Table 5. Effect of the enhanced reminder within subgroups.
| Variable | OR (95% CI), enhanced vs usual reminder, | Significance of effect | Significance of interactiona |
|---|---|---|---|
|
Sex | |||
| Male | 1.04 (0.95–1.14) | P=0.41 | P=0.37 |
| Female | 1.04 (0.95–1.13) | P=0.45 | P=0.24 |
|
Age | |||
| <65 | 1.03 (0.96–1.11) | P=0.44 | P=0.06 |
| 65–69 | 1.11 (0.99–1.25) | P=0.08 | P=0.62 |
| 70–74 | 0.96 (0.83–1.10) | P=0.56 | P=0.79 |
|
Hub | |||
| Midlands and NorthWest | 1.03 (0.96–1.11) | P=0.38 | P=0.99 |
| Southern | 1.05 (0.92–1.20) | P=0.44 | P=0.001 |
| London | 1.09 (0.93–1.28) | P=0.29 | P=0.90 |
| NorthEast | 1.09 (0.97–1.22) | P=0.14 | P=0.73 |
| Eastern | 1.02 (0.84–1.25) | P=0.81 | P=0.98 |
|
Screening episode type | |||
| Prevalent first time | 1.02 (0.95–1.10) | P=0.51 | P=0.12 |
| Incident | 1.05 (0.97–1.12) | P=0.21 | P=0.05 |
| Prevalent previous non responder | 1.12 (1.03–1.23) | P=0.008 | P=0.43 |
a
P-value for heterogeneity of effect of enhanced reminder by IMD expressed as a continuous score within each subgroup.