Background:
Cancer screening programmes are complex and resource-intensive, and many countries have invested substantially in infrastructure, workforce, and diagnostics. Despite this, participation rates remain suboptimal across most cancer screening programmes globally. Evidence suggests that the largest loss in the screening cascade occurs before individuals ever reach the screening test. Among the steps in the screening pathway, the invitation system represents a pivotal yet under-focused component. When downstream elements of screening are in place, the effectiveness of a programme largely depends on how well eligible populations are identified, invited, and prompted to participate. This study examines how core marketing principles can be applied to strengthen cancer screening invitation systems and improve participation.

Objective:
Identify strategies that could improve the participation rate in the cancer screening programme, with a focus on the marketing principles

Methods:
A scoping review was conducted to identify established marketing principles relevant to customer outreach, engagement, and uptake. The cancer screening invitation process was deconstructed into sequential components, including population identification, messaging, mode of contact, timing, follow-up, and continuity. These components were systematically mapped to corresponding marketing strategies to explore how such principles could be ethically adapted to improve screening uptake at the population level.

Results:
Several marketing principles were found to align closely with cancer screening invitation systems. ‘Segmentation’ corresponds to stratification of target populations by age, sex, risk profile, and place of residence. ‘Value proposition’ is reflected in communicating the benefits of early detection, simplicity and safety of screening tests, and facilitated access to services. ‘Nudging’ manifests through default appointments, pre-scheduled visits, or mailed self-sampling kits. ‘Price reductions’ align with free-of-cost screening, transportation support, and outreach camps. ‘Multi-channel promotion’ includes personalized letters, mobile messaging, digital platforms, and mass media communication. ‘Trust branding’ is achieved through endorsements or signed invitations from general practitioners, public health authorities, political leaders, or respected community influencers. ‘Persistence’ is operationalized through reminder systems and repeated invitations for non-responders. ‘Ethical marketing’ aligns with informed choice, transparency, and offering options regarding screening tests or service delivery locations. ‘Feedback loops’ are enabled through screening registries, result communication, referral tracking, and re-invitation mechanisms.

Conclusions:
A robust call–recall invitation system represents the fulcrum of the cancer screening pathway, enabling universal reach, shifting focus from awareness to action, and promoting equity. While broader communication strategies may increase risk awareness, health systems should benefit from ethically applying the core marketing principles to systematically engage populations and improve screening participation. Incorporating these principles into cancer screening programme design can strengthen implementation, enhance efficiency, and ultimately contribute to improved cancer outcomes at the population level.