以基层医疗实践为基础的干预措施及其对参与人群癌症筛查计划的影响:系统性叙述综述。

Ebony J Verbunt, Grace Newman, Nicola S Creagh, Kristi M Milley, Jon D Emery, Margaret A Kelaher, Nicole M Rankin, Claire E Nightingale
{"title":"以基层医疗实践为基础的干预措施及其对参与人群癌症筛查计划的影响:系统性叙述综述。","authors":"Ebony J Verbunt, Grace Newman, Nicola S Creagh, Kristi M Milley, Jon D Emery, Margaret A Kelaher, Nicole M Rankin, Claire E Nightingale","doi":"10.1017/S1463423623000713","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>To provide a systematic synthesis of primary care practice-based interventions and their effect on participation in population-based cancer screening programs.</p><p><strong>Background: </strong>Globally, population-based cancer screening programs (bowel, breast, and cervical) have sub-optimal participation rates. Primary healthcare workers (PHCWs) have an important role in facilitating a patient's decision to screen; however, barriers exist to their engagement. It remains unclear how to best optimize the role of PHCWs to increase screening participation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A comprehensive search was conducted from January 2010 until November 2023 in the following databases: Medline (OVID), EMBASE, and CINAHL. Data extraction, quality assessment, and synthesis were conducted. Studies were separated by whether they assessed the effect of a single-component or multi-component intervention and study type.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>Forty-nine studies were identified, of which 36 originated from the USA. Fifteen studies were investigations of single-component interventions, and 34 studies were of multi-component interventions. Interventions with a positive effect on screening participation were predominantly multi-component, and most included combinations of audit and feedback, provider reminders, practice-facilitated assessment and improvement, and patient education across all screening programs. Regarding bowel screening, provision of screening kits at point-of-care was an effective strategy to increase participation. Taking a 'whole-of-practice approach' and identifying a 'practice champion' were found to be contextual factors of effective interventions.The findings suggest that complex interventions comprised of practitioner-focused and patient-focused components are required to increase cancer screening participation in primary care settings. This study provides novel understanding as to what components and contextual factors should be included in primary care practice-based interventions.</p>","PeriodicalId":74493,"journal":{"name":"Primary health care research & development","volume":"25 ","pages":"e12"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-02-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10894721/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Primary care practice-based interventions and their effect on participation in population-based cancer screening programs: a systematic narrative review.\",\"authors\":\"Ebony J Verbunt, Grace Newman, Nicola S Creagh, Kristi M Milley, Jon D Emery, Margaret A Kelaher, Nicole M Rankin, Claire E Nightingale\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/S1463423623000713\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Aim: </strong>To provide a systematic synthesis of primary care practice-based interventions and their effect on participation in population-based cancer screening programs.</p><p><strong>Background: </strong>Globally, population-based cancer screening programs (bowel, breast, and cervical) have sub-optimal participation rates. Primary healthcare workers (PHCWs) have an important role in facilitating a patient's decision to screen; however, barriers exist to their engagement. It remains unclear how to best optimize the role of PHCWs to increase screening participation.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A comprehensive search was conducted from January 2010 until November 2023 in the following databases: Medline (OVID), EMBASE, and CINAHL. Data extraction, quality assessment, and synthesis were conducted. Studies were separated by whether they assessed the effect of a single-component or multi-component intervention and study type.</p><p><strong>Findings: </strong>Forty-nine studies were identified, of which 36 originated from the USA. Fifteen studies were investigations of single-component interventions, and 34 studies were of multi-component interventions. Interventions with a positive effect on screening participation were predominantly multi-component, and most included combinations of audit and feedback, provider reminders, practice-facilitated assessment and improvement, and patient education across all screening programs. Regarding bowel screening, provision of screening kits at point-of-care was an effective strategy to increase participation. Taking a 'whole-of-practice approach' and identifying a 'practice champion' were found to be contextual factors of effective interventions.The findings suggest that complex interventions comprised of practitioner-focused and patient-focused components are required to increase cancer screening participation in primary care settings. This study provides novel understanding as to what components and contextual factors should be included in primary care practice-based interventions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74493,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Primary health care research & development\",\"volume\":\"25 \",\"pages\":\"e12\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-02-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10894721/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Primary health care research & development\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1463423623000713\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Primary health care research & development","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/S1463423623000713","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:对基于初级保健实践的干预措施及其对参与人群癌症筛查计划的影响进行系统综述:背景:在全球范围内,基于人群的癌症筛查计划(肠癌、乳腺癌和宫颈癌)的参与率并不理想。初级卫生保健工作者(PHCWs)在促进患者做出筛查决定方面发挥着重要作用;然而,他们的参与却存在障碍。目前仍不清楚如何最好地优化初级保健工作者的作用以提高筛查参与率:从 2010 年 1 月到 2023 年 11 月,我们在以下数据库中进行了全面搜索:Medline(OVID)、EMBASE 和 CINAHL。进行了数据提取、质量评估和综合。根据研究是否评估了单组分或多组分干预措施的效果以及研究类型对研究进行了分类:共发现 49 项研究,其中 36 项来自美国。其中 15 项研究是对单组分干预措施的调查,34 项研究是对多组分干预措施的调查。对筛查参与率有积极影响的干预措施主要由多部分组成,其中大部分包括审计和反馈、提供者提醒、实践促进评估和改进以及所有筛查项目中的患者教育。关于肠道筛查,在医疗点提供筛查工具包是提高参与率的有效策略。研究结果表明,要想提高初级医疗机构中癌症筛查的参与率,就必须采取由医生和患者共同参与的综合干预措施。这项研究为我们提供了新的认识,即以实践为基础的初级保健干预措施应包括哪些内容和背景因素。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Primary care practice-based interventions and their effect on participation in population-based cancer screening programs: a systematic narrative review.

Aim: To provide a systematic synthesis of primary care practice-based interventions and their effect on participation in population-based cancer screening programs.

Background: Globally, population-based cancer screening programs (bowel, breast, and cervical) have sub-optimal participation rates. Primary healthcare workers (PHCWs) have an important role in facilitating a patient's decision to screen; however, barriers exist to their engagement. It remains unclear how to best optimize the role of PHCWs to increase screening participation.

Methods: A comprehensive search was conducted from January 2010 until November 2023 in the following databases: Medline (OVID), EMBASE, and CINAHL. Data extraction, quality assessment, and synthesis were conducted. Studies were separated by whether they assessed the effect of a single-component or multi-component intervention and study type.

Findings: Forty-nine studies were identified, of which 36 originated from the USA. Fifteen studies were investigations of single-component interventions, and 34 studies were of multi-component interventions. Interventions with a positive effect on screening participation were predominantly multi-component, and most included combinations of audit and feedback, provider reminders, practice-facilitated assessment and improvement, and patient education across all screening programs. Regarding bowel screening, provision of screening kits at point-of-care was an effective strategy to increase participation. Taking a 'whole-of-practice approach' and identifying a 'practice champion' were found to be contextual factors of effective interventions.The findings suggest that complex interventions comprised of practitioner-focused and patient-focused components are required to increase cancer screening participation in primary care settings. This study provides novel understanding as to what components and contextual factors should be included in primary care practice-based interventions.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Healthy ageing in long-term care? Lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic: a position paper. Early structured communication between general practitioner, sick-listed patient, and employer: Results and lessons learned from a pragmatic trial in the Capacity Note project. The impact of COVID-19 on referrals among general practitioners and specialists in Shanghai, China. The unrevealed links: periodontal health, human milk composition, and infant gut microbiome dynamics. Primary healthcare as a strategy for eliminating hepatitis C: the METRIC toolkit.
×
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