Dataset Information

What implementation interventions increase cancer screening rates? a systematic review.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Appropriate screening may reduce the mortality and morbidity of colorectal, breast, and cervical cancers. However, effective implementation strategies are warranted if the full benefits of screening are to be realized. As part of a larger agenda to create an implementation guideline, we conducted a systematic review to evaluate interventions designed to increase the rate of breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. The interventions considered were: client reminders, client incentives, mass media, small media, group education, one-on-one education, reduction in structural barriers, reduction in out-of-pocket costs, provider assessment and feedback interventions, and provider incentives. Our primary outcome, screening completion, was calculated as the overall median post-intervention absolute percentage point (PP) change in completed screening tests. METHODS: Our first step was to conduct an iterative scoping review in the research area. This yielded three relevant high-quality systematic reviews. Serving as our evidentiary foundation, we conducted a formal update. Randomized controlled trials and cluster randomized controlled trials, published between 2004 and 2010, were searched in MEDLINE, EMBASE and PSYCHinfo. RESULTS: The update yielded 66 studies new eligible studies with 74 comparisons. The new studies ranged considerably in quality. Client reminders, small media, and provider audit and feedback appear to be effective interventions to increase the uptake of screening for three cancers. One-on-one education and reduction of structural barriers also appears effective, but their roles with CRC and cervical screening, respectively, are less established. More study is required to assess client incentives, mass media, group education, reduction of out-of-pocket costs, and provider incentive interventions. CONCLUSION: The new evidence generally aligns with the evidence and conclusions from the original systematic reviews. This review served as the evidentiary foundation for an implementation guideline. Poor reporting, lack of precision and consistency in defining operational elements, and insufficient consideration of context and differences among populations are areas for additional research.

SUBMITTER: Brouwers MC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3197548 | biostudies-literature | 2011

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

What implementation interventions increase cancer screening rates? a systematic review.

Brouwers Melissa C MC De Vito Carol C Bahirathan Lavannya L Carol Angela A Carroll June C JC Cotterchio Michelle M Dobbins Maureen M Lent Barbara B Levitt Cheryl C Lewis Nancy N McGregor S Elizabeth SE Paszat Lawrence L Rand Carol C Wathen Nadine N

Implementation science : IS 20110929

<h4>Background</h4>Appropriate screening may reduce the mortality and morbidity of colorectal, breast, and cervical cancers. However, effective implementation strategies are warranted if the full benefits of screening are to be realized. As part of a larger agenda to create an implementation guideline, we conducted a systematic review to evaluate interventions designed to increase the rate of breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. The interventions considered were: client remin ...[more]

PMID: 21958556

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceColorectal cancer screening (CRC) is recommended by all major US medical organizations but remains underused.ObjectiveTo identify interventions associated with increasing CRC screening rates and their effect sizes.Data sourcesPubMed, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, the Cochrane Library, and ClinicalTrials.gov were searched from January 1, 1996, to August 31, 2017. Key search terms included colorectal cancer and screening.Study selectionRandomized clinical trials of US-based interventions in clinical settings designed to improve CRC screening test completion in average-risk adults.Data extraction and synthesisAt least 2 investigators independently extracted data and appraised each study's risk of bias. Where sufficient data were available, random-effects meta-analysis was used to obtain either a pooled risk ratio (RR) or risk difference (RD) for screening completion for each type of intervention.Main outcomes and measuresThe main outcome was completion of CRC screening. Examination included interventions to increase completion of (1) initial CRC screening by any recommended modality, (2) colonoscopy after an abnormal initial screening test result, and (3) continued rounds of annual fecal blood tests (FBTs).ResultsThe main review included 73 randomized clinical trials comprising 366 766 patients at low or medium risk of bias. Interventions that were associated with increased CRC screening completion rates compared with usual care included FBT outreach (RR, 2.26; 95% CI, 1.81-2.81; RD, 22%; 95% CI, 17%-27%), patient navigation (RR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.64-2.46; RD, 18%; 95% CI, 13%-23%), patient education (RR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.06-1.36; RD, 4%; 95% CI, 1%-6%), patient reminders (RR, 1.20; 95% CI, 1.02-1.41; RD, 3%; 95% CI, 0%-5%), clinician interventions of academic detailing (RD, 10%; 95% CI, 3%-17%), and clinician reminders (RD, 13%; 95% CI, 8%-19%). Combinations of interventions (clinician interventions or navigation added to FBT outreach) were associated with greater increases than single components (RR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.09-1.29; RD, 7%; 95% CI, 3%-11%). Repeated mailed FBTs with navigation were associated with increased annual FBT completion (RR, 2.09; 95% CI, 1.91-2.29; RD, 39%; 95% CI, 29%-49%). Patient navigation was not associated with colonoscopy completion after an initial abnormal screening test result (RR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.92-1.60; RD, 14%; 95% CI, 0%-29%).Conclusions and relevanceFecal blood test outreach and patient navigation, particularly in the context of multicomponent interventions, were associated with increased CRC screening rates in US trials. Fecal blood test outreach should be incorporated into population-based screening programs. More research is needed on interventions to increase adherence to continued FBTs, follow-up of abnormal initial screening test results, and cost-effectiveness and other implementation barriers for more intensive interventions, such as navigation.

Project description:Background: Bowel cancer is the third most commonly diagnosed cancer and the third most common cause of cancer-related death, with 1,849,518 new cases of bowel diagnosed and 880,792 deaths reported globally in 2018 alone. Survival can be improved through early detection via national mail-out bowel cancer screening programs; however, participation remains low in many countries. Behavior change is therefore required to increase participation. This realist review aims to (a) identify the behavior change techniques (BCTs) used in each intervention, (b) understand the mechanisms of action (MoAs) responsible for the BCT effectiveness, and (c) apply a behavior change model to inform how MoAs can be combined to increase screening participation. Methods: We systematically reviewed the literature for interventions aiming to increase participation in mail-out bowel cancer screening. We used a four-stage realist synthesis approach whereby (1) interventions were extracted from each study; (2) BCTs applied in each intervention were identified and coded using the BCT Taxonomy-v1; (3) the Theory and Techniques Tool was used to link BCTs to their MoA; and (4) BCTs and MoAs were categorized according to their effectiveness and what Health Action Process Approach (HAPA) stage of change they would affect. Results: We identified 68 intervention trials using 26 unique BCTs and 13 MoAs to increase participation. Sixteen BCTs and 10 MoAs were identified within the interventions that successfully increased participation rates. Interventions targeting both stages of the HAPA model had a higher success rate (80%) than those targeting one stage of change (51%). When targeting only one stage, interventions targeting the volitional stage had a higher success rate (71%) than interventions targeting only the motivational stage of change (26%). Conclusion: Importantly, this review identified a suite of BCTs and MoAs effective for increasing participation in mail-out bowel cancer screening programs. With increased participation in bowel cancer screening leading to improved survival, our findings are key to informing the improvement of policy and interventions that aim to increase screening using specific strategies at key stages of health decision-making.

Project description:ContextThe Community Preventive Services Task Force recently recommended multicomponent interventions to increase breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening based on strong evidence of effectiveness. This systematic review examines the economic evidence to guide decisions on the implementation of these interventions.Evidence acquisitionA systematic literature search for economic evidence was performed from January 2004 to January 2018. All monetary values were reported in 2016 US dollars, and the analysis was completed in 2018.Evidence synthesisFifty-three studies were included in the body of evidence from a literature search yield of 8,568 total articles. For multicomponent interventions to increase breast cancer screening, the median intervention cost per participant was $26.69 (interquartile interval [IQI]=$3.25, $113.72), and the median incremental cost per additional woman screened was $147.64 (IQI=$32.92, $924.98). For cervical cancer screening, the median costs per participant and per additional woman screened were $159.80 (IQI=$117.62, $214.73) and $159.49 (IQI=$64.74, $331.46), respectively. Two studies reported incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained of $748 and $33,433. For colorectal cancer screening, the median costs per participant and per additional person screened were $36.63 (IQI=$7.70, $139.23) and $582.44 (IQI=$91.10, $1,452.12), respectively. Two studies indicated a decline in incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained of $1,651 and $3,817.ConclusionsMulticomponent interventions to increase cervical and colorectal cancer screening were cost effective based on a very conservative threshold. Additionally, multicomponent interventions for colorectal cancer screening demonstrated net cost savings. Cost effectiveness for multicomponent interventions to increase breast cancer screening could not be determined owing to the lack of studies reporting incremental cost per quality-adjusted life year gained. Future studies estimating this outcome could assist implementers with decision making.

Project description:Breast cancer is the most common cancer affecting women worldwide. Adherence to breast cancer screening guidelines is frequently lower in racial, ethnic and cultural minority populations and is affected by potential inequities or barriers to screening that these minorities face. Therefore, the aim of the present study was to collect information from different minority groups worldwide, assess adherence to breast cancer screening and evaluate barriers or limitations causing non-adherence, which should facilitate the development of effective interventions. A search was conducted through PubMed and Web of Science. Studies were considered as eligible if they met the following criteria: i) Female patients; ii) breast cancer screening program implemented in the country; iii) minority groups; iv) asymptomatic; v) report written in Portuguese or English; vi) study published from 2015 onwards. The Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklist was used for qualitative studies and the Strengthening The Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology checklist for cross-sectional studies. From the 348 initial articles, 86 were removed due to duplication and 19 were selected, analyzed and summarized, accordingly. Of the 19 studies included, 5.3% were classified as high quality, 52.6% as moderate to high and 42.1% as moderate. A total of 15 studies were cross-sectional and 4 were qualitative, collectively including 250,733 women. The rate of adherence to mammogram in different minorities was evaluated, obtaining a mean value of 49.7% in the last 2 years, and statistically significant barriers were selected and divided into sociodemographic; personal; ethnic, cultural and religious; and external factors. The characteristics of each population play a major role in the population's breast health practices. If the population, adherence rates, barriers and inequities are carefully studied, screening models may be customized and participation to breast cancer screening can be optimized, thereby reducing the high breast cancer-associated mortality.

Project description:Numerous intervention studies have attempted to increase cervical screening uptake among immigrant women, nonetheless their screening participation remains low. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to summarise the evidence on interventions to improve cervical screening among immigrant women globally and identify their effectiveness. Databases PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, PsycINFO, ERIC, CINAHL and CENTRAL were systematically searched from inception to October 12, 2021, for intervention studies, including randomised and clinical controlled trials (RCT, CCT) and one and two group pre-post studies. Peer-reviewed studies involving immigrant and refugee women, in community and clinical settings, were eligible. Comparator interventions were usual or minimal care or attention control. Data extraction, quality appraisal and risk of bias were assessed by two authors independently using COVIDENCE software. Narrative synthesis of findings was carried out, with the main outcome measure defined as the cervical screening uptake rate difference pre- and post-intervention followed by random effects meta-analysis of trials and two group pre-post studies, using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software, to calculate pooled rate ratios and adjustment for publication bias, where found. The protocol followed PRISMA guidelines and was registered prospectively with PROSPERO (CRD42020192341). 1,900 studies were identified, of which 42 (21 RCTS, 4 CCTs, and 16 pre-post studies) with 44,224 participants, were included in the systematic review, and 28 with 35,495 participants in the meta-analysis. Overall, the uptake difference rate for interventions ranged from -6.7 to 96%. Meta-analysis demonstrated a pooled rate ratio of 1.15 (95% CI 1.03-1.29), with high heterogeneity. Culturally sensitive, multicomponent interventions, using different modes of information delivery and self-sampling modality were most promising. Interventions led to at least 15% increase in cervical screening participation among immigrant women. Interventions designed to overcome logistical barriers and use multiple channels to communicate culturally appropriate health promotion messages are most effective at achieving cervical screening uptake among immigrant women.

Dataset Information

What implementation interventions increase cancer screening rates? a systematic review.

Publications

What implementation interventions increase cancer screening rates? a systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets