Journal of Medical Screening最新文献

{"title":"Did the use of open invitations in place of timed appointment invitations reduce the uptake of breast screening in the London region during the COVID-19 recovery?","authors":"Sue M Hudson, Kathie Binysh, Stephen W Duffy","doi":"10.1177/09691413221127583","DOIUrl":"10.1177/09691413221127583","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The Covid-19 pandemic created a backlog of women awaiting an invitation for breast screening in the UK. To recover in a timely fashion, the National Health Service programme opted to issue open invitations (OI) to women rather than the standard pre-booked timed appointments (TA). Historically, OIs have been shown to result in lower uptake. The aim of this study was to make use of a natural experiment to compare uptake in groups sent an OI with those sent a TA during a period when both invitation methods were in use.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Women invited for routine screening at one of the six London breast screening services from September 2020 to March 2021 were included and grouped according to the type of invitation they had received (TA or OI). The outcome was attendance within 6 months of opening the screening episode. Data were analysed by logistic regression.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>During the period of the study, 78,192 (32.5%) women received a TA and 162,680 (67.5%) received an OI. In the TA group, 47,391 (60.6%) attended within six months of offered appointment and in the OI group 86,430 (53.1%) attended. This difference was significant (<i>p</i> < 0.001). The odds ratio (95% CI) for the attended outcome was 1.44 (1.33-1.55) adjusted for differences in deprivation and for invitation category (first invitation or subsequent invitation).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study supports the view that TA delivers a higher uptake than OI. It suggests that during this period over 12,000 women in London, who would have been expected to attend if given the standard TA, did not attend their appointment having received an OI.</p>","PeriodicalId":51089,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Screening","volume":"30 2","pages":"87-91"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9554567/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9650176","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Guidance on terminology.","authors":"Nicholas J Wald","doi":"10.1177/09691413231163128","DOIUrl":"10.1177/09691413231163128","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51089,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Screening","volume":"30 2","pages":"53-54"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9487668","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Availability of data for cost-effectiveness comparison of child vision and hearing screening programmes.","authors":"Jan Kik,&nbsp;Eveline A M Heijnsdijk,&nbsp;Allison R Mackey,&nbsp;Gwen Carr,&nbsp;Anna M Horwood,&nbsp;Maria Fronius,&nbsp;Jill Carlton,&nbsp;Helen J Griffiths,&nbsp;Inger M Uhlén,&nbsp;Huibert Jan Simonsz","doi":"10.1177/09691413221126677","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09691413221126677","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>For cost-effectiveness comparison of child vision and hearing screening programmes, methods and data should be available. We assessed the current state of data collection and its availability in Europe.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The EUSCREEN Questionnaire, conducted in 2017-2018, assessed paediatric vision and hearing screening programmes in 45 countries in Europe. For the current study, its items on data collection, monitoring and evaluation, and six of eleven items essential for cost-effectiveness analysis: prevalence, sensitivity, specificity, coverage, attendance and loss to follow-up, were reappraised with an additional questionnaire.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The practice of data collection in vision screening was reported in 36% (N = 42) of countries and in hearing screening in 81% (N = 43); collected data were published in 12% and 35%, respectively. Procedures for quality assurance in vision screening were reported in 19% and in hearing screening in 26%, research of screening effectiveness in 43% and 47%, whereas cost-effectiveness analysis was performed in 12% for both. Data on prevalence of amblyopia were reported in 40% and of hearing loss in 77%, on sensitivity of screening tests in 17% and 14%, on their specificity in 19% and 21%, on coverage of screening in 40% and 84%, on attendance in 21% and 37%, and on loss to follow-up in 12% and 40%, respectively.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Data collection is insufficient in hearing screening and even more so in vision screening: data essential for cost-effectiveness comparison could not be reported from most countries. When collection takes place, this is mostly at a local level for quality assurance or accountability, and data are often not accessible. The resulting inability to compare cost-effectiveness among screening programmes perpetuates their diversity and inefficiency.</p>","PeriodicalId":51089,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Screening","volume":"30 2","pages":"62-68"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/20/66/10.1177_09691413221126677.PMC10149880.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9662610","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on colorectal cancer screening in New York City.","authors":"Briton Lee,&nbsp;Sigrid Young,&nbsp;Renee Williams,&nbsp;Peter S Liang","doi":"10.1177/09691413221128666","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09691413221128666","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The COVID-19 pandemic significantly impacted the delivery of cancer screening. The resulting decrease in outpatient visits and cancellations of non-urgent procedures have negatively affected colorectal cancer (CRC) screening. We aimed to determine the effect of the pandemic on CRC screening at a safety-net hospital and a private health system based in New York City.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We identified individuals eligible for CRC screening aged 50 to 75 years presenting for outpatient care at a safety-net public hospital and private health system in April through September of 2019 and 2020. The primary outcome was the proportion of screening-eligible patients seen in primary care who underwent CRC screening.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The safety-net hospital had 516 (6.1% of screening-eligible individuals) and 269 (4.3%) screening tests completed in 2019 and 2020, respectively (p < 0.01). Fecal immunochemical tests (FIT) accounted for 69.6% of screening in 2019 and 88.1% in 2020. Colonoscopy accounted for 20.3% of screening in 2019 and 11.9% in 2020. The private health system had 39 (0.7%) and 21 (0.6%) screening tests completed in 2019 and 2020, respectively (p = 0.48). FIT accounted for 61.9% of screening in 2019 and 57.1% in 2020. Colonoscopy accounted for 38.1% of screening in 2019 and 42.9% in 2020.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Absolute numbers of screening tests decreased for both institutions during the COVID-19 pandemic. We observed a decrease in screening uptake and increase in proportional FIT use in the safety-net hospital but no change in the private health system.</p>","PeriodicalId":51089,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Screening","volume":"30 2","pages":"81-86"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9513512/pdf/10.1177_09691413221128666.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9712666","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Estimating stage-specific sensitivity for cancer screening tests.","authors":"Paul Pinsky, Jane Lange, Ruth Etzioni","doi":"10.1177/09691413231154801","DOIUrl":"10.1177/09691413231154801","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>When evaluating potential new cancer screening modalities, estimating sensitivity, especially for early-stage cases, is critical. There are methods to approximate stage-specific sensitivity in asymptomatic populations, both in the prospective (active screening) and retrospective (stored specimens) scenarios. We explored their validity via a simulation study.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We fit natural history models to lung and ovarian cancer screening data that permitted estimation of stage-specific (early/late) true sensitivity, defined as the probability subjects screened in the given stage had positive tests. We then ran simulations, using the fitted models, of the prospective and retrospective scenarios. Prospective sensitivity by stage was estimated as screen-detected divided by screen-plus interval-detected cancers, where stage is defined as stage at detection. Retrospective sensitivity by stage was estimated based on cancers detected within specified windows before clinical diagnosis with stage defined as stage at clinical diagnosis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Stage-specific true sensitivities estimated by the lung cancer natural history model were 47% (early) and 63% (late). Simulation results for the prospective setting gave estimated sensitivities of 81% (early) versus 62% (late). In the retrospective scenario, early/late sensitivity estimates were 35%/57% (1-year window) and 27%/49% (2-year window). In the prospective scenario, most subjects with negative early-stage screens presented as other than early-stage interval cases. Results were similar for ovarian cancer, with estimated prospective sensitivity much greater than true sensitivity for early stage, 84% versus 25%.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Existing methods for approximating stage-specific sensitivity in both prospective and retrospective scenarios are unsatisfactory; improvements are needed before they can be considered to be reliable.</p>","PeriodicalId":51089,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Screening","volume":"30 2","pages":"69-73"},"PeriodicalIF":2.6,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10245292/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9712718","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Couple screening for recessively inherited disorders.","authors":"Silvina Sisterna,&nbsp;Antoni Borrell","doi":"10.1177/09691413221137039","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09691413221137039","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Couple screening aims to identify couples with an increased risk of having a child affected with an autosomal recessive or X-linked disorder, in order to facilitate informed reproductive decision making. Both expectant parents should be screened as a single entity, instead of individual testing. Carrier testing was typically performed for a few relatively common recessive disorders associated with significant morbidity, reduced life expectancy and often because of a considerably higher carrier frequency in a specific population for certain diseases. However, new genetic testing technologies enable the expansion of screening to multiple conditions, genes and sequence variants. There are multiple reproductive options for screening couples at risk, particularly when genetic traits are detected in the preconception period.</p>","PeriodicalId":51089,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Screening","volume":"30 2","pages":"55-61"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9650184","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"\"It's cancer screening after all\". Barriers to cervical and colorectal cancer screening and attitudes to promotion of self-sampling kits upon attendance for breast cancer screening.","authors":"Pia Kirkegaard,&nbsp;Mette Bach Larsen,&nbsp;Berit Andersen","doi":"10.1177/09691413221137852","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09691413221137852","url":null,"abstract":"Objectives To explore barriers to cervical and colorectal cancer screening and attitudes to promotion of self-sampling kits upon attendance for breast cancer screening. Methods Interview study with women who had not responded to one or more invitations to cervical or colorectal cancer screening. A semi-structured interview guide was used and interviews were audio recorded and transcribed verbatim. Concepts from Temporal Motivation Theory were used to structure and analyse the data. Results Twenty-two women were interviewed. Screening was highly valued but the women perceived screening for cervical cancer and colorectal cancer as more troublesome to participate in, compared with participation in breast cancer screening. The lack of a pre-booked appointment or a suggested deadline attenuated the perceived value of cervical and colorectal cancer screening and this further increased procrastination. Promotion of self-sampling kits for cervical and colorectal cancer screening upon attendance for breast cancer screening was considered a feasible way to increase salience of both types of screening. Conclusion A high number of micro steps and absence of a deadline in cervical and colorectal cancer screening diverted attention away from screening participation in cervical and colorectal cancer screening. The main facilitator could be reduction of micro actions, proposing a suggested deadline, and promotion of self-sampling kits when attending breast cancer screening to increase salience and a renewed attention to all three screening programmes.","PeriodicalId":51089,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Screening","volume":"30 2","pages":"74-80"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/36/ba/10.1177_09691413221137852.PMC10149879.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9712700","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Factors associated with women's supplemental screening intentions following dense breast notification in an online randomised experimental study.","authors":"Brooke Nickel,&nbsp;Hankiz Dolan,&nbsp;Nehmat Houssami,&nbsp;Erin Cvejic,&nbsp;Meagan Brennan,&nbsp;Jolyn Hersch,&nbsp;Melanie Dorrington,&nbsp;Angela Verde,&nbsp;Lisa Vaccaro,&nbsp;Kirsten McCaffery","doi":"10.1177/09691413221125320","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09691413221125320","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Controversy surrounding recommendations for supplemental screening (ultrasound and magnetic resonance screening) in women with dense breasts exists, as the long-term benefits from these additional modalities may not outweigh the harms. This study aimed to examine factors associated with supplemental screening intentions following a hypothetical breast density notification in a population of women who have not been routinely notified. Australian women of breast screening age participated in an online randomised experimental study where they were presented with one of two breast density notifications (with or without health literacy-sensitive information) and asked their screening intentions. After adjusting for covariates in multivariable analyses, women in both groups (n = 940) who indicated higher levels of breast cancer worry, had private health insurance, had a family history of breast cancer, and had a greater number of times previously attending mammography screening had higher intentions for supplemental screening. Understanding women's supplemental screening intentions following notification of dense breasts has important implications for health systems with breast screening considering the impacts of widespread notification. Personal, clinical and psychological factors should be considered when discussing both the benefits and harms of supplemental screening with women with dense breasts.</p>","PeriodicalId":51089,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Screening","volume":"30 2","pages":"92-95"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2023-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9656202","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Interval cancer audit and disclosure in breast screening programmes: An international survey.","authors":"Patricia Fitzpatrick,&nbsp;Helen Byrne,&nbsp;Fidelma Flanagan,&nbsp;Ann O'Doherty,&nbsp;Alissa Connors,&nbsp;Aideen Larke,&nbsp;Risteard O'Laoide,&nbsp;Yvonne Williams,&nbsp;Therese Mooney","doi":"10.1177/09691413221122014","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09691413221122014","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective and setting: </strong>Accurate monitoring of interval cancers is important both for quality improvement and education and is a key parameter of breast screening quality assurance. Issues in relation to communication regarding interval cervical cancer in the Irish cervical screening programme were found, prompting interval cancer process review in all cancer screening programmes. An international survey to examine international consensus on interval breast cancer audit processes was conducted to inform Irish processes.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A survey of 24 international population-based breast screening programmes was done to determine which undertook audit of interval breast cancer; if yes, they were asked (1) how they undertake audit, (2) if they obtain individual consent for audit and inform women of audit results, and (3) if disclosure of audit results occurs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Response was 71% (17/24). Of these, 71% (12/17) have a programmatic audit process to calculate the interval cancer rate (ICR). Of these, ten also carry out radiological reviews, three using a blinded review. Two inform patients that audit is taking place; two provide choice to be in the audit; nine state that routine screening consent covers audit. For two of the five that have an open disclosure policy for medical incidents, this policy applies to screening interval cancers. One other country/region has an open disclosure policy for category 3 interval cancers only. Five have legal protection for interval cancers arising in the screened population.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>While consistency in providing aggregate programmatic audits exists, there is no consistent approach to individual interval cancer reviews or results disclosure.</p>","PeriodicalId":51089,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Screening","volume":"30 1","pages":"36-41"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/79/a7/10.1177_09691413221122014.PMC9925906.pdf","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9299735","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Thanks to reviewers.","authors":"","doi":"10.1177/09691413231154697","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1177/09691413231154697","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":51089,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Screening","volume":"30 1","pages":"51"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9,"publicationDate":"2023-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"9229648","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}