone for medication abortion was effective, acceptable to patients, and feasible, with a low prevalence of serious adverse events. This care model should be expanded to improve access to medication abortion services.

UNASSIGNED: Mailed stool testing for colorectal cancer (CRC) may improve screening uptake and reduce the incidence and mortality of CRC, especially among patients at federally qualified health centers (FQHCs). To expand screening programs it is important to identify cost-effective approaches.
UNASSIGNED: We developed a decision-analytic model to estimate the cost, effects on screening and patient outcomes (CRCs detected, CRCs prevented, CRC deaths prevented), and cost-effectiveness of implementing a state-wide mailed stool testing program over 5 years among unscreened, age-eligible (aged 50-75 y) patients at FQHCs in Texas. We compared various outreach strategies and organizational structures (centralized, regional, or a hybrid). We used data from our existing regional mailed stool testing program and recent systematic reviews to set parameters for the model. Costs included start-up and ongoing activities and were estimated in 2022 US dollars from the perspective of a hypothetical third-party payer. Cost-effectiveness was assessed by using both incremental and average cost-effectiveness ratios.
UNASSIGNED: Using either a statewide centralized or hybrid organizational configuration to mail stool tests to newly eligible FQHC patients and patients who have responded at least once since program inception is likely to result in the best use of resources over 5 years, enabling more than 110,000 additional screens, detecting an incremental 181 to 194 CRCs, preventing 91 to 98 CRCs, and averting 46 to 50 CRC deaths, at a cost of $10 million to $11 million compared with no program.
UNASSIGNED: A statewide mailed stool testing program for FQHC patients can be implemented at reasonable cost with considerable effects on CRC screening outcomes, especially when its structure maximizes program efficiency while maintaining effectiveness.

BACKGROUND: Multiple modalities and frequencies of contact are needed to maximize recruitment in many public health surveys. The purpose of this analysis is to characterize respondents to a statewide SARS-CoV-2 testing study whose participation followed either postcard, phone outreach or electronic means of invitation. In addition, we examine how participant characteristics differ based upon the number of contacts needed to elicit participation.
METHODS: This is a cross-sectional analysis of survey data collected from participants who were randomly selected to represent Indiana residents and were invited to be tested for Covid-19 in April 2020. Participants received invitations via postcard, text/emails, and/or robocalls/texts based upon available contact information. The modality, and frequency of contacts, that prompted participation was determined by when the notification was sent and when the participant responded and subsequently registered to participate in the study. Chi square analyses were used to determine differences between groups and significant findings were analyzed using multinomial logistic regression.
RESULTS: Respondents included 3,658 individuals and were stratified by postcards (7.9%), text/emails (26.5%), and robocalls/text (65.7%) with 19.7% registering after 1 contact, 47.9% after 2 contacts, and 32.4% after 3 contacts encouraging participation. Females made up 54.6% of the sample and responded at a higher rate for postcards (8.2% vs. 7.5%) and text/emails (28.1 vs. 24.6%) as compared to males (χ2 = 7.43, p = 0.025). Compared to males, females responded at a higher percentage after 1 contact (21.4 vs. 17.9%, χ2 = 7.6, p = 0.023). Those over 60 years responded most often after 2 contacts (χ2 = 27.5, p < 0.001) when compared to others at younger age groups. In regression analysis, participant sex (p = 0.036) age (p = 0.005), educational attainment (p = < 0.0001), and being motivated by \"free testing\" (p = 0.036) were correlated with participation in the prevalence study.
CONCLUSIONS: Researchers should be aware that the modality of contact as well as the number of prompts used could influence differential participation in public health studies. Our findings can inform researchers developing studies that rely on selective participation by study subjects. We explore how to increase participation within targeted demographic groups using specific modalities and examining frequency of contact.

The illegal movement of wildlife poses a public health, conservation and biosecurity threat, however there are currently minimal screening tools available at international ports of entry to intercept wildlife trafficking efforts. This review first aimed to explore the screening tools available or under development for the detection of concealed wildlife contraband at international ports, including postal services, airlines, road border crossings and maritime routes. Where evidence was deficient, publications detailing the use of methods to uncover other illicit substances, such as narcotics, weapons, human trafficking, explosives, radioactive materials, or special nuclear material, were compiled and assessed for their applicability to the detection of wildlife. The first search identified only four citations related to the detection of wildlife, however the secondary search revealed 145 publications, including 59 journal articles and 86 conference proceedings, describing screening tools for non-wildlife illicit contraband detection. The screening tools uncovered were analysed for potential fitness for purpose for wildlife contraband detection, to evaluate the feasibility of their implementation and their ease of use. The deficiencies evident in terms of resource availability and research efforts targeting wildlife trafficking highlights a potentially substantial national and international security threat which must be addressed.