Cargando…
A Systematic Review of U.S.-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening Uptake Intervention Systematic Reviews: Available Evidence and Lessons Learned for Research and Practice
Background: We examined colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) intervention effectiveness, through the effect sizes associated with: (1) screening modality, (2) intervention level (e.g., client-directed), and (3) intervention component (e.g. client reminders) within published CRCS intervention systemati...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Frontiers Media S.A.
2019
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6579825/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31245345 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2019.00145 |
_version_ | 1783427910672056320 |
---|---|
author | Young, Belinda-Rose Gwede, Clement K. Thomas, Bria Vázquez-Otero, Coralia Ewing, Aldenise Best, Alicia L. Aguado Loi, Claudia X. Martinez-Tyson, Dinorah Schneider, Tali Meade, Cathy D. Baldwin, Julie A. Bryant, Carol |
author_facet | Young, Belinda-Rose Gwede, Clement K. Thomas, Bria Vázquez-Otero, Coralia Ewing, Aldenise Best, Alicia L. Aguado Loi, Claudia X. Martinez-Tyson, Dinorah Schneider, Tali Meade, Cathy D. Baldwin, Julie A. Bryant, Carol |
author_sort | Young, Belinda-Rose |
collection | PubMed |
description | Background: We examined colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) intervention effectiveness, through the effect sizes associated with: (1) screening modality, (2) intervention level (e.g., client-directed), and (3) intervention component (e.g. client reminders) within published CRCS intervention systematic reviews (SRs). Methods: A search of peer-reviewed CRCS SRs that were written in English was employed utilizing five databases: CINAHL, Cochrane Library, rTIPS, PubMed, and PsycINFO EBSCOHOST. SRs that included CRCS interventions with a randomized controlled trial, quasi-experimental, or single arm design were eligible. Data on effect sizes by screening modality, intervention level, and intervention component were extracted and synthesized. Results: There were 16 eligible CRCS intervention SRs that included 116 studies published between 1986 and 2013. Reviews organized data by CRCS screening modality, or intervention component. Effect size reporting varied by format (i.e., ranges, medians of multiple studies, or effect size per study), and groupings of modalities and components. Overall, the largest effect sizes were for studies that utilized a combination of colonoscopy, fecal occult blood test (FOBT), and sigmoidoscopy as screening options (16–45 percentage point difference). Conclusions: Evidence suggests that CRCS interventions which include a combination of screening modalities may be most effective. This is the first SR to examine effect sizes of published CRCS SRs. However, because some SRs did not report effect sizes and there were tremendous variability reporting formats among those that did, a standard reporting format is warranted. Synthesizing findings can contribute to improved knowledge of evidence-based best-practices, direct translation of findings into policy and practice, and guide further research in CRCS. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6579825 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2019 |
publisher | Frontiers Media S.A. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-65798252019-06-26 A Systematic Review of U.S.-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening Uptake Intervention Systematic Reviews: Available Evidence and Lessons Learned for Research and Practice Young, Belinda-Rose Gwede, Clement K. Thomas, Bria Vázquez-Otero, Coralia Ewing, Aldenise Best, Alicia L. Aguado Loi, Claudia X. Martinez-Tyson, Dinorah Schneider, Tali Meade, Cathy D. Baldwin, Julie A. Bryant, Carol Front Public Health Public Health Background: We examined colorectal cancer screening (CRCS) intervention effectiveness, through the effect sizes associated with: (1) screening modality, (2) intervention level (e.g., client-directed), and (3) intervention component (e.g. client reminders) within published CRCS intervention systematic reviews (SRs). Methods: A search of peer-reviewed CRCS SRs that were written in English was employed utilizing five databases: CINAHL, Cochrane Library, rTIPS, PubMed, and PsycINFO EBSCOHOST. SRs that included CRCS interventions with a randomized controlled trial, quasi-experimental, or single arm design were eligible. Data on effect sizes by screening modality, intervention level, and intervention component were extracted and synthesized. Results: There were 16 eligible CRCS intervention SRs that included 116 studies published between 1986 and 2013. Reviews organized data by CRCS screening modality, or intervention component. Effect size reporting varied by format (i.e., ranges, medians of multiple studies, or effect size per study), and groupings of modalities and components. Overall, the largest effect sizes were for studies that utilized a combination of colonoscopy, fecal occult blood test (FOBT), and sigmoidoscopy as screening options (16–45 percentage point difference). Conclusions: Evidence suggests that CRCS interventions which include a combination of screening modalities may be most effective. This is the first SR to examine effect sizes of published CRCS SRs. However, because some SRs did not report effect sizes and there were tremendous variability reporting formats among those that did, a standard reporting format is warranted. Synthesizing findings can contribute to improved knowledge of evidence-based best-practices, direct translation of findings into policy and practice, and guide further research in CRCS. Frontiers Media S.A. 2019-06-11 /pmc/articles/PMC6579825/ /pubmed/31245345 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2019.00145 Text en Copyright © 2019 Young, Gwede, Thomas, Vázquez-Otero, Ewing, Best, Aguado Loi, Martinez-Tyson, Schneider, Meade, Baldwin and Bryant. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms. |
spellingShingle | Public Health Young, Belinda-Rose Gwede, Clement K. Thomas, Bria Vázquez-Otero, Coralia Ewing, Aldenise Best, Alicia L. Aguado Loi, Claudia X. Martinez-Tyson, Dinorah Schneider, Tali Meade, Cathy D. Baldwin, Julie A. Bryant, Carol A Systematic Review of U.S.-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening Uptake Intervention Systematic Reviews: Available Evidence and Lessons Learned for Research and Practice |
title | A Systematic Review of U.S.-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening Uptake Intervention Systematic Reviews: Available Evidence and Lessons Learned for Research and Practice |
title_full | A Systematic Review of U.S.-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening Uptake Intervention Systematic Reviews: Available Evidence and Lessons Learned for Research and Practice |
title_fullStr | A Systematic Review of U.S.-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening Uptake Intervention Systematic Reviews: Available Evidence and Lessons Learned for Research and Practice |
title_full_unstemmed | A Systematic Review of U.S.-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening Uptake Intervention Systematic Reviews: Available Evidence and Lessons Learned for Research and Practice |
title_short | A Systematic Review of U.S.-Based Colorectal Cancer Screening Uptake Intervention Systematic Reviews: Available Evidence and Lessons Learned for Research and Practice |
title_sort | systematic review of u.s.-based colorectal cancer screening uptake intervention systematic reviews: available evidence and lessons learned for research and practice |
topic | Public Health |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6579825/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31245345 http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2019.00145 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT youngbelindarose asystematicreviewofusbasedcolorectalcancerscreeninguptakeinterventionsystematicreviewsavailableevidenceandlessonslearnedforresearchandpractice AT gwedeclementk asystematicreviewofusbasedcolorectalcancerscreeninguptakeinterventionsystematicreviewsavailableevidenceandlessonslearnedforresearchandpractice AT thomasbria asystematicreviewofusbasedcolorectalcancerscreeninguptakeinterventionsystematicreviewsavailableevidenceandlessonslearnedforresearchandpractice AT vazquezoterocoralia asystematicreviewofusbasedcolorectalcancerscreeninguptakeinterventionsystematicreviewsavailableevidenceandlessonslearnedforresearchandpractice AT ewingaldenise asystematicreviewofusbasedcolorectalcancerscreeninguptakeinterventionsystematicreviewsavailableevidenceandlessonslearnedforresearchandpractice AT bestalicial asystematicreviewofusbasedcolorectalcancerscreeninguptakeinterventionsystematicreviewsavailableevidenceandlessonslearnedforresearchandpractice AT aguadoloiclaudiax asystematicreviewofusbasedcolorectalcancerscreeninguptakeinterventionsystematicreviewsavailableevidenceandlessonslearnedforresearchandpractice AT martineztysondinorah asystematicreviewofusbasedcolorectalcancerscreeninguptakeinterventionsystematicreviewsavailableevidenceandlessonslearnedforresearchandpractice AT schneidertali asystematicreviewofusbasedcolorectalcancerscreeninguptakeinterventionsystematicreviewsavailableevidenceandlessonslearnedforresearchandpractice AT meadecathyd asystematicreviewofusbasedcolorectalcancerscreeninguptakeinterventionsystematicreviewsavailableevidenceandlessonslearnedforresearchandpractice AT baldwinjuliea asystematicreviewofusbasedcolorectalcancerscreeninguptakeinterventionsystematicreviewsavailableevidenceandlessonslearnedforresearchandpractice AT bryantcarol asystematicreviewofusbasedcolorectalcancerscreeninguptakeinterventionsystematicreviewsavailableevidenceandlessonslearnedforresearchandpractice AT youngbelindarose systematicreviewofusbasedcolorectalcancerscreeninguptakeinterventionsystematicreviewsavailableevidenceandlessonslearnedforresearchandpractice AT gwedeclementk systematicreviewofusbasedcolorectalcancerscreeninguptakeinterventionsystematicreviewsavailableevidenceandlessonslearnedforresearchandpractice AT thomasbria systematicreviewofusbasedcolorectalcancerscreeninguptakeinterventionsystematicreviewsavailableevidenceandlessonslearnedforresearchandpractice AT vazquezoterocoralia systematicreviewofusbasedcolorectalcancerscreeninguptakeinterventionsystematicreviewsavailableevidenceandlessonslearnedforresearchandpractice AT ewingaldenise systematicreviewofusbasedcolorectalcancerscreeninguptakeinterventionsystematicreviewsavailableevidenceandlessonslearnedforresearchandpractice AT bestalicial systematicreviewofusbasedcolorectalcancerscreeninguptakeinterventionsystematicreviewsavailableevidenceandlessonslearnedforresearchandpractice AT aguadoloiclaudiax systematicreviewofusbasedcolorectalcancerscreeninguptakeinterventionsystematicreviewsavailableevidenceandlessonslearnedforresearchandpractice AT martineztysondinorah systematicreviewofusbasedcolorectalcancerscreeninguptakeinterventionsystematicreviewsavailableevidenceandlessonslearnedforresearchandpractice AT schneidertali systematicreviewofusbasedcolorectalcancerscreeninguptakeinterventionsystematicreviewsavailableevidenceandlessonslearnedforresearchandpractice AT meadecathyd systematicreviewofusbasedcolorectalcancerscreeninguptakeinterventionsystematicreviewsavailableevidenceandlessonslearnedforresearchandpractice AT baldwinjuliea systematicreviewofusbasedcolorectalcancerscreeninguptakeinterventionsystematicreviewsavailableevidenceandlessonslearnedforresearchandpractice AT bryantcarol systematicreviewofusbasedcolorectalcancerscreeninguptakeinterventionsystematicreviewsavailableevidenceandlessonslearnedforresearchandpractice |