scholarly journals Interventions designed to increase the uptake of lung cancer screening and implications for priority populations: a scoping review protocol

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (7) ◽  
pp. e050056
Author(s):  
Ambreen Sayani ◽  
Muhanad Ahmed Ali ◽  
Ann Marie Corrado ◽  
Carolyn Ziegler ◽  
Alex Sadler ◽  
...  

BackgroundWhen designing any health intervention, it is important to respond to the unequal determinants of health by prioritising the allocation of resources and tailoring interventions based on the disproportionate burden of illness. This approach, called the targeting of priority populations, can prevent a widening of health inequities, particularly those inequities which can be further widened by differences in the uptake of an intervention. The objective of this scoping review is to describe intervention(s) designed to increase the uptake of lung cancer screening, including the health impact on priority populations and to describe knowledge and implementation gaps to inform the design of equitable lung cancer screening.MethodsWe will conduct a scoping review following the methodological framework developed by Arksey and O’Malley. We will conduct comprehensive searches for lung cancer screening promotion interventions in Ovid Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library, Cumulative Index to Nursing & Allied Health (CINAHL) and Scopus. We will include published English language peer-reviewed and grey literature published between January 2000 and 2020 that describe an intervention designed to increase the uptake of low-dose CT (LDCT) lung cancer screening in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development countries. Articles not in English or not describing LDCT will be excluded. Three authors will review retrieved literature in three steps: title, abstract and then full text. Three additional authors will review discrepancies. Authors will extract data from full-text papers into a chart adapted from the Template for Intervention Description and Republication checklist, the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials and a Health Equity Impact Assessment tool. Findings will be presented using a narrative synthesis.Ethics and disseminationThe knowledge synthesised will be used to inform the equitable design of lung cancer screening and disseminated through conferences, publications and shared with relevant partners. The study does not require research ethics approval as literature is available online.

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Aimee O'Farrell ◽  
Geoff McCombe ◽  
John Broughan ◽  
Áine Carroll ◽  
Mary Casey ◽  
...  

PurposeIn many healthcare systems, health policy has committed to delivering an integrated model of care to address the increasing burden of disease. The interface between primary and secondary care has been identified as a problem area. This paper aims to undertake a scoping review to gain a deeper understanding of the markers of integration across the primary–secondary interface.Design/methodology/approachA search was conducted of PubMed, SCOPUS, Cochrane Library and the grey literature for papers published in English using the framework described by Arksey and O'Malley. The search process was guided by the “Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses” (PRISMA).FindingsThe initial database search identified 112 articles, which were screened by title and abstract. A total of 26 articles were selected for full-text review, after which nine articles were excluded as they were not relevant to the research question or the full text was not available. In total, 17 studies were included in the review. A range of study designs were identified including a systematic review (n = 3), mixed methods study (n = 5), qualitative (n = 6) and quantitative (n = 3). The included studies documented integration across the primary–secondary interface; integration measurement and factors affecting care coordination.Originality/valueMany studies examine individual aspects of integration. However, this study is unique as it provides a comprehensive overview of the many perspectives and methodological approaches involved with evaluating integration within the primary–secondary care interface and primary care itself. Further research is required to establish valid reliable tools for measurement and implementation.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rachael Dodd ◽  
Chenyue Zhang ◽  
Ashleigh Rebecca Sharman ◽  
Julie Carlton ◽  
Ruijin Tang ◽  
...  

BACKGROUND Lung cancer is the number one cause of cancer death worldwide. The US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) updated recommendations for lung cancer screening in 2021, adjusting the age of screening to 50 years (from 55 years), and reducing the number of pack-years total firsthand cigarette smoke exposure to 20 (down from 30). With many individuals using the internet for healthcare information, it is important to understand what information is available for individuals contemplating lung cancer screening. OBJECTIVE To assess the eligibility criteria and information available on lung cancer screening program websites for both health professionals and potential screeners. METHODS A descriptive cross-sectional analysis in March 2021 of 151 lung cancer screening program websites of academic (n=76) and community medical centers (n=75) in the United States for data related to information for health professionals and potential screeners was conducted. Presentation of eligibility criteria for potential participants and presence of information available specific to the health professionals about lung cancer screening, were the primary outcomes. Secondary outcomes included presentation of information about cost, smoking cessation, and inclusion of an online risk assessment tool, any clinical guidelines and multimedia used to present information. RESULTS Eligibility criteria is included in nearly all websites, with age range (92.1%) and smoking history (93.4%) included. Age was only consistent with the latest recommendations in 14.5% of the websites and no websites had updated smoking history. Half the websites mention screening costs as related to the type of insurance held. About one in six (15%) featured an online assessment tool to determine eligibility. A similar proportion (15%) hosted information specifically for health professionals. About a third (29%) of websites referred to smoking cessation. Almost a third of websites (30.5%) used multimedia to present information, such as short videos or podcasts. CONCLUSIONS Most US websites of lung cancer screening programs provide information about eligibility criteria, but this is not consistent and has not been updated across all websites following the latest USPSTF recommendations. Online resources require updating to present standardized information that is accessible for all.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document