1
|
Chong DWQ, Jayaraj VJ, Ab Rahim FI, Syed Soffian SS, Azmi MF, Mohd Yusri MY, Mohamed Sidek AS, Azmi N, Md Said R, Md Salleh MF, Abu Bakar N, Shahar H, Abdul Rashid RM, Samad SA, Ahmad Z, Ismail MS, A. Bakar A, Hj Jobli NM, Sararaks S. Study protocol for a mixed methods approach to optimize colorectal cancer screening in Malaysia: Integrating stakeholders insights and knowledge-to-action framework. PLoS One 2024; 19:e0299659. [PMID: 38593177 PMCID: PMC11003698 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0299659] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/24/2023] [Accepted: 02/12/2024] [Indexed: 04/11/2024] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Colorectal cancer is a growing global health concern and the number of reported cases has increased over the years. Early detection through screening is critical to improve outcomes for patients with colorectal cancer. In Malaysia, there is an urgent need to optimize the colorectal cancer screening program as uptake is limited by multiple challenges. This study aims to systematically identify and address gaps in screening service delivery to optimize the Malaysian colorectal cancer screening program. METHODS This study uses a mixed methods design. It focuses primarily on qualitative data to understand processes and strategies and to identify specific areas that can be improved through stakeholder engagement in the screening program. Quantitative data play a dual role in supporting the selection of participants for the qualitative study based on program monitoring data and assessing inequalities in screening and program implementation in healthcare facilities in Malaysia. Meanwhile, literature review identifies existing strategies to improve colorectal cancer screening. Additionally, the knowledge-to-action framework is integrated to ensure that the research findings lead to practical improvements to the colorectal cancer screening program. DISCUSSION Through this complex mix of qualitative and quantitative methods, this study will explore the complex interplay of population- and systems-level factors that influence screening rates. It involves identifying barriers to effective colorectal cancer screening in Malaysia, comparing current strategies with international best practices, and providing evidence-based recommendations to improve the local screening program.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Diane Woei-Quan Chong
- Institute for Health Systems Research, National Institutes of Health, Centre for Health Services Research, Ministry of Health Malaysia, Shah Alam, Malaysia
| | - Vivek Jason Jayaraj
- National Institutes of Health, Sector for Biostatistics and Data Repository, NIH Manager’s Office, Ministry of Health Malaysia, Shah Alam, Malaysia
| | - Fathullah Iqbal Ab Rahim
- Institute for Health Systems Research, National Institutes of Health, Centre for Health Equity Research, Ministry of Health Malaysia, Shah Alam, Malaysia
| | | | | | - Mohd Yusaini Mohd Yusri
- Bandar Sri Jempol Health Clinic, Ministry of Health Malaysia, Bandar Seri Jempol, Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia
| | - Ahmad Shanwani Mohamed Sidek
- Department of General Surgery, Hospital Raja Perempuan Zainab II, Ministry of Health Malaysia, Kota Bahru, Kelantan, Malaysia
| | - Norfarizan Azmi
- Department of General Surgery, Hospital Tuanku Ja’afar, Ministry of Health Malaysia, Seremban, Negeri Sembilan, Malaysia
| | - Rosaida Md Said
- Department of Medicine, Hospital Serdang, Ministry of Health Malaysia, Kajang, Selangor, Malaysia
| | - Muhammad Firdaus Md Salleh
- Department of Medicine, Hospital Sultanah Aminah, Ministry of Health Malaysia, Johor Bahru, Johor, Malaysia
| | - Norasiah Abu Bakar
- Department of Medicine, Hospital Raja Perempuan Zainab II, Ministry of Health Malaysia, Kota Bahru, Kelantan, Malaysia
| | - Hamiza Shahar
- Department of Medicine, Hospital Tengku Ampuan Rahimah, Ministry of Health Malaysia, Klang, Selangor, Malaysia
| | | | - Shazimah Abdul Samad
- Family Health Development Division, Ministry of Health Malaysia, Putrajaya, Malaysia
| | - Zanita Ahmad
- Family Health Development Division, Ministry of Health Malaysia, Putrajaya, Malaysia
| | - Mohd Safiee Ismail
- Family Health Development Division, Ministry of Health Malaysia, Putrajaya, Malaysia
| | - Adilah A. Bakar
- Medical Development Division, Ministry of Health Malaysia, Putrajaya, Malaysia
| | | | - Sondi Sararaks
- Institute for Health Systems Research, National Institutes of Health, Director’s Office, Ministry of Health Malaysia, Shah Alam, Malaysia
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Kovačević IN, Vujović A, Stanišić M, Vuković-Leković J, Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, Mlakar DN, Senore C, Józwiak-Hagymásy J, Széles G, Vokó Z, Csanádi M. Roadmap to improve the organized cancer screening programs - The case of colorectal cancer screening in Montenegro. J Cancer Policy 2024; 39:100464. [PMID: 38104712 DOI: 10.1016/j.jcpo.2023.100464] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/09/2023] [Revised: 12/01/2023] [Accepted: 12/12/2023] [Indexed: 12/19/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Implementation of organized cancer screening programs comes with many challenges and barriers, which may inhibit the achievement of the screening activities' desired benefits. In this paper we outline a plan for improving the colorectal cancer (CRC) screening system in Montenegro. METHODS We formulated a roadmap, which was generally defined as a country-specific strategic plan to improve cancer screening programs. The roadmap development was an iterative, step-by-step process. First, we described the current screening program, then identified and described key barriers, and finally proposed actions to overcome them. Multiple sources of information (e.g., documents, expert opinions) were collected and processed by local and international stakeholders. RESULTS The CRC screening program was implemented between 2013-2019 by gradually increasing the invitation of the target population. Key barriers of the implementation were defined: 1) Lack of colonoscopy capacity in the northern part of the country; 2) Inadequate information technology systems; 3) Inadequate public promotion of screening. The defined actions were related to overcoming lack of available resources (e.g., financial, human and technological), to improve the policy environment and the knowledge, and to facilitate information sharing. CONCLUSION The collaboration between local stakeholders of CRC screening and researchers experienced in planning and evaluating screening programs resulted in the first comprehensive description of CRC screening in Montenegro, detailed understanding of key barriers that emerged during implementation and a carefully designed list of actions. The implementation of these actions and the evaluation of whether barriers were solved will be captured in the upcoming period by maintaining this collaboration.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | | | | | - Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center Rotterdam, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | | | - Carlo Senore
- Epidemiology and screening Unit - CPO, University Hospital Città della Salute e della Scienza, Turin, Italy
| | | | | | - Zoltán Vokó
- Syreon Research Institute, Budapest, Hungary; Center for Health Technology Assessment, Semmelweis University, Budapest, Hungary.
| | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
Goossens MM, Kellen E, Broeders MJM, Vandemaele E, Jacobs B, Martens P. The effect of a pre-scheduled appointment on attendance in a population-based mammography screening programme. Eur J Public Health 2023; 33:1122-1127. [PMID: 37555832 PMCID: PMC10710327 DOI: 10.1093/eurpub/ckad137] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 08/10/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Pre-scheduled appointments can increase attendance in breast cancer screening programmes compared to 'open invitations' but relatively few randomized controlled trials exist. We investigated the effect of a pre-scheduled appointment on uptake in the Flemish population-based mammography screening programme. METHODS Between September and December 2022, a total of 4798 women were randomly assigned to receive either a pre-scheduled appointment or open invitation. The difference in attendance was compared with Poisson regression analysis for the primary endpoint (attendance ≤92 days after date of invitation), yielding relative risks (RRs). This was done separately for three groups: women invited to a mobile unit and a history of nonattendance (group M-NA); women invited to a hospital-based unit and a history of nonattendance (group HB-NA); women invited to a hospital-based unit and a history of irregular attendance (group HB-IA). There were no women invited to a mobile unit and a history of irregular attendance. RESULTS The RRs in favour of the pre-scheduled appointment were 2.3 [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.80-2.88], 1.8 (95% CI 1.07-2.97) and 1.8 (95% CI 1.43-2.39), for groups M-NA, HB-NA and HB-IA, respectively. We found no statistically significant difference between the various RRs. The respective absolute gains in attendance between pre-scheduled appointment and open invitation were 8.3%, 4.4% and 15.8%. CONCLUSIONS Sending an invitation with a pre-scheduled appointment is an effective tool to increase screening attendance in both mobile and hospital-based screening units. The pre-scheduled appointment is associated with a considerable absolute gain in attendance which varies depending on the screening history.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Mathijs M Goossens
- Department of Radiology, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium
- Centrum voor Kankeropsporing (Centre for Cancer Detection), Brugge, Belgium
| | - Eliane Kellen
- Centrum voor Kankeropsporing (Centre for Cancer Detection), Brugge, Belgium
- Department of Radiology, University Hospital Leuven, Campus St. Rafael, Leuven, Belgium
| | - Mireille J M Broeders
- Department for Health Evidence, Radboud University Medical Center, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
- Dutch Expert Centre for Screening, Nijmegen, The Netherlands
| | - Els Vandemaele
- Centrum voor Kankeropsporing (Centre for Cancer Detection), Brugge, Belgium
| | - Brenda Jacobs
- Department of Radiology, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium
- Centrum voor Kankeropsporing (Centre for Cancer Detection), Brugge, Belgium
| | - Patrick Martens
- Centrum voor Kankeropsporing (Centre for Cancer Detection), Brugge, Belgium
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Hoare S, Thomas GPA, Powell A, Armstrong N, Mant J, Burt J. Why do people choose not to take part in screening? Qualitative interview study of atrial fibrillation screening nonparticipation. Health Expect 2023; 26:2216-2227. [PMID: 37452480 PMCID: PMC10632648 DOI: 10.1111/hex.13819] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/14/2023] [Revised: 06/30/2023] [Accepted: 07/01/2023] [Indexed: 07/18/2023] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION While screening uptake is variable, many individuals feel they 'ought' to participate in screening programmes to aid the detection of conditions amenable to early treatment. Those not taking part in screening are often presented as either hindered by practical or social barriers or personally at fault. Why some people choose not to participate receives less consideration. METHODS We explored screening nonparticipation by examining the accounts of participants who chose not to participate in screening offered by a national research trial of atrial fibrillation (AF) screening in England (SAFER: Screening for Atrial Fibrillation with ECG to Reduce stroke). AF is a heart arrhythmia that increases in prevalence with age and increases the risk of stroke. Systematic screening for AF is not a nationally adopted programme within the United Kingdom; it provides a unique opportunity to explore screening nonparticipation outside of the norms and values attached to existing population-based screening programmes. We interviewed people aged over 65 (n = 50) who declined an invitation from SAFER and analysed their accounts thematically. RESULTS Beyond practical reasons for nonparticipation, interviewees challenged the utility of identifying and managing AF earlier. Many questioned the benefits of screening at their age. The trial's presentation of the screening as research made it feel voluntary-something they could legitimately decline. CONCLUSION Nonparticipants were not resistant to engaging in health-promoting behaviours, uninformed about screening or unsupportive of its potential benefits. Instead, their consideration of the perceived necessity, legitimacy and utility of this screening shaped their decision not to take part. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION The SAFER programme is guided by four patient and carer representatives. The representatives are embedded within the team (e.g., one is a co-applicant, another sits on the programme steering committee) and by participating in regular meetings advise on all aspects of the design, management and delivery of the programme, including engaging with interpreting and disseminating the findings. For the qualitative workstream, we established a supplementary patient and public involvement group with whom we regularly consult about research design questions.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sarah Hoare
- The Healthcare Improvement Studies Institute (THIS Institute), Department of Public Health and Primary CareUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK
| | - Gwilym P. A. Thomas
- The Guildhall and Barrow SurgeryBury St EdmundsUK
- Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary CareStrangeways Research Laboratory, University of Cambridge School of Clinical MedicineUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK
| | - Alison Powell
- The Healthcare Improvement Studies Institute (THIS Institute), Department of Public Health and Primary CareUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK
| | - Natalie Armstrong
- SAPPHIRE Research Group, Department of Population Health SciencesUniversity of LeicesterLeicesterUK
| | - Jonathan Mant
- Primary Care Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary CareStrangeways Research Laboratory, University of Cambridge School of Clinical MedicineUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK
| | - Jenni Burt
- The Healthcare Improvement Studies Institute (THIS Institute), Department of Public Health and Primary CareUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Greenley R, Bell S, Rigby S, Legood R, Kirkby V, McKee M. Factors influencing the participation of groups identified as underserved in cervical cancer screening in Europe: a scoping review of the literature. Front Public Health 2023; 11:1144674. [PMID: 37304105 PMCID: PMC10247980 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1144674] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/14/2023] [Accepted: 04/28/2023] [Indexed: 06/13/2023] Open
Abstract
Background Cervical cancer is a preventable and inequitably distributed disease. Screening plays a vital role in prevention, but many women face barriers to participation. The aims of this scoping review, undertaken to inform the co-design of interventions to equitably increase screening uptake, were to: (1) identify barriers and facilitators to cervical cancer screening for underserved populations, and (2) identify and describe the effectiveness of interventions aimed at improving participation in cervical cancer screening among underserved groups in Europe. Methods Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods studies focusing on barriers and facilitators to cervical screening participation and interventions to improve uptake undertaken in Europe and published after 2000 were included. Four electronic databases were searched to identify relevant papers. Titles and abstracts were screened, full text reviewed, and key findings extracted. Data were extracted and analyzed according to different health system strata: system-wide (macro), service specific (meso) and individual/community specific (micro). Within these categories, themes were identified, and the population groups impacted were recorded. All findings are presented in accordance with (PRISMA) guidelines. Results 33 studies on barriers and facilitators and eight intervention studies met the inclusion criteria. Collectively, the findings of these studies presented a wide array of screening uptake barriers, facilitators, and interventions, predominantly related to screening service and individual/community factors. However, although diverse, certain core themes around information provision, prompts for participation and the need for inclusive spaces were apparent. Implementation of screening programs should focus on: (1) reducing identifiable barriers, (2) increasing public awareness, and (3) providing patient reminders and measures to promote engagement by healthcare providers. Conclusion There are many barriers to uptake of cervical cancer screening and this review, nested within a larger study, will inform work to devise a solution alongside groups identified in three European countries.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Rachel Greenley
- Centre for Global Mental Health, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom
| | - Sadie Bell
- Department of Global Health and Development, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom
| | - Samuel Rigby
- Department of Health Services, Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom
| | - Rosa Legood
- Centre for Global Chronic Conditions, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom
| | - Victoria Kirkby
- Department of Health Services, Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom
| | - Martin McKee
- Department of Health Services, Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Albers B, Auer R, Caci L, Nyantakyi E, Plys E, Podmore C, Riegel F, Selby K, Walder J, Clack L. Implementing organized colorectal cancer screening programs in Europe-protocol for a systematic review of determinants and strategies. Syst Rev 2023; 12:26. [PMID: 36849979 PMCID: PMC9969690 DOI: 10.1186/s13643-023-02193-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/11/2022] [Accepted: 02/16/2023] [Indexed: 03/01/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND With a high mortality of 12.6% of all cancer cases, colorectal cancer (CRC) accounts for substantial burden of disease in Europe. In the past decade, more and more countries have introduced organized colorectal cancer screening programs, making systematic screening available to entire segments of a population, typically based on routine stool tests and/or colonoscopy. While the effectiveness of organized screening in reducing CRC incidence and mortality has been confirmed, studies continuously report persistent program implementation challenges. This systematic review will synthesize the literature on organized CRC screening programs. Its aim is to understand what is currently known about the barriers and facilitators that influence the implementation of these programs and about the implementation strategies used to navigate these determinants. METHODS A systematic review of primary studies of any research design will be conducted. CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Scopus will be searched. Websites of (non-)government health care organizations and websites of organizations affiliated with authors of included studies will be screened for unpublished evaluation reports. Existing organized CRC screening programs will be contacted with a request to share program-specific grey literature. Two researchers will independently screen each publication in two rounds for eligibility. Included studies will focus on adult populations involved in the implementation of organized CRC screening programs and contain information about implementation determinants/ strategies. Publications will be assessed for their risk of bias. Data extraction will include study aim, design, location, setting, sample, methods, and measures; program characteristics; implementation stage, framework, determinants, strategies, and outcomes; and service and other outcome information. Findings will be synthesized narratively using the three stages of thematic synthesis. DISCUSSION With its sole focus on the implementation of organized CRC screening programs, this review will help to fill a central knowledge gap in the literature on colorectal cancer screening. Its findings can inform the decision-making in policy and practice needed to prioritize resources for establishing new and maintaining existing programs in the future. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION PROSPERO (CRD42022306580).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Bianca Albers
- Institute for Implementation Science in Health Care (IfIS), Medical Faculty, University of Zurich, Universitätstrasse 84, 8006, Zurich, Switzerland.
| | - Reto Auer
- Institute of Primary Health Care (BIHAM), University of Bern, Mittelstrasse 43, 3012, Bern, Switzerland
| | - Laura Caci
- Institute for Implementation Science in Health Care (IfIS), Medical Faculty, University of Zurich, Universitätstrasse 84, 8006, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Emanuela Nyantakyi
- Institute for Implementation Science in Health Care (IfIS), Medical Faculty, University of Zurich, Universitätstrasse 84, 8006, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Ekaterina Plys
- Center for primary care and public health (Unisanté), University of Lausanne, Rue de Bugnon 44, 1010, Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Clara Podmore
- Center for primary care and public health (Unisanté), University of Lausanne, Rue de Bugnon 44, 1010, Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Franziska Riegel
- Institute for Implementation Science in Health Care (IfIS), Medical Faculty, University of Zurich, Universitätstrasse 84, 8006, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Kevin Selby
- Center for primary care and public health (Unisanté), University of Lausanne, Rue de Bugnon 44, 1010, Lausanne, Switzerland
| | - Joel Walder
- Institute for Implementation Science in Health Care (IfIS), Medical Faculty, University of Zurich, Universitätstrasse 84, 8006, Zurich, Switzerland
| | - Lauren Clack
- Institute for Implementation Science in Health Care (IfIS), Medical Faculty, University of Zurich, Universitätstrasse 84, 8006, Zurich, Switzerland.,Department of Infectious Diseases and Hospital Epidemiology, University Hospital Zurich, Rämistrasse 100, 8091, Zurich, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
[Synthesis of evidence and recommendations: guidelines for cervical cancer screening, detection, and treatmentSíntese de evidências e recomendações: diretrizes para rastreamento, detecção e tratamento do câncer do colo do útero]. Rev Panam Salud Publica 2023; 47:e72. [PMID: 37089785 PMCID: PMC10115189 DOI: 10.26633/rpsp.2023.72] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/25/2022] [Accepted: 11/11/2022] [Indexed: 04/25/2023] Open
Abstract
Objectives Synthesize the recommendations developed by the World Health Organization (WHO) for the screening and treatment of women with pre-cancerous lesions for cervical cancer prevention, with a view to improving the quality of care and health outcomes. Methods The guidelines prepared by WHO follow the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) method for the preparation of guidelines, as set forth in the WHO Handbook for Guideline Development. A synthesis of the recommendations of two WHO guidelines was carried out. Additionally, a systematic search was conducted in PubMed, Lilacs, Mhealth Systems Evidence, Epistemonikos and gray literature of studies developed in the Americas to identify barriers, facilitators, implementation strategies, and indicators. Results A total of 19 recommendations and ten good practices were formulated for screening pre-cancerous lesions of the cervix and treating cervical cancer. Implementation barriers and facilitators were identified, and indicators were created for assessing adherence and outcomes. Conclusions The recommendations provide guidance for the screening and treatment of women with pre-cancerous lesions for cervical cancer prevention, with a view to improving the quality of care and health outcomes. Implementation in Latin America and the Caribbean is considered.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Organización Panamericana de la Salud
- Organización Panamericana de la SaludWashington, D.C.Estados Unidos de AméricaOrganización Panamericana de la Salud, Washington, D.C., Estados Unidos de América.
- Ludovic Reveiz,
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Kregting LM, Olthof EMG, Breekveldt ECH, Aitken CA, Heijnsdijk EAM, Toes-Zoutendijk E, de Koning HJ, van Ravesteyn NT. Concurrent participation in breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening in the Netherlands. Eur J Cancer 2022; 175:180-186. [PMID: 36126478 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejca.2022.08.018] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 06/24/2022] [Revised: 08/11/2022] [Accepted: 08/16/2022] [Indexed: 11/03/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Many European countries offer organised population-based breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening programmes. Around age 55 and 60, Dutch women are invited to all three screening programmes. We examined the extent to which participation concurs and identified factors influencing concurrent participation. MATERIALS AND METHODS Individual level data from breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening invitations between 2017 and 2019 were extracted from the Dutch screening registry. The percentages of women participating in all three, two, one, or none of the programmes around age 55 and 60, and before subsequent round invitation were determined. Multivariate ordinal regression analyses were performed to estimate whether population density, socio-economic status (SES) per postal code area, and time between the three invitations (<3, 3-6, >6 months) were associated with concurrent participation. RESULTS Data from 332,484 women were analysed. At age 55, 53.7% participated in all three programmes, 22.1% in two, 11.7% in one, and 12.6% did not participate at all. At age 60, a similar participation pattern was observed. Women living in areas with higher population density were less likely (odds ratios 0.75-0.94) and women in higher SES groups were more likely (odds ratios 1.12-1.60) to participate in more screening programmes, although this positive association was smaller for the highest SES group. No substantial association was found between concurrent participation and timing of invitations. CONCLUSIONS More than half of Dutch women participated in all three screening programmes and around 12% did not participate in any. Concurrent participation was lower in cities and lower SES groups.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lindy M Kregting
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
| | - Ellen M G Olthof
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Emilie C H Breekveldt
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Gastroenterology and Hepatology, Netherlands Cancer Institute - Antoni van Leeuwenhoek Hospital, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Clare A Aitken
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands; Department of Pathology, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Eveline A M Heijnsdijk
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Esther Toes-Zoutendijk
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | - Harry J de Koning
- Department of Public Health, Erasmus MC, University Medical Center, Rotterdam, the Netherlands
| | | |
Collapse
|
9
|
Hohl SD, Melillo S, Vu TT, Escoffery C, DeGroff A, Schlueter D, Ross LW, Maxwell AE, Sharma KP, Boehm J, Joseph D, Hannon PA. Development of a Field Guide for Assessing Readiness to Implement Evidence-Based Cancer Screening Interventions in Primary Care Clinics. Prev Chronic Dis 2022; 19:E25. [PMID: 35550244 PMCID: PMC9109642 DOI: 10.5888/pcd19.210395] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
Evidence-based interventions, including provider assessment and feedback, provider reminders, patient reminders, and reduction of structural barriers, improve colorectal cancer screening rates. Assessing primary care clinics' readiness to implement these interventions can help clinics use strengths, identify barriers, and plan for success. However, clinics may lack tools to assess readiness and use findings to plan for successful implementation. To address this need, we developed the Field Guide for Assessing Readiness to Implement Evidence-Based Cancer Screening Interventions (Field Guide) for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC's) Colorectal Cancer Control Program (CRCCP). We conducted a literature review of evidence and existing tools to measure implementation readiness, reviewed readiness tools from selected CRCCP award recipients (n = 35), and conducted semi-structured interviews with key informants (n = 8). We sought feedback from CDC staff and recipients to inform the final document. The Field Guide, which is publicly available online, outlines 4 assessment phases: 1) convene team members and determine assessment activities, 2) design and administer the readiness assessment, 3) evaluate assessment data, and 4) develop an implementation plan. Assessment activities and tools are included to facilitate completion of each phase. The Field Guide integrates implementation science and practical experience into a relevant tool to bolster clinic capacity for implementation, increase potential for intervention sustainability, and improve colorectal cancer screening rates, with a focus on patients served in safety net clinic settings. Although this tool was developed for use in primary care clinics for cancer screening, the Field Guide may have broader application for clinics and their partners for other chronic diseases.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sarah D Hohl
- Health Promotion Research Center, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
- Department of Family Medicine Office of Community Health, University of Wisconsin-Madison,1100 Delaplaine Court, Madison, WI 53715.
| | - Stephanie Melillo
- Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Thuy T Vu
- Health Promotion Research Center, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
| | - Cam Escoffery
- Rollins School of Public Health, Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Amy DeGroff
- Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Dara Schlueter
- Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Leslie W Ross
- Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Annette E Maxwell
- Fielding School of Public Health, University of California, Los Angeles, California
| | - Krishna P Sharma
- Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Jennifer Boehm
- Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Djenaba Joseph
- Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia
| | - Peggy A Hannon
- Health Promotion Research Center, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Bobrowska A, Murton M, Seedat F, Visintin C, Mackie A, Steele R, Marshall J. Targeted screening in the UK: A narrow concept with broad application. Lancet Reg Health Eur 2022; 16:100353. [PMID: 35492962 PMCID: PMC9038565 DOI: 10.1016/j.lanepe.2022.100353] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/17/2022] Open
Abstract
A recent report on screening in the UK proposed that the responsibility for recommendations on population and targeted screening programmes should be held by one new integrated advisory body. There is no wide international consensus on the definition of targeted screening. Our review identified and compared the defining components of screening terms: targeted, population, selective, and cascade screening, and case finding. Definitions of targeted screening and population screening were clearly demarcated by the eligible population; targeted and selective screening were found to be conceptually interchangeable; cascade screening, whilst conceptually similar to targeted screening across several components, was only used within the context of genetic diseases. There was little consensus between different definitions of case finding. These comparisons contributed to an updated definition of targeted screening. Considerable overlap between definition components across terms implies that a broad range of disease areas may fall into the remit of the new advisory body.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anna Bobrowska
- Costello Medical, 50/60 Station Road, Cambridge CB1 2JH, UK
| | - Molly Murton
- Costello Medical, 50/60 Station Road, Cambridge CB1 2JH, UK
| | - Farah Seedat
- UK National Screening Committee, Southside, 39 Victoria Street, London SW1H 0EU, UK
| | - Cristina Visintin
- UK National Screening Committee, Southside, 39 Victoria Street, London SW1H 0EU, UK
| | - Anne Mackie
- UK National Screening Committee, Southside, 39 Victoria Street, London SW1H 0EU, UK
| | - Robert Steele
- UK National Screening Committee, Southside, 39 Victoria Street, London SW1H 0EU, UK
- Centre for Research in Screening and Prevention, University of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital and Medical School, Dundee DD1 9SY, UK
| | - John Marshall
- UK National Screening Committee, Southside, 39 Victoria Street, London SW1H 0EU, UK
- Corresponding author.
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Jolidon V. Gender inequality and mammography screening: Does living with a partner improve women's mammography uptake? Soc Sci Med 2022; 298:114875. [PMID: 35276623 DOI: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2022.114875] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/08/2021] [Revised: 01/29/2022] [Accepted: 02/27/2022] [Indexed: 11/19/2022]
Abstract
Macrolevel gender inequality is defined as the unequal distribution of power and resources between men and women shaped by macrolevel social structures and institutions. An emerging line of health research is emphasising its negative consequences on women's health and healthcare access. The present study examines how gender inequality contexts affect women's mammography screening uptake. It adopts a macrosociological and institutionalist approach on preventive healthcare use and compares women who live with a partner with those who do not. This is the first study to test the effect of macrolevel gender inequality on mammography uptake across the 26 Swiss cantons (i.e. regions). The Swiss cantons' autonomy to manage their political and healthcare systems, as provided by the federal system, offers an ideal setting for the comparative analysis of macrolevel factors. Data on 9724 women aged 50-70 from the Swiss Health Interview Survey (waves 2007, 2012 and 2017) is analysed. Multilevel logistic models estimate two canton-level indicators of gender inequality, the gender gaps in time use and full-time employment, and their association with mammography uptake, controlling for women's socioeconomic and demographic characteristics, health status and healthcare use. Cross-level interactions assess how these indicators moderate the mammography uptake of women living with and without a partner. Results show that in cantons with higher gender inequality, women have a lower probability of mammography uptake. Women who live with a partner have a higher mammography uptake than those who do not. However, this advantage is moderated by canton-level gender inequality, namely, women who live with a partner in more gender unequal cantons have a lower mammography uptake than their counterparts who reside in more gender equal cantons. Results support the hypothesis that macrolevel gender inequality moderates women's preventive healthcare uptake, from an institutionalist approach.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Vladimir Jolidon
- Institute of Sociological Research, University of Geneva, 40 Bd du Pont-d'Arve, 1205, Genève, Switzerland.
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Schliemann D, Ramanathan K, Matovu N, O'Neill C, Kee F, Su TT, Donnelly M. The implementation of colorectal cancer screening interventions in low-and middle-income countries: a scoping review. BMC Cancer 2021; 21:1125. [PMID: 34666704 PMCID: PMC8524916 DOI: 10.1186/s12885-021-08809-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 24] [Impact Index Per Article: 8.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/24/2021] [Accepted: 09/23/2021] [Indexed: 12/22/2022] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) experienced increasing rates of colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence in the last decade and lower 5-year survival rates compared to high-income countries (HICs) where the implementation of screening and treatment services have advanced. This review scoped and mapped the literature regarding the content, implementation and uptake of CRC screening interventions as well as opportunities and challenges for the implementation of CRC screening interventions in LMICs. METHODS We systematically followed a five-step scoping review framework to identify and review relevant literature about CRC screening in LMICs, written in the English language before February 2020. We searched Medline, Embase, Web of Science and Google Scholar for studies targeting the general, asymptomatic, at-risk adult population. The TIDieR tool and an implementation checklist were used to extract data from empirical studies; and we extracted data-informed insights from policy reviews and commentaries. RESULTS CRC screening interventions (n = 24 studies) were implemented in nine middle-income countries. Population-based screening programmes (n = 11) as well as small-scale screening interventions (n = 13) utilised various recruitment strategies. Interventions that recruited participants face-to-face (alone or in combination with other recruitment strategies) (10/15), opportunistic clinic-based screening interventions (5/6) and educational interventions combined with screening (3/4), seemed to be the strategies that consistently achieved an uptake of > 65% in LMICs. FOBT/FIT and colonoscopy uptake ranged between 14 and 100%. The most commonly reported implementation indicator was 'uptake/reach'. There was an absence of detail regarding implementation indicators and there is a need to improve reporting practice in order to disseminate learning about how to implement programmes. CONCLUSION Opportunities and challenges for the implementation of CRC screening programmes were related to the reporting of CRC cases and screening, cost-effective screening methods, knowledge about CRC and screening, staff resources and training, infrastructure of the health care system, financial resources, public health campaigns, policy commitment from governments, patient navigation, planning of screening programmes and quality assurance.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Désirée Schliemann
- Centre for Public Health and UKCRC Centre of Excellence for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.
| | - Kogila Ramanathan
- Global Public Health, Jeffrey Cheah School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Monash University Malaysia, Subang Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia
- South East Asia Community Observatory (SEACO), Jeffrey Cheah School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Monash University Malaysia, Subang Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia
| | - Nicholas Matovu
- Centre for Public Health and UKCRC Centre of Excellence for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK
| | - Ciaran O'Neill
- Centre for Public Health and UKCRC Centre of Excellence for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK
| | - Frank Kee
- Centre for Public Health and UKCRC Centre of Excellence for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK
| | - Tin Tin Su
- Global Public Health, Jeffrey Cheah School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Monash University Malaysia, Subang Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia
- South East Asia Community Observatory (SEACO), Jeffrey Cheah School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Monash University Malaysia, Subang Jaya, Selangor, Malaysia
| | - Michael Donnelly
- Centre for Public Health and UKCRC Centre of Excellence for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Larimi NA, Belash I, Abedi M, Bandari P, Mousavi G, Ekhtiari S, Khademloo FH, Rahnamaei K, Konari ME, Rahmdel S, Saripour E. An investigation of efficient nursing interventions in early diagnosis of cancer: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Family Med Prim Care 2021; 10:2964-2968. [PMID: 34660432 PMCID: PMC8483087 DOI: 10.4103/jfmpc.jfmpc_2148_20] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/17/2020] [Revised: 12/08/2020] [Accepted: 03/28/2021] [Indexed: 11/14/2022] Open
Abstract
Background and Aims: Due to the contradictory results of previous research and the lack of a specific study to address the effective nursing interventions in the early diagnosis of cancer, the purpose of this study was to determine the effect of nursing interventions on early diagnosis of cancer. Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted during the last 5 years from 2015 to September 30, 2020. The articles related to the nursing interventions to early diagnosis of cancer were achieved from PubMed, Cochrane Library, Embase, ISI, Scopus databases, and Google and Google Scholar search engines. Risk-ratio with a 95% confidence interval (CI) between the intervention and control groups was determined using the fixed-effect model, and the Mantel–Haenszel method and I2 showed the heterogeneity of studies. Stata V16 software was used for meta-analysis. Results: The effect of an intervention on early diagnosis of breast cancer was evaluated using mammography, clinical breast examination, and breast self-exam. A total of 300 individuals participated in the study. RR results in the intervention group showed the effectiveness of nursing interventions on breast cancer detected early in both the mammography and colonoscopy (RR, 1.18 95% CI 0.57, 1.79. P =0.00 and RR, 0.58, 95% CI 0.42, 0.75, P = 0.00, respectively). Conclusion: A variety of nursing interventions including education, consultation, patient guidance, and reminders can have a positive impact on the early detection of cancers.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Naghmeh A Larimi
- Department of Nursing, Rajaie Cardiovascular Medical and Research, Tehran, Iran
| | - Iran Belash
- Department of Nursing, Arak University of Medical Science, Arak, Iran
| | - Maede Abedi
- Department of Nursing, Mazandaran University of Medical Science, Babol, Iran
| | - Parisa Bandari
- Department of Nursing, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
| | - Gohar Mousavi
- Department of Nursing, Yahya Nejad Hospital, Babol, Iran
| | | | | | | | | | - Samieh Rahmdel
- Department of Nursing, Rohani Hospital of Babol, Rasht, Iran
| | | |
Collapse
|
14
|
Robb KA. The integrated screening action model (I-SAM): A theory-based approach to inform intervention development. Prev Med Rep 2021; 23:101427. [PMID: 34189020 PMCID: PMC8220376 DOI: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2021.101427] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/08/2021] [Revised: 05/13/2021] [Accepted: 05/25/2021] [Indexed: 12/12/2022] Open
Abstract
Screening can reduce deaths if the people invited participate. However, good uptake is hard to achieve, and our current approaches are failing to engage the most vulnerable. A coherent model of screening behaviour to guide our understanding and intervention development is yet to be established. The present aim was to propose an Integrated Screening Action Model (I-SAM) to improve screening access. The I-SAM synthesises existing models of health behaviour and empirical evidence. The I-SAM was developed following: i) an appraisal of the predominant models used within the screening literature; ii) the integration of the latest knowledge on behaviour change; with iii) the empirical literature, to inform the development of a theory-based approach to intervention development. There are three key aspects to the I-SAM: i) a sequence of stages that people pass through in engaging in screening behaviour (based on the Precaution Adoption Process Model); ii) screening behaviour is shaped by the interaction between participant and environmental influences (drawing from the Access Framework); and iii) targets for intervention should focus on the sources of behaviour - 'capability', 'opportunity', and 'motivation' (based on the COM-B Model). The I-SAM proposes an integrated model to support our understanding of screening behaviour and to identify targets for intervention. It will be an iterative process to test and refine the I-SAM and establish its value in supporting effective interventions to improve screening for all.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kathryn A. Robb
- Institute of Health and Wellbeing, University of Glasgow, Glasgow G12 0XH, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
15
|
Jolidon V, Bracke P, Burton-Jeangros C. Macro-contextual determinants of cancer screening participation and inequalities: A multilevel analysis of 29 European countries. SSM Popul Health 2021; 15:100830. [PMID: 34141853 PMCID: PMC8184663 DOI: 10.1016/j.ssmph.2021.100830] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 3.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/29/2021] [Revised: 05/20/2021] [Accepted: 05/24/2021] [Indexed: 11/05/2022] Open
Abstract
Background Little attention has been devoted to the role of macro-level determinants in preventive health inequalities, particularly in cancer screening participation. Research has evidenced inequalities in cancer screening uptake yet has mainly focused on the screening programmes’ moderating role at the macro-level. To address this gap, this study examines how welfare provision and healthcare system features modify cancer screening uptake and inequalities across European countries. Methods Data from 99 715 (Pap smear) and 54 557 (mammography) women in 29 countries from the European Health Interview Survey (EHIS) 2014 wave and Swiss Health Interview Survey (SHIS) 2012 wave was analysed. We estimated multilevel logistic regression models, including cross-level interactions, to examine whether social protection expenditure in particular policy areas and healthcare system characteristics explained cross-country differences in Pap smear and mammography uptake and inequalities. Results Main findings revealed that GP gatekeeping systems were associated with reduced screening uptake likelihood in both Pap smear and mammography, and so were stronger primary care systems in Pap smear, while higher expenditures on old age and survivors were associated with increased mammography uptake. Cross-level interactions showed that in countries with higher expenditures on sickness/healthcare, disability, social exclusion and public health, and a higher number of GPs, educational inequalities in both Pap smear and mammography uptake were smaller, while higher out-of-pocket payments had the opposite effect of increasing inequalities. Conclusions Overall, our results show that social protection policies and healthcare system features affect cancer screening participation. We conclude that institutional and policy arrangements interact with individuals’ (educational) resources and, through the (re)distribution of valued goods and resources at the macro level, these arrangements may contribute to enhancing preventive healthcare use and mitigating screening uptake inequalities. Welfare provision and healthcare system features affect Pap smear and mammography uptake. Social spending and healthcare features moderate inequalities in cancer screening uptake. Policymakers should consider macro-level factors for cancer screening strategies and programmes. Policies and institutions shape social determinants of preventive healthcare use.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Vladimir Jolidon
- Institute of Sociological Research, University of Geneva, 40 Bd Du Pont-d'Arve, 1205, Genève, Switzerland
| | - Piet Bracke
- Department of Sociology, Ghent University, Korte Meer 5, 9000, Ghent, Belgium
| | - Claudine Burton-Jeangros
- Institute of Sociological Research, University of Geneva, 40 Bd Du Pont-d'Arve, 1205, Genève, Switzerland
| |
Collapse
|
16
|
Paszat LF, Sutradhar R, Corn E, Tinmouth J, Baxter NN, Rabeneck L. Decreased Colorectal Cancer Incidence and Incidence-Based Mortality in the Screening-Age Population of Ontario. J Can Assoc Gastroenterol 2020; 4:146-155. [PMID: 34056532 PMCID: PMC8158646 DOI: 10.1093/jcag/gwaa035] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/29/2020] [Accepted: 09/17/2020] [Indexed: 12/31/2022] Open
Abstract
Background and Aims We aimed to evaluate trends in Ontario, Canada, 2002 to 2016, in uptake of colorectal evaluative procedures, colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence and incidence-based mortality in the colorectal screening-age population. Methods We defined the screening age-eligible population as persons 51 to 74 years of age with ≥1 year eligibility for the Ontario Health Insurance Plan, excluding those with a diagnosis of CRC in the Ontario Cancer Registry (OCR) prior to age 50 or January 1, 2002. We computed annual up-to-date status with colorectal evaluative procedures from billing claims, and CRC incidence from the OCR. In order to compute incidence-based CRC mortality, we included persons with a first diagnosis of CRC between the ages of 51 and 74, diagnosed between January 1, 1992 and December 31, 2001, still alive and <75 years of age on January 1, 2002, based on cause of death from the OCR. Overall, age-stratified and sex-stratified trends were evaluated by Cochran–Armitage trend tests. Results Persons up to date with colorectal evaluative procedures increased from 628,214/2,782,061 (22.6%) in 2002 to 2,584,570/4,179,789 (62.2%) in 2016. CRC incidence fell from 129.3/100,000 in 2002 to 94.54/100,000 in 2016, and incidence-based CRC mortality fell from 40.8/100,000 to 24.1/100,000. Decreasing trends in overall and stratified incidence and mortality were all significant, except among persons 51 to 54 years old. Conclusions There was continued increase in persons up-to-date with colorectal evaluative procedures, and significant decrease in CRC incidence and incidence-based CRC mortality from 2002 through 2016.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lawrence F Paszat
- Institute for Healthcare Policy Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Rinku Sutradhar
- Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Elyse Corn
- Cancer Research Program, ICES, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Jill Tinmouth
- Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Nancy N Baxter
- Department of Surgery, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| | - Linda Rabeneck
- Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Schliemann D, Matovu N, Ramanathan K, Muñoz-Aguirre P, O'Neill C, Kee F, Su TT, Donnelly M. Implementation of colorectal cancer screening interventions in low-income and middle-income countries: a scoping review protocol. BMJ Open 2020; 10:e037520. [PMID: 32532782 PMCID: PMC7295404 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-037520] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/22/2022] Open
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Colorectal cancer (CRC) imposes a significant global burden of disease. CRC survival rates are much lower in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). Screening tends to lead to an improvement in cancer detection and the uptake of available treatments and, in turn, to better chances of cancer survival. Most evidence on CRC screening interventions comes from high-income countries. The objective of this scoping review is to map the available literature on the implementation of CRC screening interventions in LMICs. METHODS AND ANALYSIS We will conduct a scoping review according to the framework proposed by Arksey and O'Malley (2005). We will search MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science and Google Scholar using a combination of terms such as "colorectal cancer", "screening" and "low-middle-income countries". Studies of CRC screening interventions/programmes conducted in the general adult population in LMICs as well as policy reviews (of interventions in LMICs) and commentaries on challenges and opportunities of delivering CRC screening in LMICs, published in the English language before February 2020 will be included in this review. The title and abstract screen will be conducted by one reviewer and two reviewers will screen full-texts and extract data from included papers, independently, into a data charting template that will include criteria from an adapted template for intervention description and replication checklist and implementation considerations. The presentation of the scoping review will be reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis extension for Scoping Reviews guidance. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION There are no ethical concerns. The results will be used to inform colorectal screening interventions in LMICs. We will publish the findings in a peer-reviewed journal and present them at relevant conferences.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Désirée Schliemann
- Centre for Public Health and UKCRC Centre of Excellence for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK
| | - Nicholas Matovu
- Centre for Public Health and UKCRC Centre of Excellence for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK
| | - Kogila Ramanathan
- South East Asia Community Observatory (SEACO), Jeffrey Cheah School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Monash University Malaysia, Subang Jaya, Malaysia
| | - Paloma Muñoz-Aguirre
- Centre for Research and Population Health, Instituto Nacional de Salud Publica, Cuernavaca, Morelos, Mexico
| | - Ciaran O'Neill
- Centre for Public Health and UKCRC Centre of Excellence for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK
| | - Frank Kee
- Centre for Public Health and UKCRC Centre of Excellence for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK
| | - Tin Tin Su
- South East Asia Community Observatory (SEACO), Jeffrey Cheah School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Monash University Malaysia, Subang Jaya, Malaysia
| | - Michael Donnelly
- Centre for Public Health and UKCRC Centre of Excellence for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK
| |
Collapse
|