Melissa Brouwers|Carol De Vito|Lavannya Bahirathan|A Carol|June C. Carroll|Michelle Cotterchio|Maureen Dobbins|Barbara Lent|Cheryl Levitt|Nancy Lewis|S. Elizabeth McGregor|Lawrence Paszat|Carol Rand|Nadine Wathen
What implementation interventions increase cancer screening rates? a systematic review
Cancer Care Ontario|Cancer Care Ontario|McMaster University|University of Toronto|Mount Sinai Hospital|Cancer Care Ontario|McMaster University|Western University|McMaster University|Cancer Care Ontario|Alberta Health Services|University of Toronto|Western University
appropriate screening may reduce mortality morbidity colorectal breast cervical cancers however effective implementation strategies warranted full benefits screening realized part larger agenda create implementation guideline conducted systematic review evaluate interventions designed increase rate breast cervical colorectal cancer crc screening interventions considered client reminders client incentives mass media small media group education oneonone education reduction structural barriers reduction outofpocket costs provider assessment feedback interventions provider incentives primary outcome screening completion calculated overall median postintervention absolute percentage point pp change completed screening testsour first step conduct iterative scoping review research area yielded three relevant highquality systematic reviews serving evidentiary foundation conducted formal update randomized controlled trials cluster randomized controlled trials published 2004 2010 searched medline embase psychinfothe update yielded 66 studies new eligible studies 74 comparisons new studies ranged considerably quality client reminders small media provider audit feedback appear effective interventions increase uptake screening three cancers oneonone education reduction structural barriers also appears effective roles crc cervical screening respectively less established study required assess client incentives mass media group education reduction outofpocket costs provider incentive interventionsthe new evidence generally aligns evidence conclusions original systematic reviews review served evidentiary foundation implementation guideline poor reporting lack precision consistency defining operational elements insufficient consideration context differences among populations areas additional research