Dataset Information

Interventions to increase the uptake of mammography amongst low income women: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

ABSTRACT: Two previous reviews found that access-enhancing interventions were effective in increasing mammography uptake amongst low-income women. The purpose of this study was to estimate the magnitude of the effect of interventions used to increase uptake of mammography amongst low-income women.Searches were conducted in MEDLINE and EMBASE (2002-April 2012) using relevant MeSH terms and keywords. Randomised controlled trials which aimed to increase mammography use in an asymptomatic low-income population and which had as an outcome receipt of a mammogram, were eligible for inclusion. The primary outcome was the post-intervention difference in the proportion of women who had a mammogram in the intervention and control groups. The quality of the studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. We calculated summary estimates using random effects meta-analyses. Possible reasons for heterogeneity were investigated using sub-group analyses and meta-regression. Publication bias was assessed using Egger's test.Twenty-one studies met the inclusion criteria, including 33 comparisons. Interventions increased the uptake of mammography in low income women by an additional 8.9% (95% CI 7.3 to 10.4%) compared to the control group. There was some evidence that interventions with multiple strategies were more effective than those with single strategies (p = 0.03). There was some suggestion of publication bias. The quality of the included studies was often unclear. Omitting those with high risk of bias has little effect on the results.Interventions can increase mammography uptake among low-income women, multiple interventions being the most effective strategy. Given the robustness of the results to sensitivity analyses, the results are likely to be reliable. The generalisability of the results beyond the US is unclear.

SUBMITTER: Gardner MP

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3579869 | biostudies-literature | 2013

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Interventions to increase the uptake of mammography amongst low income women: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Gardner Michael P MP Adams Abbey A Jeffreys Mona M

PloS one 20130222 2

<h4>Background</h4>Two previous reviews found that access-enhancing interventions were effective in increasing mammography uptake amongst low-income women. The purpose of this study was to estimate the magnitude of the effect of interventions used to increase uptake of mammography amongst low-income women.<h4>Methods</h4>Searches were conducted in MEDLINE and EMBASE (2002-April 2012) using relevant MeSH terms and keywords. Randomised controlled trials which aimed to increase mammography use in a ...[more]

PMID: 23451028

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Although much work has begun to elucidate contextual factors influencing implementation, the specific processes that facilitate and hinder adoption, implementation, and maintenance of evidence-based interventions (EBIs) in clinical settings remains poorly understood. Intervention Mapping (IM) is a systematic process that facilitates planning and design for dissemination, implementation and maintenance of EBIs in practice. IM has been used to guide the design of many health interventions, focusing on program implementation. Less studied is its use to adapt and scale screening interventions within the healthcare clinic setting. This paper describes the development of an implementation intervention using IM to facilitate the adoption, implementation, and maintenance of an EBI designed to increase mammography adherence in healthcare clinics, the adapted Peace of Mind Program (PMP). Methods: IM framework, Step 5, was used to guide the implementation intervention planning. IM guided identification of specific adoption, implementation, and maintenance performance objectives. We formed an implementation intervention planning group consisting of members of the academic team, our community partner and community health workers (CHWs) with substantial experience working on mammography screening programs in federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) and charity clinics. Results: Results are presented by Intervention Mapping task for Step 5 (Program Implementation Plan). We describe how the consolidated framework for implementation research (CFIR) informed the selection of performance objectives, determinants, methods, and practical applications in the final implementation intervention. Conclusions: This paper provides an example of the use of Intervention Mapping Step 5 and CFIR to create an implementation intervention to support EBI scale up of an evidence-based mammography intervention within a specific setting. Clinical trials registration number: NCT02296177.

Project description:BackgroundEvidence on the effectiveness of psychological interventions for women with common mental disorders (CMDs) who also experience intimate partner violence is scarce. We aimed to test our hypothesis that exposure to intimate partner violence would reduce intervention effectiveness for CMDs in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs).MethodsFor this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Web of Knowledge, Scopus, CINAHL, LILACS, ScieELO, Cochrane, PubMed databases, trials registries, 3ie, Google Scholar, and forward and backward citations for studies published between database inception and Aug 16, 2019. All randomised controlled trials (RCTs) of psychological interventions for CMDs in LMICs which measured intimate partner violence were included, without language or date restrictions. We approached study authors to obtain unpublished aggregate subgroup data for women who did and did not report intimate partner violence. We did separate random-effects meta-analyses for anxiety, depression, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), and psychological distress outcomes. Evidence from randomised controlled trials was synthesised as differences between standardised mean differences (SMDs) for change in symptoms, comparing women who did and who did not report intimate partner violence via random-effects meta-analyses. The quality of the evidence was assessed with the Cochrane risk of bias tool. This study is registered on PROSPERO, number CRD42017078611.FindingsOf 8122 records identified, 21 were eligible and data were available for 15 RCTs, all of which had a low to moderate risk of overall bias. Anxiety (five interventions, 728 participants) showed a greater response to intervention among women reporting intimate partner violence than among those who did not (difference in standardised mean differences [dSMD] 0·31, 95% CI 0·04 to 0·57, I2=49·4%). No differences in response to intervention were seen in women reporting intimate partner violence for PTSD (eight interventions, n=1436; dSMD 0·14, 95% CI -0·06 to 0·33, I2=42·6%), depression (12 interventions, n=2940; 0·10, -0·04 to 0·25, I2=49·3%), and psychological distress (four interventions, n=1591; 0·07, -0·05 to 0·18, I2=0·0%, p=0·681).InterpretationPsychological interventions treat anxiety effectively in women with current or recent intimate partner violence exposure in LMICs when delivered by appropriately trained and supervised health-care staff, even when not tailored for this population or targeting intimate partner violence directly. Future research should investigate whether adapting evidence-based psychological interventions for CMDs to address intimate partner violence enhances their acceptability, feasibility, and effectiveness in LMICs.FundingUK National Institute for Health Research ASSET and King's IoPPN Clinician Investigator Scholarship.

Project description:BackgroundViolence during pregnancy is a global problem, associated with serious health risks for both the mother and baby. Evaluation of interventions targeted for reducing or controlling domestic violence (DV) is still in its infancy, and the majority of findings are primarily from high-income countries (HICs). Therefore, there is an urgent need for generating evidence of DV interventions among pregnant women in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).MethodsPreferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines will be employed to structure the review. A comprehensive search will be carried out via electronic databases including MEDLINE, CINAHL, Scopus, Embase, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and The Cochrane library. Gray literature will also be scrutinized for potential articles. An optimal search strategy has been developed following consultations with subject-matter experts and librarians. This search strategy will be adapted to the different databases. Experimental studies evaluating DV interventions among pregnant women from LMICs will be included in the review. The review will only include literature written in English. Two reviewers will independently screen and assess studies for inclusion in the review. A third author will resolve any discrepancies between the reviewers. Risk of bias will be assessed based on the Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool, and overall quality of the evidence will be judged using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. Findings will be presented with the narrative synthesis, and if applicable, they will be further quantified using random-effects meta-analysis. Effect size, risk ratio for dichotomous variables, and standardized mean differences for continuous variables will be calculated for each outcome using Review Manager 5.3.DiscussionSystematic reviews to evaluate the efficacy of interventions to address DV within the perinatal context have been limited. Hence, no one intervention has emerged as substantially effective towards addressing perinatal DV and associated health consequences. The evidence generated from this systematic review will inform researchers and policy makers about the effectiveness of existing DV interventions among pregnant women in LMICs and provide recommendations for future research in this area. This in turn will contribute towards violence prevention in LMICs.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42017073938.

Project description:BackgroundTask-sharing interventions using non-physician health-care workers might be a potential diabetes management strategy in health systems that are constrained by physician shortages, such as those in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs).MethodsWe did a systematic review and meta-analysis of task-sharing intervention strategies for managing type 2 diabetes in LMICs. We searched PubMed, Embase, and CINAHL from database inception to Sept 25, 2019, for studies that were randomised control trials or cluster randomised trials with task-shifted or task-shared interventions delivered to adults (≥18 years) by non-physician health workers versus usual care, done in LMICs with glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) or fasting blood sugar (FBS) as outcome measures. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Random-effects model meta-analysis was used to estimate the population average pooled mean difference for HbA1c and FBS with 95% CIs. Our study protocol was registered in the PROSPERO database (CRD42018081015).FindingsWe found 4213 studies from the literature search, of which 46 (1·1%) were eligible for the narrative synthesis, including a total of 16 973 participants. 16 of these studies were excluded from the meta-analysis due to high risk of bias. 24 studies with a total of 5345 participants were included in the meta-analysis of HbA1c and 18 studies with a total of 3287 participants for FBS. Interventions led to an average reduction in HbA1c when tasks were delivered by nurses (averaged pooled mean difference -0·54% [95% CI -0·89 to -0·18]; I2=80%) and pharmacists (-0·91% [-1·15 to -0·68]; I2=58%), but not when they were delivered by dietitians (-0·50% [-1·10 to 0·09]; I2=54%) or community health workers (0·05% [0·03 to 0·07]; I2=0%). A reduction in average FBS was also observed when interventions were delivered by pharmacists (average pooled mean difference -36·26 mg/dL [-52·60 to -19·92]; I2=78%) but not nurses (-7·46 mg/dL [-18·44 to 3·52]; I2=79%) or community health workers (-5·41 [-12·74 to 1·92]; I2=71%). Only one study reported on FBS when tasks were delivered by dietitians, with a mean difference of -35·00 mg/dL (-65·96 to -4·04).InterpretationTask sharing interventions with non-physician healthcare workers show moderate effectiveness in diabetes management in LMIC settings. Although relatively high heterogeneity limits the interpretation of the overall findings, interventions led by pharmacists and nurses in LMICs with relatively high physician density are effective strategies in the management of diabetes.FundingWellcome Trust-Department of Biotechnology India Alliance.

Project description:BackgroundVision loss due to diabetic retinopathy can largely be prevented or delayed through treatment. Patients with vision-threatening diabetic retinopathy are typically offered laser or intravitreal injections which often require more than one treatment cycle. However, treatment is not always initiated, or it is not completed, resulting in poor visual outcomes. Interventions aimed at improving the uptake or completion of treatment for diabetic retinopathy can potentially help prevent or delay visual loss in people with diabetes.MethodsWe will search MEDLINE, Embase, Global Health and Cochrane Register of Studies for studies reporting interventions to improve the uptake of treatment for diabetic retinopathy (DR) and/or diabetic macular oedema (DMO), compared with usual care, in adults with diabetes. The review will include studies published in the last 20 years in the English language. We will include any study design that measured any of the following outcomes in relation to treatment uptake and completion for DR and/or DMO: (1) proportion of patients initiating treatment for DR and/or DMO among those to whom it is recommended, (2) proportion of patients completing treatment for DR and/or DMO among those to whom it is recommended, (3) proportion of patients completing treatment for DR and/or DMO among those initiating treatment and (4) number and proportion of DR and/or DMO rounds of treatment completed per patient, as dictated by the treatment protocol. For included studies, we will also report any measures of cost-effectiveness when available. Two reviewers will screen search results independently. Risk of bias assessment will be done by two reviewers, and data extraction will be done by one reviewer with verification of 10% of the papers by a second reviewer. The results will be synthesised narratively.DiscussionThis rapid review aims to identify and synthesise the peer-reviewed literature on the effectiveness of interventions to increase uptake and completion of treatment for DR and/or DMO in LMICs. The rapid review methodology was chosen in order to rapidly synthesise the available evidence to support programme implementers and policy-makers in designing evidence-based health programmes and public health policy and inform the allocation of resources.Systematic review registrationOSF osf.io/h5wgr.

Project description:ObjectiveThis review was conducted to identify interventions effective in improving uptake and retention of HIV-positive mothers and their infants in prevention of mother to child transmission (PMTCT) services in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) in order to inform programme planning.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review of studies comparing usual care with any intervention to improve uptake and retention of HIV-positive pregnant or breastfeeding women and their children from birth to 2 years of age in PMTCT services in LMICs. Twenty-two electronic databases were searched from inception to 15 January 2018, for randomised, quasi-randomised and non-randomised controlled trials, and interrupted time series studies; reference lists of included articles were searched for relevant articles. Risk of bias was assessed using the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care group criteria. Random-effects meta-analysis was conducted for studies reporting similar interventions and outcomes.ResultsWe identified 29 837 articles, of which 18 studies were included in our review. Because of heterogeneity in interventions and outcome measures, only one meta-analysis of two studies and one outcome was conducted; we found a statistically significant increase in antiretroviral therapy (ART) use during pregnancy for integration of HIV and antenatal care relative to standard non-integrated care (pooled AOR=2.69; 95% CI 1.25 to 5.78, p=0.0113). The remaining studies assessing other patient, provider or health system interventions were synthesised narratively, with small effects seen across intervention categories for both maternal and infant PMTCT outcomes based predominately on evidence with moderate to high risk of bias.ConclusionsEvidence on the effectiveness of interventions to improve uptake and retention of mothers and infants in PMTCT care is lacking. Our findings suggest that integration of HIV and antenatal care may improve ART use during pregnancy. Future studies to replicate promising approaches are needed. Improved reporting of key methodological criteria will facilitate interpretation of findings and improve the utility of evidence to PMTCT programme planners.Prospero registration numberCRD42015020829.

Project description:BACKGROUND:In recent years, several large studies have assessed the costs of national infant immunization programs, and the results of these studies are used to support planning and budgeting in low- and middle-income countries. However, few studies have addressed the costs and cost-effectiveness of interventions to improve immunization coverage, despite this being a major focus of policy attention. Without this information, countries and international stakeholders have little objective evidence on the efficiency of competing interventions for improving coverage. METHODS:We conducted a systematic literature review on the costs and cost-effectiveness of interventions to improve immunization coverage in low- and middle-income countries, including both published and unpublished reports. We evaluated the quality of included studies and extracted data on costs and incremental coverage. Where possible, we calculated incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs) to describe the efficiency of each intervention in increasing coverage. RESULTS:A total of 14 out of 41 full text articles reviewed met criteria for inclusion in the final review. Interventions for increasing immunization coverage included demand generation, modified delivery approaches, cash transfer programs, health systems strengthening, and novel technology usage. We observed substantial heterogeneity in costing methods and incompleteness of cost and coverage reporting. Most studies reported increases in coverage following the interventions, with coverage increasing by an average of 23 percentage points post-intervention across studies. ICERs ranged from $0.66 to $161.95 per child vaccinated in 2017 USD. We did not conduct a meta-analysis given the small number of estimates and variety of interventions included. CONCLUSIONS:There is little quantitative evidence on the costs and cost-effectiveness of interventions for improving immunization coverage, despite this being a major objective for national immunization programs. Efforts to improve the level of costing evidence-such as by integrating cost analysis within implementation studies and trials of immunization scale up-could allow programs to better allocate resources for coverage improvement. Greater adoption of standardized cost reporting methods would also enable the synthesis and use of cost data.

Project description:Bronx County, New York is the poorest urban county in the U.S.A., and residents are almost entirely Latino or African American. Cancer is the leading cause of premature death in the Bronx, with morality rates significantly higher than for New York City as a whole. Low-income/minority populations are more likely to be diagnosed with preventable and late-stage cancers than the general population, in part, due to lower screening rates. While research has addressed screening barriers in low-income/minority groups, depression, a common,potentially critical barrier, has received scant attention. Research suggests that depressed women are less likely to engage in cancer screening, especially mammography and Pap testing. The link between mental health and cancer screening is particularly important to address in the Bronx, which has the highest rates of self-reported serious psychological distress (a measure closely related to depression) in New York City. Depression affects almost 1 in 4 minority women, and while minorities often seek help for depression in primary care, primary care depression management often does not meet evidence-based standards. Drawing on the expertise and close collaboration of Bronx medical and social service providers and patient stakeholders, this study will determine whether a collaborative care intervention that addresses both depression and cancer screening needs simultaneously among women ages 50-64 is more effective at improving cancer screening and patient-reported outcomes for women with depression than an existing evidence-based cancer screening intervention alone. To achieve this, the investigators will compare the effectiveness of these two interventions using a randomized controlled trial (RCT). In partnership with six Bronx Federally Qualified Health Centers (FQHCs), the investigators will recruit approximately 800 women ages 50-64 who screen positive for depression and are non-adherent with recommended cervical, breast, and/or colorectal cancer screenings. The investigators specific aims are to: 1) compare the impact of the two interventions on patient-reported outcomes, including cancer screening knowledge and attitudes, self-efficacy, depression-related stigma, provider referrals, participation in mental health care, medication adherence, quality of life, satisfaction with care and treatment decisions, and depression; 2) compare the effectiveness of the two interventions in increasing breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening; 3) determine whether reducing depression increases the likelihood that low-income women 50-64 will receive cancer screening; 4) determine whether effectiveness of the two interventions in increasing cancer screening varies according to patient characteristics, such as duration of depression, presence of other chronic conditions, and obesity. This study is designed to increase the investigators understanding of how to enhance primary care systems’ ability to improve a range of outcomes related to cancer screening and depression among low-income minority women, and how to best support this population in making cancer-screening decisions.

Dataset Information

Interventions to increase the uptake of mammography amongst low income women: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Publications

Interventions to increase the uptake of mammography amongst low income women: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets