Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38345096›Full record

SynthesisPrimary health care research & development2024

Primary care practice-based interventions and their effect on participation in population-based cancer screening programs: a systematic narrative review.

Ebony J Verbunt, Grace Newman, Nicola S Creagh, Kristi M Milley, Jon D Emery, Margaret A Kelaher, Nicole M Rankin, Claire E Nightingale

Open access · goldAbstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Primary health care research & development, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
2.5field-weighted citation impact, top 9% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 9 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Ebony J VerbuntCentre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5711-6715
Grace NewmanCentre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-4029-5555
Nicola S CreaghCentre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0908-5453
Kristi M MilleyCentre for Cancer Research and Department of General Practice, Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-3615-4648
Jon D EmeryCentre for Cancer Research and Department of General Practice, Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Margaret A Kelaher *Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Nicole M RankinCentre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0715-1405
Claire E NightingaleCentre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-4103-6240
The University of Melbourne · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

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

backgroundGlobally, 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.

methodsA 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.

findingsForty-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.

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerPrimary Health CareAdultAgedFemaleHumansMaleMass ScreeningMiddle AgedPatient Participationbowel cancer screeningbreast cancer screeningcervical screeningpractice-based interventionsprimary careprimary healthcare workers

Identifiers

PMID38345096
PMCPMC10894721
OpenAlexW4391758709

What Socratic holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.