Dataset Information

Delivering screening programmes in primary care: protocol for a scoping and systematic mixed studies review.

ABSTRACT:

Introduction

Screening programmes represent a considerable amount of healthcare activity. As complex interventions, they require careful delivery to generate net benefit. Much screening work occurs in primary care. Despite intensive study of intervention delivery in primary care, there is currently no synthesis of the delivery of screening programmes in this setting. The purpose of this review is to describe and critically evaluate the delivery of screening programmes in general practice and community services.

Methods and analysis

We will use scoping review methods to explore which components of screening programmes are delivered in primary care and systematic review methods to locate and synthesise evidence on how screening programmes can be delivered in primary care, including barriers, facilitators and strategies. We will include empirical studies of any design which consider screening programmes in high-income countries, based in part or whole in primary care. We will search 20 information sources from 1 January 2000, including those relating to health (eg, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL), management (eg, Rx for change database) and grey literature (eg, OpenGrey, screening committee websites). Two reviewers will screen citations and full texts of potentially eligible studies and assess these against inclusion criteria. Qualitative and quantitative data will be extracted in duplicate and synthesised using a best fit framework approach. Within the systematic review, the mixed methods appraisal tool will be used to assess risk of bias.

Ethics and dissemination

No ethics approval is required. We will disseminate findings to academics through publication and presentation, to decision-makers through national screening bodies, to practitioners through professional bodies, and to the public through social media.

Prospero registration number

CRD42020215420.

SUBMITTER: Modi RN

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8055151 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionPatients with complex care needs (PCCNs) often suffer from combinations of multiple chronic conditions, mental health problems, drug interactions and social vulnerability, which can lead to healthcare services overuse, underuse or misuse. Typically, PCCNs face interactional issues and unmet decisional needs regarding possible options in a cascade of interrelated decisions involving different stakeholders (themselves, their families, their caregivers, their healthcare practitioners). Gaps in knowledge, values clarification and social support in situations where options need to be deliberated hamper effective decision support interventions. This review aims to (1) assess decisional needs of PCCNs from the perspective of stakeholders, (2) build a taxonomy of these decisional needs and (3) prioritise decisional needs with knowledge users (clinicians, patients and managers).Methods and analysisThis review will be based on the interprofessional shared decision making (IP-SDM) model and the Ottawa Decision Support Framework. Applying a participatory research approach, we will identify potentially relevant studies through a comprehensive literature search; select relevant ones using eligibility criteria inspired from our previous scoping review on PCCNs; appraise quality using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool; conduct a three-step synthesis (sequential exploratory mixed methods design) to build taxonomy of key decisional needs; and integrate these results with those of a parallel PCCNs' qualitative decisional need assessment (semistructured interviews and focus group with stakeholders).Ethics and disseminationThis systematic review, together with the qualitative study (approved by the Centre Intégré Universitaire de Santé et Service Sociaux du Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean ethical committee), will produce a working taxonomy of key decisional needs (ontological contribution), to inform the subsequent user-centred design of a support tool for addressing PCCNs' decisional needs (practical contribution). We will adapt the IP-SDM model, normally dealing with a single decision, for PCCNs who experience cascade of decisions involving different stakeholders (theoretical contribution). Knowledge users will facilitate dissemination of the results in the Canadian primary care network.Prospero registration numberCRD42015020558.

Project description:BackgroundFamily physicians had to deliver care remotely during the COVID-19 pandemic. Their efforts highlighted the importance of developing a primary care telemedicine (TM) model. TM has the potential to provide a high-quality option for primary care delivery. However, it poses unique challenges for older adults. Our aim was therefore to explore the effects of TM and the determinants of its use in primary care for older adults.MethodsIn this systematic mixed studies review, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, EMBASE, CINHAL, AgeLine, DARE, Cochrane Library, and clinical trials research registers were searched for articles in English, French or Russian. Two reviewers performed study selection, data extraction and assessment of study quality. TM's effects were reported through the tabulation of key variables. TM use determinants were interpreted using thematic analysis based on Chang's framework. All data were integrated using a joint display matrix.ResultsFrom 3,328 references identified, 20 studies were included. They used either phone (n = 8), videoconference (n = 9) or both (n = 3). Among studies reporting positive outcomes in TM experience, 'user habit or preferences' was the most cited barrier and 'location and travel time' was the most cited facilitator. Only one study reported negative outcomes in TM experience and reported 'comfort with patient communication' and 'user interface, intended use or usability' as barriers, and 'technology skills and knowledge' and 'location and travel time' as facilitators. Among studies reporting positive outcomes in service use and usability, no barrier or facilitator was cited more than once. Only one study reported a positive outcome in health-related and behavioural outcomes.ConclusionsTM in older adults' primary care generally led to positive experiences, high satisfaction and generated an interest towards alternative healthcare delivery model. Future research should explore its efficacy on clinical, health-related and healthcare services use.

Project description:IntroductionCancer screening is an integral component of primary care, and providers can play a key role in facilitating screening. While much work has focused on patient interventions, there has been less attention on primary care provider (PCP) interventions. In addition, marginalised patients experience disparities in cancer screening which are likely to worsen if not addressed. The objective of this scoping review is to report on the range, extent and nature of PCP interventions that maximise cancer screening participation among marginalised patients. Our review will target cancers where there is strong evidence to support screening, including lung, cervical, breast and colorectal cancers.Methods and analysisThis is a scoping review conducted in accordance with the framework by Levac et al. Comprehensive searches will be conducted by a health sciences librarian using Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Scopus, CINAHL Complete and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We will include peer-reviewed English language literature published from 1 January 2000 to 31 March 2022 that describes PCP interventions to maximise cancer screening participation for breast, cervical, lung and colorectal cancers. Two independent reviewers will screen all articles and identify eligible studies for inclusion in two stages: title and abstract, then full text. A third reviewer will resolve any discrepancies. Charted data will be synthesised through a narrative synthesis using a piloted data extraction form informed by the Template for Intervention Description and Replication checklist.Ethics and disseminationSince this is a synthesis of digitally published literature, no ethics approval is needed for this work. We will target appropriate primary care or cancer screening journals and conference presentations to publish and disseminate the results of this scoping review. The results will also be used to inform an ongoing research study developing PCP interventions for addressing cancer screening with marginalised patients.

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:IntroductionMany hospitalised older adults experience delayed discharges due to increased postacute health and social support needs. Transitional care programmes (TCPs) provide short-term care to these patients to prepare them for transfer to nursing homes or back to the community with supports. There are knowledge gaps related to the development, implementation and evaluation of TCPs. The aims of this scoping review (ScR) are to identify the characteristics of older patients served by TCPs; criteria for transfer, components and services provided by TCPs; and outcomes used to evaluate TCPs.Methods and analysisThe study involves six-step ScR and is informed by a collaborative/participatory approach whereby stakeholders engage in the development of the research questions, identification of literature, data abstraction and synthesis; and participation in consultation workshop. The search for scientific literature will be done in the Medline, PsychINFO, Emcare and CINAHL databases; as well, policies and reports that examined models of transitional care and the outcomes used to evaluate them will be reviewed. Records will be selected if they involve community dwelling older adults aged 65 years or older, or indigenous persons 45 years or older; and presented in English, French, Dutch and German languages. Records will be screened, reviewed and abstracted by two independent reviewers. Extracted data will be analysed using descriptive statistics and a narrative analysis, and organised according to Donabedian's model of structure (characteristics of older adults experiencing delayed discharge and served by TCPs), process (TCP components and services) and outcome.Ethics and disseminationThis ScR does not require ethics approval. Dissemination activities include integrated knowledge translation (KT) (consultation with stakeholders throughout the study) and end-of-grant KT strategies (presentations at national and international conferences; and publication in peer-reviewed interdisciplinary journal).

Project description:BackgroundChlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae are the most commonly reported sexually transmitted infections in Canada. Existing national guidance on screening for these infections was not based on a systematic review, and recommendations as well as implementation considerations (e.g., population groups, testing and case management) should be explicit and reflect the quality of evidence. The aim of this systematic review is to synthesize research on screening for these infections in sexually active individuals within primary care. We will also review evidence on how people weigh the relative importance of the potential outcomes from screening, rated as most important by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (CTFPHC) with input from patients and stakeholders.MethodsWe have developed a peer-reviewed strategy to comprehensively search MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and PsycINFO for English and French literature published 1996 onwards. We will also search trial registries and conference proceedings, and mine references lists. Screening, study selection, risk of bias assessments, and quality of findings across studies (for each outcome) will be independently undertaken by two reviewers with consensus for final decisions. Data extraction will be conducted by one reviewer and checked by another for accuracy and completeness. The CTFPHC and content experts will provide input for decisions on study design (i.e., when and whether to include uncontrolled studies for screening effectiveness) and for interpretation of the findings.DiscussionThe results section of the review will include a description of all studies, results of all analyses, including planned subgroup and sensitivity analyses, and evidence profiles and summary of findings tables incorporating assessment based on Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methods to communicate our confidence in the estimates of effect. We will compare our findings to others and discuss limitations of the review and available literature. The findings will be used by the CTFPHC-supplemented by consultations with patients and stakeholders and from other sources on issues of feasibility, acceptability, costs/resources, and equity-to inform recommendations on screening to support primary health care providers in delivering preventive care.Systematic review registrationInternational Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), registration number CRD42018100733.