Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38687595›Full record

ArticleJMIR cancer2024

Implementation of Health IT for Cancer Screening in US Primary Care: Scoping Review.

Constance Owens-Jasey, Jinying Chen, Ran Xu, Heather Angier, Amy G Huebschmann, Mayuko Ito Fukunaga, Krisda H Chaiyachati, Katharine A Rendle, Kim Robien, Lisa DiMartino and 6 more

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in JMIR cancer, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. 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

16 authors.

Constance Owens-JaseyBRIDGE-C2 Implementation Science Center in Cancer Control, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6596-165X
Jinying ChenDepartment of Preventive Medicine and Epidemiology, Chobanian & Avedisian School of Medicine, Boston University, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7259-4301
Ran XuDepartment of Medicine, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0009-0006-4393-8885
Heather AngierDepartment of Family Medicine, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6313-1927
Amy G HuebschmannAdult and Child Center for Outcomes Research and Delivery Science, Ludeman Family Center for Women's Health Research, Division of General Internal Medicine, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, CO, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9329-3142
Mayuko Ito FukunagaDepartment of Medicine, UMass Chan Medical School, Worcester, MA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4325-3959
Krisda H ChaiyachatiPenn Implementation Science Center in Cancer Control, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3326-6641
Katharine A RendlePenn Implementation Science Center in Cancer Control, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7761-8728
Kim RobienMilken Institute School of Public Health, George Washington University, Washington, DC, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2120-2280
Lisa DiMartinoRTI International, Research Triangle Park, NC, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1616-7406
Daniel J AmanteDepartment of Population and Quantitative Health Sciences, UMass Chan Medical School, Worcester, MA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1488-9624
Jamie M FaroDepartment of Population and Quantitative Health Sciences, UMass Chan Medical School, Worcester, MA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6592-463X
Maura M KepperBrown School, Washington University, St. Louis, MO, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5971-9189
Alex T RamseyDepartment of Psychiatry, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, MO, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3471-3725
Eric BressmanLeonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4688-0747
Rachel GoldBRIDGE-C2 Implementation Science Center in Cancer Control, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, United States.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6326-5012

Funding

PILOT STUDY--SUBSTRATE METABOLISM IN EXTREMELY LOW BIRTH WEIGHT INFANTSP30DK048520 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER · PI JANINE A HIGGINS · 1995 to 2026
$32.6M
Washington University Center for Diabetes Translation Research P30DK092950 · NIDDK · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI Ross C Brownson, Debra Haire-Joshu · 2011 to 2026
$11.7M
Washington University Implementation Science Center for Cancer Control (WU-ISCCC)P50CA244431 · NCI · WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY · PI BROWNSON, ROSS C, COLDITZ, GRAHAM A. · 2019 to 2023
$8.0M
Research ProgramP50CA244289 · NCI · OREGON HEALTH & SCIENCE UNIVERSITY · PI DEVOE, JENNIFER E, HUGUET, NATHALIE · 2019 to 2023
$7.6M
Research ProgramP50CA244690 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI SHULMAN, LAWRENCE N. · 2020 to 2024
$4.9M
Pragmatic Implementation Science Approaches to Assess and Enhance Value of Cancer Prevention and Control in Rural Primary CareP50CA244688 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO DENVER · PI GLASGOW, RUSSELL E · 2019 to 2023
$4.9M
iDAPT: Implementation and Informatics - Developing Adaptable Processes and Technologies for Cancer Control P50CA244693 · NCI · WAKE FOREST UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI HOUSTON, THOMAS K · 2019 to 2023
$4.1M
NCI NIH HHS P50 CA244289NCI NIH HHS P50 CA244431NCI NIH HHS P50 CA244688NCI NIH HHS P50 CA244690NCI NIH HHS P50 CA244693NIDDK NIH HHS P30 DK092950
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA substantial percentage of the US population is not up to date on guideline-recommended cancer screenings. Identifying interventions that effectively improve screening rates would enhance the delivery of such screening. Interventions involving health IT (HIT) show promise, but much remains unknown about how HIT is optimized to support cancer screening in primary care.

objectiveThis scoping review aims to identify (1) HIT-based interventions that effectively support guideline concordance in breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening provision and follow-up in the primary care setting and (2) barriers or facilitators to the implementation of effective HIT in this setting.

methodsFollowing scoping review guidelines, we searched MEDLINE, CINAHL Plus, Web of Science, and IEEE Xplore databases for US-based studies from 2015 to 2021 that featured HIT targeting breast, colorectal, and cervical cancer screening in primary care. Studies were dual screened using a review criteria checklist. Data extraction was guided by the following implementation science frameworks: the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance framework; the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change taxonomy; and implementation strategy reporting domains. It was also guided by the Integrated Technology Implementation Model that incorporates theories of both implementation science and technology adoption. Reporting was guided by PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews).

resultsA total of 101 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most studies (85/101, 84.2%) involved electronic health record-based HIT interventions. The most common HIT function was clinical decision support, primarily used for panel management or at the point of care. Most studies related to HIT targeting colorectal cancer screening (83/101, 82.2%), followed by studies related to breast cancer screening (28/101, 27.7%), and cervical cancer screening (19/101, 18.8%). Improvements in cancer screening were associated with HIT-based interventions in most studies (36/54, 67% of colorectal cancer-relevant studies; 9/14, 64% of breast cancer-relevant studies; and 7/10, 70% of cervical cancer-relevant studies). Most studies (79/101, 78.2%) reported on the reach of certain interventions, while 17.8% (18/101) of the included studies reported on the adoption or maintenance. Reported barriers and facilitators to HIT adoption primarily related to inner context factors of primary care settings (eg, staffing and organizational policies that support or hinder HIT adoption). Implementation strategies for HIT adoption were reported in 23.8% (24/101) of the included studies.

conclusionsThere are substantial evidence gaps regarding the effectiveness of HIT-based interventions, especially those targeting guideline-concordant breast and colorectal cancer screening in primary care. Even less is known about how to enhance the adoption of technologies that have been proven effective in supporting breast, colorectal, or cervical cancer screening. Research is needed to ensure that the potential benefits of effective HIT-based interventions equitably reach diverse primary care populations.

Indexed as

cancer preventionhealth information technologyimplementationimplementation strategiesscoping review

Identifiers

PMID38687595
PMCPMC11094604

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.