Dataset Information

Determinants of (non-)attendance at the Dutch cancer screening programmes: A systematic review.

ABSTRACT: OBJECTIVE:The Netherlands host three population-based cancer screening programmes: for cervical, breast, and colorectal cancer. For screening programmes to be effective, high participation rates are essential, but participation in the Netherlands' programmes is starting to fall below the minimal effective rate. We aimed to produce a systematic overview of the current known determinants of (non-)attendance at the Dutch cancer screening programmes. METHODS:A literature search was conducted in the electronic databases Academic Search Premier, Cochrane Library, Embase, EMCare, PubMed, PsycINFO, Web of Science, and also in grey literature, including all articles published before February 2018. The I-Change model was used to categorize the identified determinants of cancer screening attendance. RESULTS:In total, 19/1232 identified studies and 6 grey literature reports were included. Fifteen studies reported on predisposing factors. Characteristics such as social economic status, country of birth, and residency were most often reported, and correlate with cancer screening attendance. Thirteen studies addressed information factors. Factors on awareness, motivation, ability, and barriers were less often studied. CONCLUSION:Current studies tend to describe the general characteristics of (non-)attendance and (non-)attenders, but rarely provide in depth information on other factors of (non-)participation. The I-Change model proved to be a useful tool in mapping current knowledge on cancer screening attendance and revealed knowledge gaps regarding determinants of (non-)participation in the screening programmes. More research is needed to fully understand determinants of participation, in order to influence and optimize attendance rates over the long term.

SUBMITTER: Bongaerts TH

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7491249 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Determinants of (non-)attendance at the Dutch cancer screening programmes: A systematic review.

Bongaerts Thomas Hg TH Büchner Frederike L FL Middelkoop Barend Jc BJ Guicherit Onno R OR Numans Mattijs E ME

Journal of medical screening 20191204 3

<h4>Objective</h4>The Netherlands host three population-based cancer screening programmes: for cervical, breast, and colorectal cancer. For screening programmes to be effective, high participation rates are essential, but participation in the Netherlands' programmes is starting to fall below the minimal effective rate. We aimed to produce a systematic overview of the current known determinants of (non-)attendance at the Dutch cancer screening programmes.<h4>Methods</h4>A literature search was co ...[more]

PMID: 31801039

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveTo examine the accuracy of artificial intelligence (AI) for the detection of breast cancer in mammography screening practice.DesignSystematic review of test accuracy studies.Data sourcesMedline, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews from 1 January 2010 to 17 May 2021.Eligibility criteriaStudies reporting test accuracy of AI algorithms, alone or in combination with radiologists, to detect cancer in women's digital mammograms in screening practice, or in test sets. Reference standard was biopsy with histology or follow-up (for screen negative women). Outcomes included test accuracy and cancer type detected.Study selection and synthesisTwo reviewers independently assessed articles for inclusion and assessed the methodological quality of included studies using the QUality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 (QUADAS-2) tool. A single reviewer extracted data, which were checked by a second reviewer. Narrative data synthesis was performed.ResultsTwelve studies totalling 131 822 screened women were included. No prospective studies measuring test accuracy of AI in screening practice were found. Studies were of poor methodological quality. Three retrospective studies compared AI systems with the clinical decisions of the original radiologist, including 79 910 women, of whom 1878 had screen detected cancer or interval cancer within 12 months of screening. Thirty four (94%) of 36 AI systems evaluated in these studies were less accurate than a single radiologist, and all were less accurate than consensus of two or more radiologists. Five smaller studies (1086 women, 520 cancers) at high risk of bias and low generalisability to the clinical context reported that all five evaluated AI systems (as standalone to replace radiologist or as a reader aid) were more accurate than a single radiologist reading a test set in the laboratory. In three studies, AI used for triage screened out 53%, 45%, and 50% of women at low risk but also 10%, 4%, and 0% of cancers detected by radiologists.ConclusionsCurrent evidence for AI does not yet allow judgement of its accuracy in breast cancer screening programmes, and it is unclear where on the clinical pathway AI might be of most benefit. AI systems are not sufficiently specific to replace radiologist double reading in screening programmes. Promising results in smaller studies are not replicated in larger studies. Prospective studies are required to measure the effect of AI in clinical practice. Such studies will require clear stopping rules to ensure that AI does not reduce programme specificity.Study registrationProtocol registered as PROSPERO CRD42020213590.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Permanent childhood hearing loss is one of the most common birth conditions associated with speech and language delay. A hearing screening can result in early detection and intervention for hearing loss. OBJECTIVES:To update and expand previous systematic reviews of economic evaluations of childhood hearing screening strategies, and explore the methodological differences. DATA SOURCES:MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane database, National Health Services Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED), the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) database, and Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health's (CADTH) Grey matters. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS:Economic evaluations reporting costs and outcomes for both the intervention and comparator arms related to childhood hearing screening strategies. RESULTS:Thirty evaluations (from 29 articles) were included for review. Several methodological issues were identified, including: few evaluations reported outcomes in terms of quality-adjusted life years (QALYs); none estimated utilities directly from surveying children; none included disutilities and costs associated with adverse events; few included costs and outcomes that differed by severity; few included long-term estimates; none considered acquired hearing loss; some did not present incremental results; and few conducted comprehensive univariate or probabilistic sensitivity analysis. Evaluations published post-2011 were more likely to report QALYs and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) as outcome measures, include long-term treatment and productivity costs, and present incremental results. LIMITATIONS:We were unable to access the economic models and, although we employed an extensive search strategy, potentially not all relevant economic evaluations were identified. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS:Most economic evaluations concluded that childhood hearing screening is value for money. However, there were significant methodological limitations with the evaluations.

Dataset Information

Determinants of (non-)attendance at the Dutch cancer screening programmes: A systematic review.

Publications

Determinants of (non-)attendance at the Dutch cancer screening programmes: A systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets