ArticleJournal of public health management and practice : JPHMP
Effective General Practice-Led Interventions to Increase Uptake in Colorectal Cancer Screening: A Scoping Review.
Article in Journal of public health management and practice : JPHMP. 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
8 authors.
Funding
Abstract
contextPrimary care, specifically general practice, represents the front line of health care. For colorectal cancer (CRC) screening, general practice provides an effective setting to improve participation in organized screening.
objectiveThe aim of this study was to review evidence from systematic reviews with meta-analyses (SRMAs) on interventions to increase CRC screening, and from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on the effectiveness and implementation of general practice-led interventions.
designThis scoping review included 2 phases: 1) an umbrella review of SRMAs evaluating CRC screening participation after intervention delivery, and 2) a review of RCTs evaluating general practice-led interventions, which were also coded for implementation strategies. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: For the SRMAs, interventions could be designed to increase participation of any type of population-based CRC screening. For the RCTs, only general practice-led interventions designed to increase screening using fecal occult blood tests were included. Studies had to be published in English and available in full text. STUDY SELECTION: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, and PsycInfo, guided by PRISMA guidelines, from May 2016 to August 2023.
main outcome measuresAll evidence was assessed for intervention effectiveness and, for RCTs, implementation strategies using one implementation science framework and 2 taxonomies.
resultsWe identified 15 SRMAs and 12 RCTs, which evaluated individual, primary care/general practice, and population-level interventions. Key interventions including patient reminders, risk assessment tools, and kit outreach improved CRC screening participation. Evidence on multicomponent interventions is promising. None of the included RCTs explicitly outlined implementation strategies.
conclusionsOur findings highlight the possible effectiveness of individual, primary care/general practice, and population-level interventions and their potential use in combination. However, there was a lack of implementation strategies to support adaptation and sustainability. Future trials should explore how interventions can mobilize general practice to promote CRC screening, incorporating targeted implementation strategies to enhance their real-world application and sustainability.
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.