Dataset Information

Effective interventions to facilitate the uptake of breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening: an implementation guideline.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Appropriate screening may reduce the mortality and morbidity of colorectal, breast, and cervical cancers. Several high-quality systematic reviews and practice guidelines exist to inform the most effective screening options. However, effective implementation strategies are warranted if the full benefits of screening are to be realized. We developed an implementation guideline to answer the question: What interventions have been shown to increase the uptake of cancer screening by individuals, specifically for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers?

Methods

A guideline panel was established as part of Cancer Care Ontario's Program in Evidence-based Care, and a systematic review of the published literature was conducted. It yielded three foundational systematic reviews and an existing guidance document. We conducted updates of these reviews and searched the literature published between 2004 and 2010. A draft guideline was written that went through two rounds of review. Revisions were made resulting in a final set of guideline recommendations.

Results

Sixty-six new studies reflecting 74 comparisons met eligibility criteria. They were generally of poor to moderate quality. Using these and the foundational documents, the panel developed a draft guideline. The draft report was well received in the two rounds of review with mean quality scores above four (on a five-point scale) for each of the items. For most of the interventions considered, there was insufficient evidence to support or refute their effectiveness. However, client reminders, reduction of structural barriers, and provision of provider assessment and feedback were recommended interventions to increase screening for at least two of three cancer sites studied. The final guidelines also provide advice on how the recommendations can be used and future areas for research.

Conclusion

Using established guideline development methodologies and the AGREE II as our methodological frameworks, we developed an implementation guideline to advise on interventions to increase the rate of breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening. While advancements have been made in these areas of implementation science, more investigations are warranted.

SUBMITTER: Brouwers MC

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3222606 | biostudies-literature | 2011 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Effective interventions to facilitate the uptake of breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening: an implementation guideline.

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. Several high-quality systematic reviews and practice guidelines exist to inform the most effective screening options. However, effective implementation strategies are warranted if the full benefits of screening are to be realized. We developed an implementation guideline to answer the question: What interventions have been shown to increase the uptake of cancer screening b ...[more]

PMID: 21958602

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background:Following the adoption of the Global Action Plan for the Prevention and Control of NCDs 2013-2020, an update to the Appendix 3 of the action plan was requested by Member States in 2016, endorsed by the Seventieth World Health Assembly in May 2017 and provides a list of recommended NCD interventions. The main contribution of this paper is to present results of analyses identifying how decision makers can achieve maximum health gain using the cancer interventions listed in the Appendix 3. We also present methods used to calculate new WHO-CHOICE cost-effectiveness results for breast cancer, cervical cancer, and colorectal cancer in Southeast Asia and eastern sub-Saharan Africa. Methods:We used "Generalized Cost-Effectiveness Analysis" for our analysis which uses a hypothetical null reference case, where the impacts of all current interventions are removed, in order to identify the optimal package of interventions. All health system costs, regardless of payer, were included. Health outcomes are reported as the gain in healthy life years due to a specific intervention scenario and were estimated using a deterministic state-transition cohort simulation (Markov model). Results:Vaccination against human papillomavirus (two doses) for 9-13-year-old girls (in eastern sub-Saharan Africa) and HPV vaccination combined with prevention of cervical cancer by screening of women aged 30-49 years through visual inspection with acetic acid linked with timely treatment of pre-cancerous lesions (in Southeast Asia) were found to be the most cost effective interventions. For breast cancer, in both regions the treatment of breast cancer, stages I and II, with surgery?±?systemic therapy, at 95% coverage, was found to be the most cost-effective intervention. For colorectal cancer, treatment of colorectal cancer, stages I and II, with surgery?±?chemotherapy and radiotherapy, at 95% coverage, was found to be the most cost-effective intervention. Conclusion:The results demonstrate that cancer prevention and control interventions are cost-effective and can be implemented through a step-wise approach to achieve maximum health benefits. As the global community moves toward universal health coverage, this analysis can support decision makers in identifying a core package of cancer services, ensuring treatment and palliative care for all.

Project description:BACKGROUND:'Implementation interventions' refer to methods used to enhance the adoption and implementation of clinical interventions such as diabetic retinopathy screening (DRS). DRS is effective, yet uptake is often suboptimal. Despite most routine management taking place in primary care and the central role of health care professionals (HCP) in referring to DRS, few interventions have been developed for primary care. We aimed to develop a multifaceted intervention targeting both professionals and patients to improve DRS uptake as an example of a systematic development process combining theory, stakeholder involvement, and evidence. METHODS:First, we identified target behaviours through an audit in primary care of screening attendance. Second, we interviewed patients (n = 47) and HCP (n = 30), to identify determinants of uptake using the Theoretical Domains Framework, mapping these to behaviour change techniques (BCTs) to develop intervention content. Thirdly, we conducted semi-structured consensus groups with stakeholders, specifically users of the intervention, i.e. patients (n = 15) and HCPs (n = 16), regarding the feasibility, acceptability, and local relevance of selected BCTs and potential delivery modes. We consulted representatives from the national DRS programme to check intervention 'fit' with existing processes. We applied the APEASE criteria (affordability, practicability, effectiveness, acceptability, side effects, and equity) to select the final intervention components, drawing on findings from the previous steps, and a rapid evidence review of operationalised BCT effectiveness. RESULTS:We identified potentially modifiable target behaviours at the patient (consent, attendance) and professional (registration) level. Patient barriers to consent/attendance included confusion between screening and routine eye checks, and fear of a negative result. Enablers included a recommendation from friends/family or professionals and recognising screening importance. Professional barriers to registration included the time to register patients and a lack of readily available information on uptake in their local area/practice. Most operationalised BCTs were acceptable to patients and HCPs while the response to feasibility varied. After considering APEASE, the core intervention, incorporating a range of BCTs, involved audit/feedback, electronic prompts targeting professionals, HCP-endorsed reminders (face-to-face, by phone and letter), and an information leaflet for patients. CONCLUSIONS:Using the example of an intervention to improve DRS uptake, this study illustrates an approach to integrate theory with user involvement. This process highlighted tensions between theory-informed and stakeholder suggestions, and the need to apply the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF)/BCT structure flexibly. The final intervention draws on the trusted professional-patient relationship, leveraging existing services to enhance implementation of the DRS programme. Intervention feasibility in primary care will be evaluated in a randomised cluster pilot trial.

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:BackgroundIn 2016 the first African emergency care clinical practice guideline (CPG) was developed for national uptake in the prehospital sector in South Africa, with implementation starting in 2018. Comprehensive uptake of CPGs post development is not a given, as this requires effective and efficient dissemination and implementation strategies that take into account the perceptions, barriers and facilitators of the local end-users. This study aimed to identify prehospital end-users' perceptions of the emergency care guidelines, including barriers and facilitators for national decision makers, to strengthen CPG uptake in South Africa.MethodsOur study employed a descriptive qualitative research design, including nine focus groups with 56 operational emergency care providers across four major provinces in South Africa. Data was analysed using thematic analysis in ATLAS.ti. Ethics approval was provided by Stellenbosch University.ResultsThemes related to provider perceptions, expectations and guideline uptake emerging from the data was unofficial and unclear communication, broadening versus limiting guideline expectations, conflicted personal reactions and spreading the word. Challenges to dissemination and implementation included poor communication, changes to scope of practice, and limited capacity to upskill existing providers. Facilitators included using technology for end-user documents, local champions to support change, establishing online and modular training, and implementation by independent decision makers.ConclusionThis study provides an overview of the perceptions of operational emergency care providers and how their experiences of hearing about and engaging with the guidelines, in their industry, can contribute to the dissemination, implementation and uptake of emergency care guidelines. In order to disseminate and implement an emergency care CPG, decision makers must take into account the perceptions, barriers, and facilitators of local end-users.

Project description:Transvaginal measurement of cervical length (CL) has been advocated as a screening tool to prevent preterm birth, but controversy remains regarding the overall utility of universal screening.We aimed to evaluate the acceptability of a universal CL screening program. Additionally we evaluated risk factors associated with declining screening and subsequent delivery outcomes of women who accepted or declined screening.This was a retrospective cohort study of transvaginal CL screening at a single institution from July 1, 2011, through December 31, 2014. Institutional protocol recommended transvaginal CL measurement at the time of anatomic survey between 17-23 weeks in all women with singleton, viable pregnancies, without current or planned cerclage, with patients able to opt out. Patients with CL ?20 mm were considered to have clinically significant cervical shortening and were offered treatment. We assessed acceptance rate, risk factors for declining CL screening, and the trend of acceptance of CL screening over time. We also calculated the prevalence of CL ?25, ?20, and ?15 mm, and estimated the association between CL screening and spontaneous preterm birth.Of 12,740 women undergoing anatomic survey during the study period, 10,871 (85.3%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 84.7-85.9%) underwent CL screening. Of those, 215 (2.0%) had a CL ?25 mm and 131 (1.2%) had a CL ?20 mm. After the first 6 months of implementation, there was no change in rates of acceptance of CL screening over time (P for trend = .15). Women were more likely to decline CL screening if they were African American (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 2.17; 95% CI, 1.93-2.44), obese (aOR, 1.18; 95% CI, 1.06-1.31), multiparous (aOR, 1.45; 95% CI, 1.29-1.64), age <35 years (aOR, 1.24; 95% CI, 1.08-1.43), or smokers (aOR, 1.42; 95% CI, 1.20-1.68). Rates of spontaneous preterm birth <28 weeks were higher in those who declined CL screening (aOR, 2.01; 95% CI, 1.33-3.02).Universal CL screening was implemented successfully with 85% of women screened. Overall incidence of short cervix was low and women with significant risk factors for preterm birth were more likely to decline screening. Patients who declined CL screening were more likely to be African American, obese, multiparous, age <35 years, and smokers. Rates of early, but not late, spontaneous preterm birth were significantly higher among women who did not undergo CL screening.

Project description:INTRODUCTION:Despite healthcare reforms mandating expanded insurance coverage and reduced out-of-pocket costs for preventive care, cancer screening rates remain relatively static. No study has measured cancer screening rates for multiple tests among non-Medicare patients. METHODS:This retrospective, population-based claims analysis, conducted in 2016-2017, of commercially insured and Medicaid-insured women aged 30-59 years enrolled in IBM MarketScan Commercial and Medicaid Databases (containing approximately 90 and 17 million enrollees, respectively) during 2010-2015 describes screening rates for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer. Key outcomes were (1) proportion screened for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer among the age-eligible population compared with accepted age-based recommendations and (2) proportion with longer-than-recommended intervals between tests. RESULTS:One half (54.7%) of commercially insured women aged 40-59 years (n=1,538,444) were screened three or more times during the 6-year study period for breast cancer; for Medicaid-insured women (n=78,897), the rates were lower (23.7%). One third (43.4%) of commercially insured and two thirds (68.9%) of Medicaid-insured women had a >2.5-year gap between mammograms. Among women aged 30-59 years, 59.3% of commercially insured women and 31.4% of Medicaid-insured women received two or more Pap tests. The proportion of patients with a >3.5-year gap between Pap tests was 33.9% (commercially insured) and 57.1% (Medicaid-insured). Among women aged 50-59 years, 63.3% of commercially insured women and 47.2% of Medicaid-insured women were screened at least one time for colorectal cancer. Almost all women aged 30-59 years (commercially insured, 99.1%; Medicaid-insured, 98.9%) had at least one healthcare encounter. CONCLUSIONS:Breast and cervical cancer screenings remain underutilized among both commercially insured and Medicaid-insured populations, with lower rates among the Medicaid-insured population. However, almost all women had at least one healthcare encounter, suggesting opportunities for better coordinated care.

Project description:BACKGROUND:African-American men have the lowest 5-year survival rate in the U.S. for colorectal cancer (CRC) of any racial group, which may partly stem from low screening adherence. It is imperative to synthesize the literature evaluating the effectiveness of interventions on CRC screening uptake in this population. MATERIALS AND METHODS:In this systematic review and meta-analysis, Medline, CINAHL, Embase, and Cochrane CENTRAL were searched for U.S.-based interventions that: were published after 1998-January 2020; included African-American men; and evaluated CRC screening uptake explicitly. Checklist by Cochrane Collaboration and Joanna Brigg were utilized to assess risk of bias, and meta-regression and sensitivity analyses were employed to identify the most effective interventions. RESULTS:Our final sample comprised 41 studies with 2 focused exclusively on African-American men. The most frequently adopted interventions were educational materials (39%), stool-based screening kits (14%), and patient navigation (11%). Most randomized controlled trials failed to provide details about the blinding of the participant recruitment method, allocation concealment method, and/or the outcome assessment. Due to high heterogeneity, meta-analysis was conducted among 17 eligible studies. Interventions utilizing stool-based kits or patient navigation were most effective at increasing CRC screening completion, with odds ratios of 9.60 (95% CI 2.89-31.82, p = 0.0002) and 2.84 (95% CI 1.23-6.49, p = 0.01). No evidence of publication bias was present for this study registered with the International Prospective Registry of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO 2019 CRD42019119510). CONCLUSIONS:Additional research is warranted to uncover effective, affordable interventions focused on increasing CRC screening completion among African-American men. When designing and implementing future multicomponent interventions, employing 4 or fewer interventions types may reduce bias risk. Since only 5% of the interventions solely focused on African-American men, future theory-driven interventions should consider recruiting samples comprised solely of this population.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA) experiences disproportionate burden of cervical cancer incidence and mortality due in part to low uptake of cervical screening, a strategy for prevention and down-staging of cervical cancer. This scoping review identifies studies of interventions to increase uptake of cervical screening among women in the region and uses the Integrated Behavioral Model (IBM) to describe how interventions might work. METHODS:A systematic search of literature was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and CINAHL databases through May 2019. Screening and data charting were performed by two independent reviewers. Intervention studies measuring changes to uptake in screening among women in SSA were included, with no restriction to intervention type, study setting or date, or participant characteristics. Intervention type and implementation strategies were described using behavioral constructs from the IBM. RESULTS:Of the 3704 citations the search produced, 19 studies were selected for inclusion. Most studies were published between 2014 and 2019 (78.9%) and were set in Nigeria (47.4%) and South Africa (26.3%). Studies most often assessed screening with Pap smears (31.6%) and measured uptake as ever screened (42.1%) or screened during the study period (36.8%). Education-based interventions were most common (57.9%) and the IBM construct of knowledge/skills to perform screening was targeted most frequently (68.4%). Willingness to screen was high, before and after intervention. Screening coverage ranged from 1.7 to 99.2% post-intervention, with six studies (31.6%) reporting a significant improvement in screening that achieved ?60% coverage. CONCLUSIONS:Educational interventions were largely ineffective, except those that utilized peer or community health educators and mHealth implementation strategies. Two economic incentivization interventions were moderately effective, by acting on participants' instrumental attitudes, but resulted in screening coverage less than 20%. Innovative service delivery, including community-based self-sampling, acted on environmental constraints, striving to make services more available, accessible, and appropriate to women, and were the most effective. This review demonstrates that intent to perform screening may not be the major determinant of screening behavior, suggesting other theoretical frameworks may be needed to more fully understand uptake of cervical screening in sub-Saharan Africa, particularly for health systems change interventions.

Dataset Information

Effective interventions to facilitate the uptake of breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening: an implementation guideline.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Effective interventions to facilitate the uptake of breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening: an implementation guideline.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets