Deadline Boosts Colorectal Cancer Screening Uptake in TEMPO Trial

By João L. Carapinha

March 17, 2025

Are deadlines the secret to increasing colorectal cancer screening rates? The TEMPO trial, a nationwide randomized controlled trial in Scotland, evaluated the impact of two behavioral interventions on colorectal cancer screening uptake. These interventions included adding a deadline for returning faecal immunochemical tests (FIT) and using a problem-solving planning tool. The study found that including a deadline in the invitation letter significantly increased timely FIT returns and reduced the need for reminder letters. The planning tool had no positive effect. A 2-week deadline was identified as the most effective and acceptable option.

Key Insights from the TEMPO Trial

  • Deadline Effectiveness. Adding a deadline to the FIT invitation letter increased timely returns and reduced the need for reminder letters. The 2-week deadline was particularly effective in enhancing colorectal cancer screening rates.
  • Planning Tool Ineffectiveness. The planning tool did not improve FIT return rates and was even detrimental when used without a deadline.
  • Cost-Effectiveness. The deadline intervention is highly cost-effective, requiring minimal additional resources.

Understanding the Colorectal Screening Landscape

Colorectal cancer screening uptake is suboptimal globally, with about 50% participation in European FIT programs. Interventions like deadlines and planning tools could enhance participation. The TEMPO trial is the first to assess these interventions within a nationwide screening program.

Strategic Implications and Future Directions

Implementing deadlines could increase FIT returns and potentially save lives by facilitating earlier detection of colorectal cancer. Reducing reminder letters can lead to substantial cost savings for screening programs. Further studies should explore the effectiveness of deadlines in other screening contexts. They should also assess potential barriers to implementation, such as literacy levels and language barriers. For more insights into the effectiveness of these interventions, you can explore the article on The Lancet’s website here.

Reference url

Recent Posts

UK Pharmaceutical Pricing Analysis: Impasse in VPAG Review Undermines Patient Access and Market G...

By Staff Writer

August 25, 2025

The accelerated review of the UK's Voluntary Scheme for Branded Medicines Pricing, Access, and Growth (VPAG) concluded without agreement in August 2025. The review focused on soaring payment rates. These require companies to pay up to 35.6% of their revenue from NHS sales. Despite good faith effo...
EFPIA Response to Tariffs: Concerns Over U.S.-EU Trade Agreement Impact on Pharma Industry

By Staff Writer

August 22, 2025

The European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) has expressed significant concern over the new U.S.-EU Joint Framework Agreement. It is particularly worried about potential tariffs of 15% on pharmaceutical products. The organization argues these tariffs break a three...
TAVI Cost-Effectiveness in Brazil: Balancing Coverage Expansion and Economic Viability

By Staff Writer

August 21, 2025

The focus on TAVI cost-effectiveness Brazil has gained attention. The country is assessing the expansion of coverage for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). This would include patients with severe aortic stenosis who are classified as low surgical risk (STS-PROM <4%) as a first-lin...