Dataset Information

Systematic reviews as a "lens of evidence": Determinants of participation in breast cancer screening.

ABSTRACT:

Objective

To assess the determinants of the participation rate in breast cancer screening programs by conducting a systematic review of reviews.

Methods

We conducted a systematic search in PubMed via Medline, Scopus, Embase, and Cochrane identifying the literature up to April 2019. Out of 2258 revealed unique abstracts, we included 31 reviews, from which 25 were considered as systematic. We applied the Walsh & McPhee Systems Model of Clinical Preventive Care to systematize the determinants of screening participation.

Results

The reviews, mainly in high-income settings, reported a wide range for breast cancer screening participation rate: 16-90%. The determinants of breast cancer screening participation were simple low-cost interventions such as invitation letters, basic information on screening, multiple reminders, fixed appointments, prompts from healthcare professionals, and healthcare organizational factors (e.g. close proximity to screening facility). More complex interventions (such as face-to-face counselling or home visits), mass media or improved access to transport should not be encouraged by policy makers unless other information appears. The repeated participation in mammography screening was consistently high, above 62%. Previous positive experience with screening influenced the repeated participation in screening programs. The reviews were inconsistent in the use of terminology related to breast cancer screening participation, which may have contributed to the heterogeneity in the reported outcomes.

Conclusions

This study shows that consistent findings of systematic reviews bring more certainty into the conclusions on the effects of simple invitation techniques, fixed appointments and prompts, as well as healthcare organizational factors on promoting participation rate in screening mammography.

SUBMITTER: Mandrik O

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8167916 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundTrans people face uncertain risk for breast cancer and barriers to accessing breast screening. Our objectives were to identify and synthesize primary research evidence on the effect of cross-sex hormones (CSHs) on breast cancer risk, prognosis and mortality among trans people, the benefits and harms of breast screening in this population, and existing clinical practice recommendations on breast screening for trans people.MethodsWe conducted 2 systematic reviews of primary research, 1 on the effect of CSHs on breast cancer risk, prognosis and mortality, and the other on the benefits and harms of breast screening, and a third systematic review of guidelines on existing screening recommendations for trans people. We searched PubMed, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and grey literature sources for primary research, guidelines and position statements published in English between 1997 and 2017. Citations were screened by 2 independent reviewers. One reviewer extracted data and assessed methodological quality of included articles; a second reviewer verified these in full. The results were synthesized narratively.ResultsFour observational studies, 6 guidelines and 5 position statements were included. Observational evidence of very low certainty did not show an effect of CSHs on breast cancer risk in trans men or trans women. Among trans women, painfulness of mammography and ultrasonography was low. There was no evidence on the effect of CSHs on breast cancer prognosis and mortality, or on benefits and other harms of screening. Existing clinical practice documents recommended screening for distinct trans subpopulations; however, recommendations varied.InterpretationThe limited evidence does not show an effect of CSHs on breast cancer risk. Although there is insufficient evidence to determine the potential benefits and harms of breast screening, existing clinical practice documents generally recommend screening for trans people; further large-scale prospective comparative research is needed.

Project description:BackgroundIn oestrogen-receptor positive breast cancer, daily oral adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) for at least 5 years significantly reduces risks of recurrence and breast cancer-specific mortality. However, many women are poorly adherent to ET. Development of effective adherence support requires comprehensive understanding of influences on adherence. We undertook an umbrella review to identify determinants of ET adherence.MethodsWe searched PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, PsycINFO, Cochrane and PROSPERO (inception to 08/2022) to identify systematic reviews on factors influencing ET adherence. Abstracted determinants were mapped to the World Health Organization's dimensions of adherence. Reviews were quality appraised and overlap assessed.ResultsOf 5732 citations screened, 17 reviews were eligible (9 quantitative primary studies; 4 qualitative primary studies; 4 qualitative or quantitative studies) including 215 primary papers. All five WHO dimensions influenced ET non-adherence: The most consistently identified non-adherence determinants were patient-related factors (e.g. lower perceived ET necessity, more treatment concerns, perceptions of ET 'cons' vs. 'pros'). Healthcare system/healthcare professional-related factors (e.g. perceived lower quality health professional interaction/relationship) were also important and, to a somewhat lesser extent, socio-economic factors (e.g. lower levels of social/economic/material support). Evidence was more mixed for medication-related and condition-related factors, but several may be relevant (e.g. experiencing side-effects, cost). Potentially modifiable factors are more influential than non-modifiable/fixed factors (e.g. patient characteristics).ConclusionsThe evidence-base on ET adherence determinants is extensive. Future empirical studies should focus on less well-researched areas and settings. The determinants themselves are numerous and complex in indicating that adherence support should be multifaceted, addressing multiple determinants.