Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36849979›Full record

ArticleSystematic reviews2023

Implementing organized colorectal cancer screening programs in Europe-protocol for a systematic review of determinants and strategies.

Bianca Albers, Reto Auer, Laura Caci, Emanuela Nyantakyi, Ekaterina Plys, Clara Podmore, Franziska Riegel, Kevin Selby, Joel Walder, Lauren Clack

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic reviews, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing 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

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Review
  5. 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

10 authors.

Bianca AlbersInstitute for Implementation Science in Health Care (IfIS), Medical Faculty, University of Zurich, Universitätstrasse 84, 8006, Zurich, Switzerland. bianca.albers@uzh.ch.ORCID 0000-0001-9555-0547
Reto AuerInstitute of Primary Health Care (BIHAM), University of Bern, Mittelstrasse 43, 3012, Bern, Switzerland.
Laura CaciInstitute for Implementation Science in Health Care (IfIS), Medical Faculty, University of Zurich, Universitätstrasse 84, 8006, Zurich, Switzerland.
Emanuela NyantakyiInstitute for Implementation Science in Health Care (IfIS), Medical Faculty, University of Zurich, Universitätstrasse 84, 8006, Zurich, Switzerland.
Ekaterina PlysCenter for primary care and public health (Unisanté), University of Lausanne, Rue de Bugnon 44, 1010, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Clara PodmoreCenter for primary care and public health (Unisanté), University of Lausanne, Rue de Bugnon 44, 1010, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Franziska RiegelInstitute for Implementation Science in Health Care (IfIS), Medical Faculty, University of Zurich, Universitätstrasse 84, 8006, Zurich, Switzerland.
Kevin SelbyCenter for primary care and public health (Unisanté), University of Lausanne, Rue de Bugnon 44, 1010, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Joel WalderInstitute for Implementation Science in Health Care (IfIS), Medical Faculty, University of Zurich, Universitätstrasse 84, 8006, Zurich, Switzerland.
Lauren ClackInstitute for Implementation Science in Health Care (IfIS), Medical Faculty, University of Zurich, Universitätstrasse 84, 8006, Zurich, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWith a high mortality of 12.6% of all cancer cases, colorectal cancer (CRC) accounts for substantial burden of disease in Europe. In the past decade, more and more countries have introduced organized colorectal cancer screening programs, making systematic screening available to entire segments of a population, typically based on routine stool tests and/or colonoscopy. While the effectiveness of organized screening in reducing CRC incidence and mortality has been confirmed, studies continuously report persistent program implementation challenges. This systematic review will synthesize the literature on organized CRC screening programs. Its aim is to understand what is currently known about the barriers and facilitators that influence the implementation of these programs and about the implementation strategies used to navigate these determinants.

methodsA systematic review of primary studies of any research design will be conducted. CENTRAL, CINAHL, EMBASE, International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Scopus will be searched. Websites of (non-)government health care organizations and websites of organizations affiliated with authors of included studies will be screened for unpublished evaluation reports. Existing organized CRC screening programs will be contacted with a request to share program-specific grey literature. Two researchers will independently screen each publication in two rounds for eligibility. Included studies will focus on adult populations involved in the implementation of organized CRC screening programs and contain information about implementation determinants/ strategies. Publications will be assessed for their risk of bias. Data extraction will include study aim, design, location, setting, sample, methods, and measures; program characteristics; implementation stage, framework, determinants, strategies, and outcomes; and service and other outcome information. Findings will be synthesized narratively using the three stages of thematic synthesis. DISCUSSION: With its sole focus on the implementation of organized CRC screening programs, this review will help to fill a central knowledge gap in the literature on colorectal cancer screening. Its findings can inform the decision-making in policy and practice needed to prioritize resources for establishing new and maintaining existing programs in the future. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42022306580).

Indexed as

Early Detection of CancerNeoplasmsAdultColonoscopyEuropeGray LiteratureHumansSystematic Reviews as TopicBowel cancerCancer screeningColorectal cancerImplementation determinantsImplementation scienceImplementation strategiesSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID36849979
PMCPMC9969690

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.