ReviewFamily practice2025
Are we ready? assessing effectiveness and implementation of cancer control strategies in primary care: a comprehensive review of systematic reviews.
Review in Family practice, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCancer is a major global cause of death, and primary care is crucial for cancer prevention and early detection. However, there is conflicting information on the effectiveness, implementation, and sustainability of cancer control interventions in primary care.
objectiveThis study aimed to summarize the evidence for cancer control in primary care, focussing on identifying relevant factors for implementation and sustainability. STUDY SETTING AND
designWe conducted a narrative, mixed-methods review of systematic reviews, guided by the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). Four databases were screened, and two independent reviewers selected studies reporting on cancer prevention, screening, or early detection in primary or community settings. We analysed findings using the extended Reach-Effectiveness-Adopt-Implementation-Maintenance (RE-AIM) Framework. PRINCIPAL
findingsFrom the 37 reviews that met the inclusion criteria, 6 focussed on primary prevention, 23 on screening, and 12 on early detection. Most reviews (78%) addressed intervention effectiveness, such as HPV vaccination, tobacco cessation, and cervical, breast, and colorectal screening. One-third of the reviews mentioned adoption and implementation factors, including barriers and facilitators to the implementation of cancer screening programs. Only one review addressed maintenance and sustainability factors, exploring continuous resources and funding strategies.
conclusionWhile numerous interventions are effective for cancer prevention and detection in primary care, literature on implementation and sustainability strategies is lacking. Focusing on continuous resources and funding for cancer strategies in primary care may aid sustainability. Future research should prioritize reporting on implementation and sustainability factors to enhance cancer prevention and control in primary care settings.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.