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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: 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
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