Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33858873›Full record

ArticleBMJ open2021

Delivering screening programmes in primary care: protocol for a scoping and systematic mixed studies review.

Rakesh Narendra Modi, Sarah Kelly, Sarah Hoare, Alison Powell, Isla Kuhn, Juliet Usher-Smith, Jonathan Mant, Jenni Burt

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ open, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. 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.

Rakesh Narendra ModiPrimary Care Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK rnm30@medschl.cam.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0001-9651-6690
Sarah Kellyhe Healthcare Improvement Studies Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Sarah Hoarehe Healthcare Improvement Studies Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8933-217X
Alison Powellhe Healthcare Improvement Studies Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Isla KuhnMedical Library, School of Clinical Medicine, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Juliet Usher-SmithPrimary Care Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-8501-2531
Jonathan MantPrimary Care Unit, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.
Jenni Burthe Healthcare Improvement Studies Institute, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, UK.

Funding

Wellcome TrustWellcome Trust 203921/Z/16/Z
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

introductionScreening programmes represent a considerable amount of healthcare activity. As complex interventions, they require careful delivery to generate net benefit. Much screening work occurs in primary care. Despite intensive study of intervention delivery in primary care, there is currently no synthesis of the delivery of screening programmes in this setting. The purpose of this review is to describe and critically evaluate the delivery of screening programmes in general practice and community services. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: We will use scoping review methods to explore which components of screening programmes are delivered in primary care and systematic review methods to locate and synthesise evidence on how screening programmes can be delivered in primary care, including barriers, facilitators and strategies. We will include empirical studies of any design which consider screening programmes in high-income countries, based in part or whole in primary care. We will search 20 information sources from 1 January 2000, including those relating to health (eg, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL), management (eg, Rx for change database) and grey literature (eg, OpenGrey, screening committee websites). Two reviewers will screen citations and full texts of potentially eligible studies and assess these against inclusion criteria. Qualitative and quantitative data will be extracted in duplicate and synthesised using a best fit framework approach. Within the systematic review, the mixed methods appraisal tool will be used to assess risk of bias. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: No ethics approval is required. We will disseminate findings to academics through publication and presentation, to decision-makers through national screening bodies, to practitioners through professional bodies, and to the public through social media. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020215420.

Indexed as

Delivery of Health CarePrimary Health CareHumansMass ScreeningResearch DesignScoping Reviews as TopicSocial WelfareSystematic Reviews as Topichealth policypreventive medicineprimary carepublic healthstatistics & research methods

Identifiers

PMID33858873
PMCPMC8055151

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.