scholarly journals The Impact of mHealth Interventions on Breast Cancer Awareness and Screening: Systematic Review Protocol (Preprint)

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Temitope O Tokosi ◽  
Jill Fortuin ◽  
Tania S Douglas

BACKGROUND Mobile health (mHealth) is the use of mobile communication technologies to promote health by supporting health care practices (eg, health data collection, delivery of health care information). mHealth technologies (such as mobile phones) can be used effectively by health care practitioners in the distribution of health information and have the potential to improve access to and quality of health care, as well as reduce the cost of health services. Current literature shows limited scientific evidence related to the benefits of mHealth interventions for breast cancer, which is the leading cause of cancer deaths in women worldwide and contributes a large proportion of all cancer deaths, especially in developing countries. Women, especially in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), are faced with low odds of surviving breast cancer. This finding is likely due to multiple factors related to health systems: low priority of women’s health and cancer on national health agendas; lack of awareness that breast cancer can be effectively treated if detected early; and societal, cultural, and religious factors that are prevalent in LMICs. The proposed systematic review will examine the impact of mHealth interventions on breast cancer awareness and screening among women aged 18 years and older. OBJECTIVE The objectives of this study are to identify and describe the various mHealth intervention strategies that are used for breast cancer, and assess the impact of mHealth strategies on breast cancer awareness and screening. METHODS Literature from various databases such as MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials will be examined. Trial registers, reports, and unpublished theses will also be included. All mobile technologies such as cell phones, personal digital assistants, and tablets that have short message service, multimedia message service, video, and audio capabilities will be included. mHealth is the primary intervention. The search strategy will include keywords such as “mHealth,” “breast cancer,” “awareness,” and “screening,” among other medical subject heading terms. Articles published from January 1, 1964 to December 31, 2016 will be eligible for inclusion. Two authors will independently screen and select studies, extract data, and assess the risk of bias, with discrepancies resolved by dialogue involving a third author. We will assess statistical heterogeneity by examining the types of participants, interventions, study designs, and outcomes in each study, and pool studies judged to be statistically homogeneous. In the assessment of heterogeneity, a sensitivity analysis will be considered to explore statistical heterogeneity. Statistical heterogeneity will be investigated using the Chi-square test of homogeneity on Cochrane's Q statistic and quantified using the I-squared statistic. RESULTS The search strategy will be refined with the assistance of an information specialist from November 1, 2017 to January 31, 2018. Literature searches will take place from February 2018 to April 2018. Data extraction and capturing in Review Manager (RevMan, Version 5.3) will take place from May 1, 2018 to July 31, 2018. The final stages will include analyses and writing, which is anticipated occur between August 2018 and October 2018. CONCLUSIONS The knowledge derived from this study will inform health care stakeholders, including researchers, policy makers, investors, health professionals, technologists, and engineers, on the impact of mHealth interventions on breast cancer screening and awareness. CLINICALTRIAL Prospero registration number CRD42016050202

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Temitope Oluwaseyi Tokosi ◽  
Michael Twum-Darko

BACKGROUND Mobile Health CrowdSensing (MHCS) involves the use of mobile communication technologies to promote health by supporting health care practices (e.g., health data collection, delivery of health care information, or patient observation and provision of care. MHCS technologies (e.g. smartphones) have sensory capabilities such as GPS, voice, light and camera to collect user-centred data (explicit and implicit), analyse and share. Current literature indicates no scientific study related to MHCS interventions for chronic diseases. Cancer for example, has contributed to a large proportion of global deaths in every country, irrespective of their developmental status. The proposed systematic review will examine the impact of MHCS interventions on chronic diseases awareness. OBJECTIVE The objectives of this study are to identify and describe various MHCS intervention strategies applied to chronic diseases awareness. METHODS Literature from various databases such as MEDLINE, EMBASE, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials will be examined. Trial registers, reports, grey literature and unpublished academic theses will also be included. All mobile technologies such as cell phones, personal digital assistants, and tablets that have short message service, multimedia message service, video, and audio capabilities will be included. MHCS is the primary intervention strategy. The search strategy will include keywords such as “mHealth,” “CrowdSensing,” and “awareness”, among other medical subject heading terms. Articles published from January 1, 1945 to December 31, 2019 will be eligible for inclusion. The authors will independently screen and select studies, extract data, and assess the risk of bias, with discrepancies resolved by an independent party not involved in the study. The authors will assess statistical heterogeneity by examining the types of participants, interventions, study designs, and outcomes in each study, and pool studies judged to be statistically homogeneous. In the assessment of heterogeneity, a sensitivity analysis will be considered to explore statistical heterogeneity. Statistical heterogeneity will be investigated using the Chi-square test of homogeneity on Cochrane's Q statistic, and quantified using the I-squared statistic. RESULTS The preliminary search query found one paper. Further literature search commenced in mid-October 2020 and will conclude on December 2020. The proposed systematic review protocol has been registered in Prospero (CRD42020161435). Furthermore, it was found that the use of search data extraction and capturing in Review Manager (RevMan, Version 5.3) will commence from beginning of January 2021 to the end of February 2021. The final stages will include analyses and writing, which is anticipated to start and be completed in March 2021. CONCLUSIONS The knowledge derived from this study will inform healthcare stakeholders, including researchers, policy-makers, investors, health professionals, technologists, and engineers, on the impact of MHCS interventions on chronic diseases awareness. CLINICALTRIAL Prospero CRD42020161435


2006 ◽  
Vol 101 (1) ◽  
pp. 95-104 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter A. Fasching ◽  
Gunter von Minckwitz ◽  
Thorsten Fischer ◽  
Manfred Kaufmann ◽  
Beate Schultz-Zehden ◽  
...  

BMJ Open ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (11) ◽  
pp. e040282
Author(s):  
Zhiyuan Jiang ◽  
Zhaolun Cai ◽  
Yuan Yin ◽  
Chaoyong Shen ◽  
Jinming Huang ◽  
...  

IntroductionGenerally, complete resection with cancer cell negative (R0) margin has been accepted as the most effective treatment of gastric cancer and positive resection (R1/R2) margin has been associated with decreased survival to varied degrees. However, the independent impact of microscopical positive (R1) margin on long-term survival may be confounded. No meta-analysis has worked at the association between R1 margin and outcomes of gastric cancer and the available evidence are scant. Therefore, we plan to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to quantitatively explore the role of R1 margin on gastric (including oesophagogastric junction) cancer survival after curative intent resection.Methods and analysisThe protocol was conducted according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols guideline. A systematic search of PubMed, Embase and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases will be performed from their inceptions to 30 April 2020 to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs), cohort studies and case–control studies focusing on the impact of R1 margin on survival of gastric cancer after curative intent resection. The primary outcome will be the overall survival (OS) and disease-free survival (DFS) and the secondary outcomes will be 5-year OS rate and 5-year DFS rate. The Cochrane tool for bias assessment in randomised trials and Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies-I for the assessment of bias in non-randomised studies (NRS) will be used. Statistical heterogeneity will be assessed by visual inspection of forest plots and measured using the I2 statistics. A fixed-effect model will be used when heterogeneity is low, otherwise, a random-effect model will be chosen. Publication bias will be assessed by funnel plots, subgroup analysis and sensitivity analysis will be performed in the right context. For each outcome, we will perform data synthesis separately for RCTs and NRS using Rev Man V.5.3 software and compile ‘summary of findings’ tables separately for RCTs and NRS using GRADEpro software. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluations considerations will also be used to make an overall assessment of the quality of evidence.Ethics and disseminationThere is no requirement for ethics approval because no patient data will be collected at an individual level in this systematic review and meta-analysis.The results of this systematic review will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at relevant conferences, any deviations from the protocol will be clearly documented and explained in its final report.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42020165110.


2015 ◽  
Vol 2 (29) ◽  
pp. 4201-4208 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tejaswi Vittal Pujar ◽  
Gayathri Linganagouda ◽  
Seema Benakanakondi ◽  
Linganagouda Patil ◽  
Sathyanand A ◽  
...  

2013 ◽  
Vol 134 (4) ◽  
pp. 913-924 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marisa Mena ◽  
Beatrice Wiafe-Addai ◽  
Catherine Sauvaget ◽  
Ibrahim A. Ali ◽  
Seth A. Wiafe ◽  
...  

F1000Research ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. 1041
Author(s):  
Anggie Ramírez-Morera ◽  
Mario Tristan ◽  
Juan Carlos Vazquez

Background: The development of evidence-based clinical practice guidelines (EB-CPGs) has increasing global growth; however, the certainty of impact on patients and health systems, as well as the magnitude of the impact, is not apparent. The objective of this systematic review was to assess the effectiveness of the application of EB-CPGs for the improvement of the quality of health care in three dimensions: structure, process and results in the patient for the management of cardiovascular disease. Methods: We followed the methods described by the Cochrane Handbook and present a descriptive analysis because of the high heterogeneity found across the included studies. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE and EMBASE databases, as well as the grey literature, between 1990 and June 2016. No language restrictions were applied. Only randomised clinical trials (RCTs) were selected. Three authors independently carried out the data extraction, using a modified version of the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care form. Results: Of the total of 84 interventions included in the nine RCTs evaluated, three (4%) were related to health care structure, 54 (64%) to the health care delivery process and 27 (32%) to patient outcomes. Regarding the impact of using the EB-CPGs, in 55 interventions (65%), there were no significant differences between control and experimental groups. In four interventions (5%), the result favoured the control group, and the result favoured the intervention group on 25 of the interventions (30%). Conclusions: This systematic review showed that EB-CPGs could be useful to improve the process and structure of health care and, to a lesser extent, to improve the patients’ outcomes. After analysing many studies, we could have one more hypothesis for further research, which could shed more light upon those undiscovered variables that might interfere with the use of the EB-CPGs. Registration: PROSPERO CRD42013003589


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document