Dataset Information

Pathways to diagnosis of a second primary cancer: protocol for a mixed-methods systematic review.

ABSTRACT: INTRODUCTION:As cancer survivors continue to live longer, the incidence of second primary cancers (SPCs) will also rise. Relatively little is understood about the diagnostic pathway for SPCs, how people appraise, interpret symptoms and seek help for a second different cancer and the experiences (including challenges) of healthcare providers relating to SPCs. This study aims to systematically appraise and synthesise the literature on the pathways to diagnosis of an SPC and the associated patient and healthcare provider experiences. METHODS:The approach taken includes systematic searches of published and unpublished literature without any date or language restrictions. MEDLINE, Embase, CAB Abstracts, MEDLINE In-Process and non-indexed citations, PsycINFO, Epub Ahead of Print, In-Process and other non-indexed citations, Ovid MEDLINE Daily, CINAHL, ASSIA, Sociological Abstracts, Web of Science, PROSPERO and grey literature will be searched to identify observational, systematic reviews, mixed methods and qualitative studies of interest. Titles, abstracts and full texts will be screened against the inclusion-exclusion criteria by at least two reviewers independently. Relevant outcomes of interest and study and population characteristics will be extracted. Synthesis will be used guided by the Pathways to Treatment model and the Olesen model of time intervals. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION:Ethical approval is not required. This systematic review will provide a deeper understanding of the complex and heterogeneous diagnostic pathways of SPCs, while identifying common themes across the diagnostic interval, routes to diagnosis and patient and healthcare provider experiences. These findings will help provide a nuanced picture of the diagnostic pathway for SPCs that may inform policy and consistent practice. In particular, approaches to early diagnosis for an SPC; including the timing and reasons behind the decision by the patient to seek care,the challenges faced by healthcare providers, and in the development of future interventions to reduce the delay in patient time-to-presentation. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER:CRD42016051692.

SUBMITTER: Kanguru L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5988126 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Pathways to diagnosis of a second primary cancer: protocol for a mixed-methods systematic review.

Kanguru Lovney L Bikker Annemieke A Cavers Debbie D Barnett Karen K Brewster David H DH Weller David D Campbell Christine C

BMJ open 20171221 12

<h4>Introduction</h4>As cancer survivors continue to live longer, the incidence of second primary cancers (SPCs) will also rise. Relatively little is understood about the diagnostic pathway for SPCs, how people appraise, interpret symptoms and seek help for a second different cancer and the experiences (including challenges) of healthcare providers relating to SPCs. This study aims to systematically appraise and synthesise the literature on the pathways to diagnosis of an SPC and the associated ...[more]

PMID: 29273656

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundWith the accumulation of evidence regarding potential harms of cancer screening in recent years, researchers, policy-makers, and the public are becoming more critical of population-based cancer screening. Consequently, a high-quality cancer screening program should consider individuals’ values and preferences when determining recommendations. In cervical cancer screening, offering women autonomy is considered a “person-centered” approach to health care services; however, it may impact the effectiveness of the program should women choose to not participate. As part of a larger project to investigate women’s cervical screening preferences and correlates of these preferences, this systematic review will capture quantitative and qualitative investigations of women’s cervical screening preferences and the methods used to elicit them.Design and methodsThis mixed methods synthesis will use a thematic analysis approach to synthesize qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods evidence. This protocol describes the methods that will be used in this investigation. A search strategy has been developed with a health librarian and peer reviewed using PRESS. Based on this strategy, five databases and the gray literature will be searched for studies that meet the inclusion criteria. The quality of the included individual studies will be examined using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Three reviewers will extract data from the primary studies on the tools or instruments used to elicit women’s preferences regarding cervical cancer screening, theoretical frameworks used, outcomes measured, the outstanding themes from quantitative and qualitative evidence, and the identified preferences for cervical cancer screening. We will describe the relationships between study results and the study population, “intervention” (e.g., tool or instrument), and context. We will follow the PRISMA reporting guideline. We will compare findings across studies and between study methods (e.g., qualitative versus quantitative study designs). The strength of the synthesized findings will be assessed using the validated GRADE and CERQual tool.DiscussionThis review will inform the development of a tool to elicit women’s cervical screening preferences. Understanding the methods used to elicit women’s preferences and what is known about women’s cervical screening preferences will be useful for guideline developers who wish to incorporate a woman-centered approach specifically for cervical screening guidelines.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42016035737Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13643-016-0310-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Project description:IntroductionExposure to different types of psychological trauma may lead to a range of adverse effects on trauma survivors, including poor mental and physical health, economic, social and cognitive functioning outcomes. Trauma-informed (TI) approaches to care are defined as a service system grounded in and directed by an understanding of how trauma affects the survivors' neurological, biological, physiological and social development. TI service system involves training of all staff, service improvements and sometimes screening for trauma experiences. The UK started incorporating TI approaches into the National Health Service. While policies recommend it, the evidence base for TI approaches to healthcare is not well established. We aim to conduct a systematic review to synthesise evidence on TI approaches in primary and community mental healthcare globally.Methods and analysisWe will undertake a systematic search for primary studies in Medline, Embase, PsycINFO, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, Cochrane library, websites of organisations involved in the development and implementation of TI approaches in healthcare, and databases of thesis and dissertation. Included studies will be in English published between 1990 and February 2020. Two reviewers will independently perform study selection with data extraction and quality appraisal undertaken by one reviewer and checked for accuracy by a second reviewer. A results-based convergent synthesis will be conducted where quantitative (narratively) and qualitative (thematically) evidence will be analysed separately and then integrated using another method of synthesis. We set up a trauma survivor group and a professional group to consult throughout this review.Ethics and disseminationThere is no requirement for ethical approval for this systematic review as no empirical data will be collected. The findings will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed publication, scientific and practitioner conferences, and policy briefings targeted at local and national policy makers.Prospero registration numberCRD42020164752.

Project description:IntroductionThe recent global expansion of routine adolescent vaccination programmes has the potential to protect young people against the acquisition of infectious disease and improve their health. Although in many countries the legal framework supports young people to provide consent for medical interventions if they are considered competent, written parental consent can act as a barrier to uptake as it is frequently a condition of adolescent vaccination programmes. The aim of this systematic review protocol is to document the methods which will be used to identify, appraise and synthesise the available qualitative and quantitative evidence to address: (1) whether implementation of adolescent self-consent procedures can increase vaccination uptake and (2) the barriers and facilitators to implementation of adolescent self-consent procedures.Methods and analysisComprehensive search strategy of all relevant electronic databases for both qualitative and quantitative studies using predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. At least two authors will independently review titles and abstracts, extract data and assess the methodological quality of eligible primary studies, resolving disagreements by consensus. Quantitative studies will be reported narratively and where possible pooled in a meta-analysis using a random-effects model. The findings of qualitative primary studies will be extracted, interpreted and synthesised to identify overarching themes as well as similarities and differences within those themes.Ethics and disseminationAs this systematic review involves analysis of secondary data, the study does not require ethical approvals. We will use our findings to assess whether the evidence supports the hypothesis that self-consent procedures can increase coverage of adolescent vaccination programmes. We will identify barriers and facilitators to the implementation of adolescent self-consent for vaccination and make recommendations for policy makers and practitioners in relation to consent procedures within vaccination programmes for young people.Prospero registration numberCRD42017084509.

Project description:IntroductionMental disorders such as depression are common, and an estimated 264 million people are affected by them throughout the world. In recent years, studies on digital health interventions to treat mental disorders have shown evidence of their efficacy, and interest in using them has increased as a result. In the primary care setting, depression and anxiety are the two most frequently diagnosed and treated mental disorders. When they do not refer them to specialists, primary care professionals such as general practitioners treat patients with mental disorders themselves but have insufficient time to treat them adequately. Furthermore, there is a shortage of psychotherapists and those that exist have long waiting lists for an appointment. The purpose of this mixed methods systematic review is to explore the attitudes of primary care professionals towards the use of digital health interventions in the treatment of patients with mental disorders. Their attitudes will provide an indication whether digital mental health interventions can effectively complement standard care in the primary care setting.Methods and analysisWe searched for qualitative, quantitative and mixed methods studies published in English, German, Spanish, Russian, French and Dutch after January 2010 for inclusion in the review. The included studies must involve digital mental health interventions conducted via computer and/or mobile devices in the primary care setting. The search was conducted in July 2020 in the following electronic bibliographic databases: MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Web of Science Core Collection. Two reviewers will independently screen titles, abstracts and full texts and extract data. We will use the 'Integrated methodology' framework to combine both quantitative and qualitative data.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required. We will disseminate the results of the mixed methods systematic review in a peer-reviewed journal and scientific conferences.Prospero registration numberCRD42020188879.

Project description:BackgroundIt is well recognised that access and receipt of appropriate guideline recommended treatment with systemic anti-cancer therapies for secondary breast cancer is a key determinant in overall survival. Where there is disparity in access this may result in unwarranted variation and disparity in outcomes. Individual, clinical and wider contextual factors have been associated with these disparities, however this remains poorly understood for women with secondary breast cancer. The purpose of the review is to examine individual, clinical and contextual factors which influence access to evidence-based systemic anti-cancer therapies for women with secondary breast cancer. This will include barriers and facilitators for access and receipt of treatment and an exploration of women and clinicians experience and perspectives on access.MethodsA mixed methods approach with a segregated design will be used to examine and explore factors which influence access to systemic anti-cancer therapies for women with secondary breast cancer. Electronic databases to be searched from January 2000 onwards will be EBSCO CINAHL Plus, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid EMBASE, PsychINFO and the Cochrane Library and JBI database. This will include NHS Evidence which will be searched for unpublished studies and gray literature. Title and abstract citations and full-text articles will be screened by the author and second reviewer. Data will be extracted by the author and validated by the second reviewer. An overarching synthesis will be produced which brings together quantitative and qualitative findings. Methodological quality and risk of bias will be assessed using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool.DiscussionUnderstanding individual, clinical and wider contextual factors associated with access and receipt of systemic anti-cancer therapies for secondary breast cancer is a complex phenomenon. These will be examined to determine any association with access. Review findings will be used to guide future research in this area and the development of an evidence-based service level intervention designed to address unwarranted variation in access based upon the Medical Research Council (MRC) approach to the development, implementation and evaluation of complex interventions.Systematic review registrationThe review protocol has been registered in PROSPERO CRD42020196490 .

Project description:IntroductionCerebral palsy (CP) is a neurodisability that primarily results in motor impairments and activity limitations, but is often associated with epilepsy and disturbances of sensation, perception, cognition, behaviour and speech. Most children with CP survive well into adulthood. Adults with CP experience increased risk of age-related chronic conditions such as arthritis, stroke, cardiorespiratory and mental health conditions in addition to the ongoing disabilities experienced from childhood. Therefore, adults with CP often require extensive health services. However, health service use among adults with CP has not been well documented. This mixed method review aims to identify, appraise and synthesise quantitative and qualitative literature examining health service use among adults with CP.Methods and analysisThe mixed method systematic review will be conducted in accordance with the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology. A systematic search of MEDLINE (Ovid), CINAHL, Embase, PsycINFO and Cochrane Library from inception to March 2020 will be conducted. Quantitative observational studies, qualitative studies and mixed method studies examining health service use among adults with CP (≥18 years) will be included. Outcomes of interest are the proportion of adults using health services frequency of use and experiences of health services from the perspectives of adults with CP, caregivers and health service providers. Two reviewers will independently screen titles, abstracts and full-texts, extract data and assess the quality of included studies using JBI instruments. Where possible a pooled analysis and aggregation of findings will be performed for quantitative and qualitative data, respectively, and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE)/GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) employed. Quantitative and qualitative findings will be integrated using a triangulation approach at the synthesis stage. A narrative synthesis will be carried out where this is not possible.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval is not required for this review. The findings will be disseminated through a peer-reviewed journal and conferences.Prospero registration numberCRD42020155 380.

Dataset Information

Pathways to diagnosis of a second primary cancer: protocol for a mixed-methods systematic review.

Publications

Pathways to diagnosis of a second primary cancer: protocol for a mixed-methods systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets