减少癌症筛查方案中健康不公平的视频干预:系统回顾。

IF 3.2 3区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Afua Richardson-Parry, Mitchell Silva, Jose Maria Valderas, Shaantanu Donde, Seth Woodruff, Joris van Vugt
{"title":"减少癌症筛查方案中健康不公平的视频干预:系统回顾。","authors":"Afua Richardson-Parry, Mitchell Silva, Jose Maria Valderas, Shaantanu Donde, Seth Woodruff, Joris van Vugt","doi":"10.1007/s40615-023-01749-5","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Health equity can lead to disparities in cancer screening, treatment, and mortality. This systematic review aims to identify and describe interventions that used video or DVD formats to reduce health inequity in cancer screening and review the effectiveness of such interventions in increasing screening rates compared to usual care conditions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane databases for randomized control trials (RCTs) published until 18/01/2023 that compared intervention versus usual care control groups, with the percentage of cancer screening uptake during follow-up as an outcome. The risk of Bias was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration tool.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After screening 4201 abstracts, 192 full texts were assessed for eligibility and 18 were included that focused on colorectal (n = 9), cervical (n = 5), breast (n = 5), and prostate (n = 1) cancer screening. All were based in the USA except one and most focused on ethnicity/race, while some included low-income populations. Most of the video interventions used to increase cervical cancer screening reported positive results. Studies aimed at increasing mammography uptake were mostly effective only in specific groups of participants, such as low-income or less-educated African American women. Results for colorectal cancer screening were conflicting. Videos that were culturally tailored or used emotive format were generally more effective than information-only videos.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Video interventions to increase cancer screening among populations with low screening uptake show some positive effects, though results are mixed. Interventions that use individual and cultural tailoring of the educational material should be further developed and investigated outside of the USA.</p>","PeriodicalId":16921,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11480155/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Video Interventions for Reducing Health Inequity in Cancer Screening Programmes: a Systematic Review.\",\"authors\":\"Afua Richardson-Parry, Mitchell Silva, Jose Maria Valderas, Shaantanu Donde, Seth Woodruff, Joris van Vugt\",\"doi\":\"10.1007/s40615-023-01749-5\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Health equity can lead to disparities in cancer screening, treatment, and mortality. This systematic review aims to identify and describe interventions that used video or DVD formats to reduce health inequity in cancer screening and review the effectiveness of such interventions in increasing screening rates compared to usual care conditions.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane databases for randomized control trials (RCTs) published until 18/01/2023 that compared intervention versus usual care control groups, with the percentage of cancer screening uptake during follow-up as an outcome. The risk of Bias was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration tool.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>After screening 4201 abstracts, 192 full texts were assessed for eligibility and 18 were included that focused on colorectal (n = 9), cervical (n = 5), breast (n = 5), and prostate (n = 1) cancer screening. All were based in the USA except one and most focused on ethnicity/race, while some included low-income populations. Most of the video interventions used to increase cervical cancer screening reported positive results. Studies aimed at increasing mammography uptake were mostly effective only in specific groups of participants, such as low-income or less-educated African American women. Results for colorectal cancer screening were conflicting. Videos that were culturally tailored or used emotive format were generally more effective than information-only videos.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Video interventions to increase cancer screening among populations with low screening uptake show some positive effects, though results are mixed. Interventions that use individual and cultural tailoring of the educational material should be further developed and investigated outside of the USA.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16921,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11480155/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40615-023-01749-5\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/8/21 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s40615-023-01749-5","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/8/21 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:健康公平可能导致癌症筛查、治疗和死亡率的差异。这项系统审查旨在确定和描述使用视频或DVD格式的干预措施,以减少癌症筛查中的健康不平等,并审查与常规护理条件相比,此类干预措施在提高筛查率方面的有效性。方法:我们在PubMed、Web of Science、Embase和Cochrane数据库中搜索了截至2023年1月18日发布的随机对照试验(RCT),这些试验比较了干预组和常规护理对照组,并以随访期间癌症筛查率为结果。使用Cochrane协作工具评估偏倚的风险。结果:在筛选了4201篇摘要后,192篇全文被评估为合格,18篇集中在结直肠(n = 9) ,子宫颈(n = 5) ,胸部(n = 5) ,和前列腺(n = 1) 癌症筛查。除一人外,所有人都在美国,大多数人关注种族,而一些人则包括低收入人群。大多数用于增加癌症筛查的视频干预报告了阳性结果。旨在提高乳房X光检查吸收率的研究大多只对特定的参与者群体有效,例如低收入或教育程度较低的非裔美国妇女。结直肠癌癌症筛查结果相互矛盾。文化定制或使用情感格式的视频通常比纯信息视频更有效。结论:在筛查率较低的人群中,视频干预增加癌症筛查显示出一些积极效果,尽管结果喜忧参半。应在美国境外进一步开发和调查使用教育材料的个人和文化定制的干预措施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Video Interventions for Reducing Health Inequity in Cancer Screening Programmes: a Systematic Review.

Background: Health equity can lead to disparities in cancer screening, treatment, and mortality. This systematic review aims to identify and describe interventions that used video or DVD formats to reduce health inequity in cancer screening and review the effectiveness of such interventions in increasing screening rates compared to usual care conditions.

Methods: We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane databases for randomized control trials (RCTs) published until 18/01/2023 that compared intervention versus usual care control groups, with the percentage of cancer screening uptake during follow-up as an outcome. The risk of Bias was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration tool.

Results: After screening 4201 abstracts, 192 full texts were assessed for eligibility and 18 were included that focused on colorectal (n = 9), cervical (n = 5), breast (n = 5), and prostate (n = 1) cancer screening. All were based in the USA except one and most focused on ethnicity/race, while some included low-income populations. Most of the video interventions used to increase cervical cancer screening reported positive results. Studies aimed at increasing mammography uptake were mostly effective only in specific groups of participants, such as low-income or less-educated African American women. Results for colorectal cancer screening were conflicting. Videos that were culturally tailored or used emotive format were generally more effective than information-only videos.

Conclusions: Video interventions to increase cancer screening among populations with low screening uptake show some positive effects, though results are mixed. Interventions that use individual and cultural tailoring of the educational material should be further developed and investigated outside of the USA.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities
Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
7.30
自引率
5.10%
发文量
263
期刊介绍: Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities reports on the scholarly progress of work to understand, address, and ultimately eliminate health disparities based on race and ethnicity. Efforts to explore underlying causes of health disparities and to describe interventions that have been undertaken to address racial and ethnic health disparities are featured. Promising studies that are ongoing or studies that have longer term data are welcome, as are studies that serve as lessons for best practices in eliminating health disparities. Original research, systematic reviews, and commentaries presenting the state-of-the-art thinking on problems centered on health disparities will be considered for publication. We particularly encourage review articles that generate innovative and testable ideas, and constructive discussions and/or critiques of health disparities.Because the Journal of Racial and Ethnic Health Disparities receives a large number of submissions, about 30% of submissions to the Journal are sent out for full peer review.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信