Barriers and facilitators for cascade testing in genetic conditions: a systematic review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Srinivasan S
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7784694 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundRoutine HIV screening rates are suboptimal.ObjectivesThis systematic review identified barriers to/facilitators of routine HIV testing, categorized them using the socioecological model (SEM), and provided recommendations for interventions to increase screening.Data sourcesIncluded articles were indexed in PubMed, EBSCO CINAHL, Scopus, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library between 2006 and October 2018.Eligibility criteriaIncluded studies were published in English or Spanish and directly assessed providers' barriers/facilitators to routine screening.Data extractionWe used a standardized Excel template to extract barriers/facilitators and identify levels in the SEM.Data synthesisIntrapersonal factors predominated as barriers, while facilitators were directed at the institutional level.LimitationsPolicy barriers are not universal across countries. Meta-analysis was not possible. We could not quantify frequency of any given barrier/facilitator.ConclusionsIncreasing reimbursement and adding screening as a quality measure may incentivize HIV testing; however, many interventions would require little resource investment.
| S-EPMC7322815 | biostudies-literature
Project description:It was estimated that 1.2 million people live with HIV/AIDS in Zambia by 2015. Zambia has developed and implemented diverse programs to reduce the prevalence in the country. HIV-testing is a critical step in HIV treatment and prevention, especially among all the key populations. However, there is no systematic review so far to demonstrate the trend of HIV-testing studies in Zambia since 1990s or synthesis the key factors that associated with HIV-testing practices in the country. Therefore, this study conducted a systematic review to search all English literature published prior to November 2016 in six electronic databases and retrieved 32 articles that meet our inclusion criteria. The results indicated that higher education was a common facilitator of HIV testing, while misconception of HIV testing and the fear of negative consequences were the major barriers for using the testing services. Other factors, such as demographic characteristics, marital dynamics, partner relationship, and relationship with the health care services, also greatly affects the participants' decision making. The findings indicated that 1) individualized strategies and comprehensive services are needed for diverse key population; 2) capacity building for healthcare providers is critical for effectively implementing the task-shifting strategy; 3) HIV testing services need to adapt to the social context of Zambia where HIV-related stigma and discrimination is still persistent and overwhelming; and 4) family-based education and intervention should involving improving gender equity.
| S-EPMC5802917 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Studies suggest that 1-3% of the general population in the United States unknowingly carry a genetic risk factor for a common hereditary disease. Population genetic screening is the process of offering otherwise healthy patients in the general population testing for genomic variants that predispose them to diseases that are clinically actionable, meaning that they can be prevented or mitigated if they are detected early. Population genetic screening may significantly reduce morbidity and mortality from these diseases by informing risk-specific prevention or treatment strategies and facilitating appropriate participation in early detection. To better understand current barriers, facilitators, perceptions, and outcomes related to the implementation of population genetic screening, we conducted a systematic review and searched PubMed, Embase, and Scopus for articles published from date of database inception to May 2020. We included articles that 1) detailed the perspectives of participants in population genetic screening programs and 2) described the barriers, facilitators, perceptions, and outcomes related to population genetic screening programs among patients, healthcare providers, and the public. We excluded articles that 1) focused on direct-to-consumer or risk-based genetic testing and 2) were published before January 2000. Thirty articles met these criteria. Barriers and facilitators to population genetic screening were organized by the Social Ecological Model and further categorized by themes. We found that research in population genetic screening has focused on stakeholder attitudes with all included studies designed to elucidate individuals' perceptions. Additionally, inadequate knowledge and perceived limited clinical utility presented a barrier for healthcare provider uptake. There were very few studies that conducted long-term follow-up and evaluation of population genetic screening. Our findings suggest that these and other factors, such as prescreen counseling and education, may play a role in the adoption and implementation of population genetic screening. Future studies to investigate macro-level determinants, strategies to increase provider buy-in and knowledge, delivery models for prescreen counseling, and long-term outcomes of population genetic screening are needed for the effective design and implementation of such programs. Systematic Review Registration: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42020198198.
| S-EPMC9289280 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe aim of this study was to describe barriers and facilitators for shared decision making (SDM) as experienced by older patients with multiple chronic conditions (MCCs), informal caregivers and health professionals.MethodsA structured literature search was conducted with 5 databases. Two reviewers independently assessed studies for eligibility and performed a quality assessment. The results from the included studies were summarized using a predefined taxonomy.ResultsOur search yielded 3838 articles. Twenty-eight studies, listing 149 perceived barriers and 67 perceived facilitators for SDM, were included. Due to poor health and cognitive and/or physical impairments, older patients with MCCs participate less in SDM. Poor interpersonal skills of health professionals are perceived as hampering SDM, as do organizational barriers, such as pressure for time and high turnover of patients. However, among older patients with MCCs, SDM could be facilitated when patients share information about personal values, priorities and preferences, as well as information about quality of life and functional status. Informal caregivers may facilitate SDM by assisting patients with decision support, although informal caregivers can also complicate the SDM process, for example, when they have different views on treatment or the patient's capability to be involved. Coordination of care when multiple health professionals are involved is perceived as important.ConclusionsAlthough poor health is perceived as a barrier to participate in SDM, the personal experience of living with MCCs is considered valuable input in SDM. An explicit invitation to participate in SDM is important to older adults. Health professionals need a supporting organizational context and good communication skills to devise an individualized approach for patient care.
| S-EPMC7866443 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionPelvic organ prolapse (POP) can be effectively managed using a pessary. A scoping review found that pessary self-management appears to benefit women with no increased risk. Despite this, many are unwilling to self-manage their pessary. At present, there is a lack of understanding about what affects willingness to self-manage a pessary. However, there may be relevant, transferable findings from other literature about barriers to the self-management of other chronic conditions. Therefore, this systematic review aims to identify, appraise and synthesise the findings of published qualitative research exploring the barriers and facilitators to self-management of chronic conditions reported by women.Methods and analysisThe systematic review will be conducted and reported in accordance with Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) guidelines and a guide for the systematic review of qualitative data. A search of MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase and PsycInfo will be undertaken to identify relevant articles that meet the eligibility criteria using the search terms 'Women', 'Woman' 'Female,' 'Chronic', 'Long-term', 'Disease', 'Illness', 'Condition' 'Health,' 'Self-management,' 'Qualitative,' 'Barrier' and 'Facilitator'. A hand search of the reference list of non-original research identified during the search but excluded will be conducted for additional publications, which meet the inclusion and exclusion criteria. Studies published before 2005 and those not available in English will be excluded. Data relevant to the topic will be extracted and critical appraisal of all included publications undertaken.Ethics and disseminationNo ethical or Health Research Authority approval is required to undertake the systematic review. The systematic review findings will be disseminated by publication. The findings will also inform subsequent exploratory work regarding pessary self-management.Prospero registration numberCRD42022327643.
| S-EPMC9305798 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThe study sought to identify barriers to and facilitators of point-of-care information seeking and use of knowledge resources.Materials and methodsWe searched MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, and Cochrane Library from 1991 to February 2017. We included qualitative studies in any language exploring barriers to and facilitators of point-of-care information seeking or use of electronic knowledge resources. Two authors independently extracted data on users, study design, and study quality. We inductively identified specific barriers or facilitators and from these synthesized a model of key determinants of information-seeking behaviors.ResultsForty-five qualitative studies were included, reporting data derived from interviews (n = 26), focus groups (n = 21), ethnographies (n = 6), logs (n = 4), and usability studies (n = 2). Most studies were performed within the context of general medicine (n = 28) or medical specialties (n = 13). We inductively identified 58 specific barriers and facilitators and then created a model reflecting 5 key determinants of information-seeking behaviors: time includes subthemes of time availability, efficiency of information seeking, and urgency of information need; accessibility includes subthemes of hardware access, hardware speed, hardware portability, information restriction, and cost of resources; personal skills and attitudes includes subthemes of computer literacy, information-seeking skills, and contextual attitudes about information seeking; institutional attitudes, cultures, and policies includes subthemes describing external individual and institutional information-seeking influences; and knowledge resource features includes subthemes describing information-seeking efficiency, information content, information organization, resource familiarity, information credibility, information currency, workflow integration, compatibility of recommendations with local processes, and patient educational support.ConclusionsAddressing these determinants of information-seeking behaviors may facilitate clinicians' question answering to improve patient care.
| S-EPMC7647205 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesWe conducted a systematic review of studies assessing facilitators and barriers to use of health information exchange (HIE).MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library databases between January 1990 and February 2015 using terms related to HIE. English-language studies that identified barriers and facilitators of actual HIE were included. Data on study design, risk of bias, setting, geographic location, characteristics of the HIE, perceived barriers and facilitators to use were extracted and confirmed.ResultsTen cross-sectional, seven multiple-site case studies, and two before-after studies that included data from several sources (surveys, interviews, focus groups, and observations of users) evaluated perceived barriers and facilitators to HIE use. The most commonly cited barriers to HIE use were incomplete information, inefficient workflow, and reports that the exchanged information that did not meet the needs of users. The review identified several facilitators to use.DiscussionIncomplete patient information was consistently mentioned in the studies conducted in the US but not mentioned in the few studies conducted outside of the US that take a collective approach toward healthcare. Individual patients and practices in the US may exercise the right to participate (or not) in HIE which effects the completeness of patient information available to be exchanged. Workflow structure and user roles are key but understudied.ConclusionsWe identified several facilitators in the studies that showed promise in promoting electronic health data exchange: obtaining more complete patient information; thoughtful workflow that folds in HIE; and inclusion of users early in implementation.
| S-EPMC4778080 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE: We conducted a systematic review identifying users groups' perceptions of barriers and facilitators to implementing electronic prescription (e-prescribing) in primary care. METHODS: We included studies following these criteria: presence of an empirical design, focus on the users' experience of e-prescribing implementation, conducted in primary care, and providing data on barriers and facilitators to e-prescribing implementation. We used the Donabedian logical model of healthcare quality (adapted by Barber et al) to analyze our findings. RESULTS: We found 34 publications (related to 28 individual studies) eligible to be included in this review. These studies identified a total of 594 elements as barriers or facilitators to e-prescribing implementation. Most user groups perceived that e-prescribing was facilitated by design and technical concerns, interoperability, content appropriate for the users, attitude towards e-prescribing, productivity, and available resources. DISCUSSION: This review highlights the importance of technical and organizational support for the successful implementation of e-prescribing systems. It also shows that the same factor can be seen as a barrier or a facilitator depending on the project's own circumstances. Moreover, a factor can change in nature, from a barrier to a facilitator and vice versa, in the process of e-prescribing implementation. CONCLUSIONS: This review summarizes current knowledge on factors related to e-prescribing implementation in primary care that could support decision makers in their design of effective implementation strategies. Finally, future studies should emphasize on the perceptions of other user groups, such as pharmacists, managers, vendors, and patients, who remain neglected in the literature.
| S-EPMC3994867 | biostudies-other
Project description:IntroductionIn 2019, the United Nations signalled a substantial rise in the number of international migrants, up to 272 million globally, about half of which move to only 10 countries, including 8 member nations of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Migrants in OECD countries are often at higher risk for acquiring HIV and have a higher frequency of delayed HIV diagnosis. The barriers and facilitators that migrant people living with HIV (PLWH) in OECD countries face in relation to HIV care are insufficiently understood. The five-step HIV Care Cascade Continuum (HCCC) is an effective model to identify gaps, barriers and facilitators associated with HIV care. The purpose of this study is to generate a comprehensive, multilevel understanding of barriers and facilitators regarding the five steps of the HCCC model in OECD countries by migration status.Methods and analysisA systematic mixed studies review using a data-based convergent design will be conducted. Medline, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL and the Cochrane Library will be searched on 25 March 2020. Screening and critical appraisal will be conducted independently by the first author. Authors 3-5 will act as second reviewers, each independently conducting 33% of the screening and appraisal. Quantitative data will be transformed to qualitative data and be synthesised using thematic analysis. The Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool will be used for quality assessment. An advisory committee, composed of four migrant PLWH, will be involved in screening and appraising 5% of articles to build knowledge and experience with systematic reviews. They will also be involved in analysis and dissemination.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval was obtained from the McGill University Health Centre (15-188-MUHC, 2016-1697, eReviews 4688). Publications arising from this study will be open-access.Prospero registration numberCRD42020172122.
| S-EPMC7651739 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Managing polypharmacy is a challenge for healthcare systems globally. It is also a health inequality concern as it can expose some of the most vulnerable in society to unnecessary medications and adverse drug-related events. Care for most patients with multimorbidity and polypharmacy occurs in primary care. Safe deprescribing interventions can reduce exposure to inappropriate polypharmacy. However, these are not fully accepted or routinely implemented. AIM:To identify barriers and facilitators to safe deprescribing interventions for adults with multimorbidity and polypharmacy in primary care. DESIGN & SETTING:A systematic review of studies published from 2000, examining safe deprescribing interventions for adults with multimorbidity and polypharmacy. METHOD:A search of electronic databases: MEDLINE, Embase, Cumulative Index of Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINHAL), Cochrane, and Health Management Information Consortium (HMIC) from inception to 26 Feb 2019, using an agreed search strategy. This was supplemented by handsearching of relevant journals, and screening of reference lists and citations of included studies. RESULTS:In total, 40 studies from 14 countries were identified. Cultural and organisational barriers included: a culture of diagnosing and prescribing; evidence-based guidance focused on single diseases; a lack of evidence-based guidance for the care of older people with multimorbidities; and a lack of shared communication, decision-making systems, tools, and resources. Interpersonal and individual-level barriers included: professional etiquette; fragmented care; prescribers' and patients' uncertainties; and gaps in tailored support. Facilitators included: prudent prescribing; greater availability and acceptability of non-pharmacological alternatives; resources; improved communication, collaboration, knowledge, and understanding; patient-centred care; and shared decision-making. CONCLUSION:A whole systems, patient-centred approach to safe deprescribing interventions is required, involving key decision-makers, healthcare professionals, patients, and carers.
| S-EPMC7465575 | biostudies-literature