Background
Cancer is a leading cause of death, and although screening can reduce cancer morbidity and mortality, participation in screening remains suboptimal.
Objective
This systematic review and ...meta-analysis aims to evaluate the effectiveness of social media and mobile health (mHealth) interventions for cancer screening.
Methods
We searched for randomized controlled trials and quasi-experimental studies of social media and mHealth interventions promoting cancer screening (breast, cervical, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancers) in adults in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Scopus, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Communication & Mass Media Complete from January 1, 2000, to July 17, 2020. Two independent reviewers screened the titles, abstracts, and full-text articles and completed the risk of bias assessments. We pooled odds ratios for screening participation using the Mantel-Haenszel method in a random-effects model.
Results
We screened 18,008 records identifying 39 studies (35 mHealth and 4 social media). The types of interventions included peer support (n=1), education or awareness (n=6), reminders (n=13), or mixed (n=19). The overall pooled odds ratio was 1.49 (95% CI 1.31-1.70), with similar effect sizes across cancer types.
Conclusions
Screening programs should consider mHealth interventions because of their promising role in promoting cancer screening participation. Given the limited number of studies identified, further research is needed for social media interventions.
Trial Registration
PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42019139615; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=139615
International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID)
RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035411
Full text
Available for:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
Colonoscopy examination does not always detect colorectal cancer (CRC)— some patients develop CRC after negative findings from an examination. When this occurs before the next recommended ...examination, it is called interval cancer. From a colonoscopy quality assurance perspective, that term is too restrictive, so the term post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) was created in 2010. However, PCCRC definitions and methods for calculating rates vary among studies, making it impossible to compare results. We aimed to standardize the terminology, identification, analysis, and reporting of PCCRCs and CRCs detected after other whole-colon imaging evaluations (post-imaging colorectal cancers PICRCs).
A 20-member international team of gastroenterologists, pathologists, and epidemiologists; a radiologist; and a non-medical professional met to formulate a series of recommendations, standardize definitions and categories (to align with interval cancer terminology), develop an algorithm to determine most-plausible etiologies, and develop standardized methodology to calculate rates of PCCRC and PICRC. The team followed the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II tool. A literature review provided 401 articles to support proposed statements; evidence was rated using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system. The statements were voted on anonymously by team members, using a modified Delphi approach.
The team produced 21 statements that provide comprehensive guidance on PCCRCs and PICRCs. The statements present standardized definitions and terms, as well as methods for qualitative review, determination of etiology, calculation of PCCRC rates, and non-colonoscopic imaging of the colon.
A 20-member international team has provided standardized methods for analysis of etiologies of PCCRCs and PICRCs and defines its use as a quality indicator. The team provides recommendations for clinicians, organizations, researchers, policy makers, and patients.
It is essential to quantify the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer screening, including for vulnerable sub-populations, to inform the development of evidence-based, targeted pandemic recovery ...strategies. We undertook a population-based retrospective observational study in Ontario, Canada to assess the impact of the pandemic on organized cancer screening and diagnostic services, and assess whether patterns of cancer screening service use and diagnostic delay differ across population sub-groups during the pandemic. Provincial health databases were used to identify age-eligible individuals who participated in one or more of Ontario's breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer screening programs from January 1, 2019–December 31, 2020. Ontario's screening programs delivered 951,000 (−41%) fewer screening tests in 2020 than in 2019 and volumes for most programs remained more than 20% below historical levels by the end of 2020. A smaller percentage of cervical screening participants were older (50–59 and 60–69 years) during the pandemic when compared with 2019. Individuals in the oldest age groups and in lower-income neighborhoods were significantly more likely to experience diagnostic delay following an abnormal breast, cervical, or colorectal cancer screening test during the pandemic, and individuals with a high probability of living on a First Nation reserve were significantly more likely to experience diagnostic delay following an abnormal fecal test. Ongoing monitoring and management of backlogs must continue. Further evaluation is required to identify populations for whom access to cancer screening and diagnostic care has been disproportionately impacted and quantify impacts of these service disruptions on cancer incidence, stage, and mortality. This information is critical to pandemic recovery efforts that are aimed at achieving equitable and timely access to cancer screening-related care.
•Cancer screening test volumes in Ontario were reduced by 41% in 2020 compared to 2019.•A smaller percentage of cervical screening participants were from older age groups during the pandemic compared to 2019.•Older age was associated with diagnostic delay during the pandemic for all programs.•Lower income and high likelihood of living on a First Nation reserve were also associated with pandemic diagnostic delay.
Full text
Available for:
GEOZS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, UILJ, UL, UM, UPCLJ, UPUK, ZAGLJ, ZRSKP
Abstract
Background
In spite of past efforts to increase screening uptake, the rates of screening-detectable cancers including breast, cervical, colorectal and lung are rising among Indigenous ...persons in Ontario compared to other Ontarians. The Ontario Ministry of Health has an equity framework, the Health Equity Impact Assessment (HEIA) Tool, that was developed to guide organizations in the provision of more equitable health and social services. Although the HEIA Tool identifies that the health of Indigenous persons may benefit from more equitable provision of health and social services, it provides very little specific guidance on how to apply the HEIA Tool in a culturally relevant way to policies and programs that may impact Indigenous peoples.
Discussion
Guided by the Calls to Action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, an Indigenous Lens Tool was developed through a collaborative and iterative process with stakeholders at Cancer Care Ontario and with representatives from Indigenous community-based organizations. The Indigenous Lens Tool consists of four scenarios, with supporting documentation that provide context for each step of the HEIA Tool and thereby facilitate application of the equity framework to programs and policies. The document is in no way meant to be comprehensive or representative of the diverse health care experiences of Indigenous peoples living in Canada nor the social determinants that surround health and well-being of Indigenous peoples living in Canada. Rather, this document provides a first step to support development of policies and programs that recognize and uphold the rights to health and well-being of Indigenous peoples living in Canada.
Conclusions
The Indigenous Lens Tool was created to facilitate implementation of an existing health equity framework within Cancer Care Ontario (now Ontario Health). Even though the Indigenous Lens Tool was created for this purpose, the principles contained within it are translatable to other health and social service policy applications.
Full text
Available for:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
The use of social media presents a unique opportunity for cancer screening programs to motivate individuals to get screened. However, we need a better understanding of what types of social media ...messages for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening are preferred. The objective of this study was to develop social media messages promoting CRC screening uptake to identify messages preferred by the target audience.
We conducted a qualitative descriptive study and collected data through focus groups with Facebook users of screen-eligible age. Participants were presented with social media messages and asked to provide feedback. Messages were informed by the Health Belief Model, current evidence regarding screening communication and health communication and social media best practices. Focus groups were audio-recorded and transcribed and analysis was completed by two independent coders. If messages generated sufficient discussion, we developed a recommendation regarding the use of the message in a future social media campaign. Recommendations included: strongly consider using this message, consider using this message, proceed with caution, and do not use this message. General considerations about social media campaigns were also noted.
A total of 45 individuals participated in six focus groups. We developed recommendations for 7 out of the 18 messages tested; 1 was classified as strongly consider using this message, 4 as consider using this message and 2 as proceed with caution. The data suggest that participants preferred social media messages that were believed to be credible, educational, and with a positive or reassuring tone. Preferred messages tended to increase awareness about CRC risk and screening and prompted participants to ask questions, and to want to learn more about what they could do to lower their risk. Messages that were viewed as humorous, strange or offensive or that had a negative or excessively fearful tone were less well received by study participants.
Facebook users prefer social media messages for CRC that have a positive or reassuring tone, are educational, and that have a credible ad sponsor. Campaign planners should proceed with caution when considering messages that use humor or a fearful tone to avoid undermining their campaign objectives.
Full text
Available for:
DOBA, IZUM, KILJ, NUK, PILJ, PNG, SAZU, SIK, UILJ, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK
To assess anal oncogenic human papillomavirus (HPV) and anal cytology as screening tests for detecting high-grade anal intraepithelial neoplasia (AIN 2+), as this is an immediate anal cancer ...precursor.
Cross-sectional study of 401 HIV-positive men who have sex with men (MSM). The endpoint was histologically confirmed AIN 2+ obtained by high-resolution anoscopy. Cytology and biopsy specimens were assigned random numbers and independently assessed by two pathologists.
We did concomitant anal cytology, anal HPV testing and HRA with directed biopsies without knowing the results of each intervention. The main outcome measures were the sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value and positive predictive value of anal cytology and oncogenic HPV for the detection of AIN 2+.
Cytology was abnormal in 67% of patients: high-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion, 12%; low-grade squamous intraepithelial lesion, 43% and atypical squamous cells of undetermined significance, 12%. Biopsies were abnormal in 68% of patients: AIN 2+, 25% and AIN 1, 43%. HPV was detected in 93% with multiple HPV types in 92% and oncogenic HPV types in 88%. Test performance characteristics for the detection of AIN 2+ using any abnormality on anal cytology were: sensitivity 84%, specificity 39%, negative predictive value 88% and positive predictive value 31%; using oncogenic HPV: sensitivity 100%, specificity 16%, negative predictive value 100% and positive predictive value 28%.
Anal cytology and HPV detection have high sensitivity but low specificity for detecting AIN 2+. HIV-positive men who have sex with men have a high prevalence of AIN 2+ and require high-resolution anoscopy for optimal detection of high-grade anal dysplasia.
Background
Accurate preoperative staging is important in determining the appropriate treatment of gastric cancer. Recently, endoscopic ultrasound (EUS) has been introduced as a staging modality. ...However, reported test characteristics for EUS in gastric cancer vary. Our purpose in this study was to identify, synthesize, and evaluate findings from all articles on the performance of EUS in the preoperative staging of gastric cancer.
Methods
Electronic literature searches were conducted using Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials from 1 January 1998 to 1 December 2009. All search titles and abstracts were independently rated for relevance by a minimum of two reviewers. Meta-analysis for the performance of EUS was analyzed by calculating agreement (Kappa statistic), and pooled estimates of accuracy, sensitivity, and specificity for all EUS examinations, using histopathology as the reference standard. Subgroup analyses were also performed.
Results
Twenty-two articles met our inclusion criteria and were included in the review. EUS pooled accuracy for T staging was 75% with a moderate Kappa (0.52). EUS was most accurate for T3 disease, followed by T4, T1, and T2. EUS pooled accuracy for N staging was 64%, sensitivity was 74%, and specificity was 80%. There was significant heterogeneity between the included studies. Subgroup analyses found that annual EUS volume was not associated with EUS T and N staging accuracy (
P
= 0.836, 0.99, respectively).
Conclusion
EUS is a moderately accurate technique that seems to describe advanced T stage (T3 and T4) better than N or less advanced T stage. Stratifying by EUS annual volume did not affect EUS performance in staging gastric cancer.
Full text
Available for:
EMUNI, FIS, FZAB, GEOZS, GIS, IJS, IMTLJ, KILJ, KISLJ, MFDPS, NLZOH, NUK, OILJ, PNG, SAZU, SBCE, SBJE, SBMB, SBNM, UKNU, UL, UM, UPUK, VKSCE, ZAGLJ
IntroductionCancer screening is an integral component of primary care, and providers can play a key role in facilitating screening. While much work has focused on patient interventions, there has ...been less attention on primary care provider (PCP) interventions. In addition, marginalised patients experience disparities in cancer screening which are likely to worsen if not addressed. The objective of this scoping review is to report on the range, extent and nature of PCP interventions that maximise cancer screening participation among marginalised patients. Our review will target cancers where there is strong evidence to support screening, including lung, cervical, breast and colorectal cancers.Methods and analysisThis is a scoping review conducted in accordance with the framework by Levac et al. Comprehensive searches will be conducted by a health sciences librarian using Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Scopus, CINAHL Complete and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We will include peer-reviewed English language literature published from 1 January 2000 to 31 March 2022 that describes PCP interventions to maximise cancer screening participation for breast, cervical, lung and colorectal cancers. Two independent reviewers will screen all articles and identify eligible studies for inclusion in two stages: title and abstract, then full text. A third reviewer will resolve any discrepancies. Charted data will be synthesised through a narrative synthesis using a piloted data extraction form informed by the Template for Intervention Description and Replication checklist.Ethics and disseminationSince this is a synthesis of digitally published literature, no ethics approval is needed for this work. We will target appropriate primary care or cancer screening journals and conference presentations to publish and disseminate the results of this scoping review. The results will also be used to inform an ongoing research study developing PCP interventions for addressing cancer screening with marginalised patients.
Prior randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) indicate that patient navigation can boost colorectal cancer screening rates in primary care. The sparse literature on pragmatic trials of interventions ...designed to increase colorectal cancer screening adherence motivated this trial on the impact of a patient navigation intervention that included support for performance of the participants' preferred screening test (colonoscopy or stool blood testing).
Primary care patients (n = 5,240), 50 to 74 years of age, with no prior diagnosis of bowel cancer and no record of a recent colorectal cancer screening test, were identified at the Group Health Centre in northern Ontario. These patients were randomly assigned to an intervention group (n = 2,629) or a usual care control group (n = 2,611). Intervention group participants were contacted by a trained nurse navigator by telephone to discuss colorectal cancer screening. Interested patients met with the navigator, who helped them identify and arrange for performance of the preferred screening test. Control group participants received usual care. Multivariate analyses were conducted using medical records data to assess intervention impact on screening adherence within 12 months after randomization.
Mean patient age was 59 years, and 50% of participants were women. Colorectal cancer screening adherence was higher in the intervention group (35%) than in the control group (20%), a difference that was statistically significant (OR, 2.11; confidence interval, 1.87-2.39).
Preference-based patient navigation increased screening uptake in a pragmatic RCT.
Patient navigation increased colorectal cancer screening rates in a pragmatic RCT in proportions similar to those observed in explanatory RCTs.
ColonCancerCheck (CCC), Canada's first province-wide colorectal cancer screening program, was publicly launched in Ontario in April 2008. The objective of this article is to report on key indicators ...of CCC Program performance since its inception.
The CCC Program recommends biennial guaiac-based fecal occult blood test (gFOBT) for persons 50 to 74 years of age at average risk for colorectal cancer and colonoscopy for those at increased risk (having one or more first-degree relatives with a diagnosis of colorectal cancer). Opportunistic screening with colonoscopy is available in Ontario. Five data sources were used to compute indicators of program performance during 2008 to 2011. The indicators computed were FOBT participation, overdue for screening, FOBT positivity, positive predictive value (PPV) of FOBT for colorectal cancer, diagnostic follow-up, and colorectal cancer detection rate.
In 2011, FOBT participation was 29.8% and 46.8% of the target population was overdue for screening. FOBT positivity was higher among men (5.1%) than women (3.5%), and the PPV of FOBT for cancer was 4.3% in 2011. Follow-up colonoscopy within 6 months of a positive FOBT was completed by 74.6% of Program participants in 2011. The cancer detection rates for FOBT and for colonoscopy in those with a family history were 1.3 per 1,000 and 4.0 per 1,000, respectively, in 2011.
These results provide an early indication of Program performance and provide findings relevant to other organized colorectal cancer screening programs.
The greater cancer detection rate in those at increased risk due to family history who undergo colonoscopy screening suggests that a strategy of risk stratification will enhance the impact of FOBT-based screening programs.
PDF
