Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21958602›Full record

SynthesisImplementation science : IS2011

Effective interventions to facilitate the uptake of breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening: an implementation guideline.

Melissa C Brouwers, Carol De Vito, Lavannya Bahirathan, Angela Carol, June C Carroll, Michelle Cotterchio, Maureen Dobbins, Barbara Lent, Cheryl Levitt, Nancy Lewis and 4 more

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Implementation science : IS, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

35 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Opportunities to improve quality of care for cancer survivors in primary care: findings from the BETTER WISE study.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2023
    Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Factors Influencing Pap Smear Screening Uptake among Women Visiting Outpatient Clinics in Johor.Malaysian family physician : the official journal of the Academy of Family Physicians of Malaysia · 2022
    Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. 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

14 authors.

Melissa C BrouwersProgram in Evidence-based Care, Cancer Care Ontario, Hamilton, Ont., Canada. mbrouwer@mcmaster.ca
Carol De Vito
Lavannya Bahirathan
Angela Carol
June C Carroll
Michelle Cotterchio
Maureen Dobbins
Barbara Lent
Cheryl Levitt
Nancy Lewis
S Elizabeth McGregor
Lawrence Paszat
Carol Rand
Nadine Wathen

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAppropriate screening may reduce the mortality and morbidity of colorectal, breast, and cervical cancers. Several high-quality systematic reviews and practice guidelines exist to inform the most effective screening options. However, effective implementation strategies are warranted if the full benefits of screening are to be realized. We developed an implementation guideline to answer the question: What interventions have been shown to increase the uptake of cancer screening by individuals, specifically for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers?

methodsA guideline panel was established as part of Cancer Care Ontario's Program in Evidence-based Care, and a systematic review of the published literature was conducted. It yielded three foundational systematic reviews and an existing guidance document. We conducted updates of these reviews and searched the literature published between 2004 and 2010. A draft guideline was written that went through two rounds of review. Revisions were made resulting in a final set of guideline recommendations.

resultsSixty-six new studies reflecting 74 comparisons met eligibility criteria. They were generally of poor to moderate quality. Using these and the foundational documents, the panel developed a draft guideline. The draft report was well received in the two rounds of review with mean quality scores above four (on a five-point scale) for each of the items. For most of the interventions considered, there was insufficient evidence to support or refute their effectiveness. However, client reminders, reduction of structural barriers, and provision of provider assessment and feedback were recommended interventions to increase screening for at least two of three cancer sites studied. The final guidelines also provide advice on how the recommendations can be used and future areas for research.

conclusionUsing established guideline development methodologies and the AGREE II as our methodological frameworks, we developed an implementation guideline to advise on interventions to increase the rate of breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening. While advancements have been made in these areas of implementation science, more investigations are warranted.

Indexed as

Patient SatisfactionPractice Guidelines as TopicBreast NeoplasmsColorectal NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerEvidence-Based MedicineExpert TestimonyFemaleGuideline AdherenceHumansInternationalityMaleOntarioUterine Cervical Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID21958602
PMCPMC3222606

What OpenQuestion 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 OpenQuestion graph.