Factors affect knowledge, attitudes, and practices in colorectal cancer screening: A systematic review.

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES Journal of evaluation in clinical practice Pub Date : 2024-07-11 DOI:10.1111/jep.14086
Shaista Rehman, Kouthar Sulaiman Al-Alawi, Moon Fai Chan, Said A Al-Busafi, Adhari AlZaabi, Mustafa Al-Hinai, Mohammad Al-Masqari, Asem Shalaby, Mohammed Al-Azri
{"title":"Factors affect knowledge, attitudes, and practices in colorectal cancer screening: A systematic review.","authors":"Shaista Rehman, Kouthar Sulaiman Al-Alawi, Moon Fai Chan, Said A Al-Busafi, Adhari AlZaabi, Mustafa Al-Hinai, Mohammad Al-Masqari, Asem Shalaby, Mohammed Al-Azri","doi":"10.1111/jep.14086","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>This review aimed to synthesize the available evidence on exploring various factors that affect knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A systematic search across five databases was performed to identify factors influencing KAP scores towards CRC screening. The PRISMA guidelines were used to conduct the literature search, and the time spanned is from March to June 2023. The search included observational studies published between January 2000 and June 2023 that met the predetermined review criteria. Data were extracted following the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) appraisal checklist to evaluate the quality of the articles.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Out of 16,904 records, 1174 articles were reviewed in full text, resulting in 43 high-quality studies included based on the JBI checklist. These studies assessed knowledge (42), attitudes (26), and practices (11) related to CRC screening. Key factors to improving KAP towards CRC screening in the general public were sociodemographic, social media influence, and physician recommendations. For healthcare professionals, factors promoting KAP included screening methods, guidelines, qualifications, and understanding of CRC screening. Educators lacked awareness of CRC symptoms and needed training to teach CRC screening and prevention. Pharmacists showed positive attitudes towards early CRC detection but had varying knowledge levels.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>KAP towards CRC screening is suboptimal among the general public, healthcare professionals, students, educators, and pharmacists worldwide. Routine CRC screening counselling is paramount to improving screening rates. Continuous medical education and training programmes are essential for healthcare professionals to enhance their KAP towards CRC screening. Students and university teachers should be educated and trained about CRC screening to improve their knowledge and foster positive behavioural changes. These comprehensive measures are critical for establishing an effective screening programme.</p>","PeriodicalId":15997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.14086","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: This review aimed to synthesize the available evidence on exploring various factors that affect knowledge, attitudes, and practices (KAP) in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening.

Methods: A systematic search across five databases was performed to identify factors influencing KAP scores towards CRC screening. The PRISMA guidelines were used to conduct the literature search, and the time spanned is from March to June 2023. The search included observational studies published between January 2000 and June 2023 that met the predetermined review criteria. Data were extracted following the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) appraisal checklist to evaluate the quality of the articles.

Results: Out of 16,904 records, 1174 articles were reviewed in full text, resulting in 43 high-quality studies included based on the JBI checklist. These studies assessed knowledge (42), attitudes (26), and practices (11) related to CRC screening. Key factors to improving KAP towards CRC screening in the general public were sociodemographic, social media influence, and physician recommendations. For healthcare professionals, factors promoting KAP included screening methods, guidelines, qualifications, and understanding of CRC screening. Educators lacked awareness of CRC symptoms and needed training to teach CRC screening and prevention. Pharmacists showed positive attitudes towards early CRC detection but had varying knowledge levels.

Conclusions: KAP towards CRC screening is suboptimal among the general public, healthcare professionals, students, educators, and pharmacists worldwide. Routine CRC screening counselling is paramount to improving screening rates. Continuous medical education and training programmes are essential for healthcare professionals to enhance their KAP towards CRC screening. Students and university teachers should be educated and trained about CRC screening to improve their knowledge and foster positive behavioural changes. These comprehensive measures are critical for establishing an effective screening programme.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
影响大肠癌筛查的知识、态度和实践的因素:系统综述。
目的:本综述旨在综合现有证据,探讨影响大肠癌筛查知识、态度和实践(KAP)的各种因素:本综述旨在综合现有证据,探讨影响结直肠癌(CRC)筛查的知识、态度和实践(KAP)的各种因素:方法: 对五个数据库进行了系统检索,以确定影响 CRC 筛查 KAP 评分的因素。文献检索采用 PRISMA 指南,时间跨度为 2023 年 3 月至 6 月。检索包括 2000 年 1 月至 2023 年 6 月间发表的符合预定审查标准的观察性研究。按照乔安娜-布里格斯研究所(JBI)的评估清单提取数据,以评估文章的质量:在 16904 条记录中,对 1174 篇文章进行了全文审阅,根据 JBI 检查表,共纳入 43 项高质量研究。这些研究评估了与 CRC 筛查相关的知识(42 项)、态度(26 项)和实践(11 项)。改善公众对 CRC 筛查的 KAP 的关键因素是社会人口学、社交媒体的影响和医生的建议。对于医疗保健专业人员而言,促进 KAP 的因素包括筛查方法、指南、资质以及对 CRC 筛查的理解。教育工作者缺乏对 CRC 症状的认识,需要接受 CRC 筛查和预防方面的培训。药剂师对早期 CRC 检测持积极态度,但知识水平参差不齐:结论:全球公众、医疗保健专业人员、学生、教育工作者和药剂师对 CRC 筛查的 KAP 均不理想。常规的 CRC 筛查咨询对于提高筛查率至关重要。持续的医学教育和培训计划对于医护人员提高对 CRC 筛查的 KAP 至关重要。应对学生和大学教师进行有关 CRC 筛查的教育和培训,以提高他们的知识水平并促进积极的行为改变。这些综合措施对于建立有效的筛查计划至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
4.20%
发文量
143
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice aims to promote the evaluation and development of clinical practice across medicine, nursing and the allied health professions. All aspects of health services research and public health policy analysis and debate are of interest to the Journal whether studied from a population-based or individual patient-centred perspective. Of particular interest to the Journal are submissions on all aspects of clinical effectiveness and efficiency including evidence-based medicine, clinical practice guidelines, clinical decision making, clinical services organisation, implementation and delivery, health economic evaluation, health process and outcome measurement and new or improved methods (conceptual and statistical) for systematic inquiry into clinical practice. Papers may take a classical quantitative or qualitative approach to investigation (or may utilise both techniques) or may take the form of learned essays, structured/systematic reviews and critiques.
期刊最新文献
Adaptation of the health literacy survey19-Europe-Q12 into Turkish culture: A psychometric study. The effect of preadmission education given to bariatric surgery patients on postoperative recovery: A randomized controlled study. What is the probability that higher versus lower quality of evidence represents true effects estimates? Effect of evidence-based nursing practices on individualised care: A cross-sectional descriptive study. Mastering meta-analysis in Microsoft Excel with MetaXL add-in: A comprehensive tutorial and guide to meta-analysis.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1