[提高大肠癌筛查依从性策略的有效性:系统综述]。

Pub Date : 2024-01-01
Iñaki M Dopazo Danieli, Manuel Robles, María Belén Bellando, Gonzalo Picardi, Yamila Schenfeld, Ariana Bruzzone, María Eugenia Esandi
{"title":"[提高大肠癌筛查依从性策略的有效性:系统综述]。","authors":"Iñaki M Dopazo Danieli, Manuel Robles, María Belén Bellando, Gonzalo Picardi, Yamila Schenfeld, Ariana Bruzzone, María Eugenia Esandi","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Coverage for colorectal cancer screening in Argentina is very low. The objective of this review is to assess and synthesize the evidence on the effectiveness of strategies aimed at increasing adherence to colorectal cancer screening among healthcare personnel and the general population at average risk.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A review of systematic reviews (SRs) that evaluated the effectiveness of these strategies was conducted. Searches were performed in electronic databases, meta-search engines, the Cochrane Library, and through manual searching. Eligibility and inclusion criteria were applied, with assessment of the quality of the SRs using AMSTAR II and the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. Thematic synthesis was conducted based on the taxonomy of strategies proposed by Dougherty (patient/community-targeted, professionaltargeted, and other types of strategies).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 635 studies were identified, with 36 deemed eligible and 11 excluded due to insufficient quality, resulting in the inclusion of 10 SRs. A multiplicity of strategies with varying effectiveness were identified, with the majority targeting the population. Among these, education, self-testing with specimen collection at specific locations, and reminders stood out. For professionals, only education and reminders showed effectiveness. Combined strategies demonstrated greater effectiveness than isolated strategies.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There is more evidence on strategies targeting the population than professionals. Combined strategies showed greater effectiveness, highlighting the need to explore barriers in both the population and professionals in each specific context in order to prioritize and combine those that have proven effective and would have a greater impact.</p>","PeriodicalId":0,"journal":{"name":"","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2024-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"[Effectiveness of strategies to increase adherence to colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review].\",\"authors\":\"Iñaki M Dopazo Danieli, Manuel Robles, María Belén Bellando, Gonzalo Picardi, Yamila Schenfeld, Ariana Bruzzone, María Eugenia Esandi\",\"doi\":\"\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>Coverage for colorectal cancer screening in Argentina is very low. The objective of this review is to assess and synthesize the evidence on the effectiveness of strategies aimed at increasing adherence to colorectal cancer screening among healthcare personnel and the general population at average risk.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A review of systematic reviews (SRs) that evaluated the effectiveness of these strategies was conducted. Searches were performed in electronic databases, meta-search engines, the Cochrane Library, and through manual searching. Eligibility and inclusion criteria were applied, with assessment of the quality of the SRs using AMSTAR II and the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. Thematic synthesis was conducted based on the taxonomy of strategies proposed by Dougherty (patient/community-targeted, professionaltargeted, and other types of strategies).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>A total of 635 studies were identified, with 36 deemed eligible and 11 excluded due to insufficient quality, resulting in the inclusion of 10 SRs. A multiplicity of strategies with varying effectiveness were identified, with the majority targeting the population. Among these, education, self-testing with specimen collection at specific locations, and reminders stood out. For professionals, only education and reminders showed effectiveness. Combined strategies demonstrated greater effectiveness than isolated strategies.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>There is more evidence on strategies targeting the population than professionals. Combined strategies showed greater effectiveness, highlighting the need to explore barriers in both the population and professionals in each specific context in order to prioritize and combine those that have proven effective and would have a greater impact.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":0,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

导言:阿根廷的大肠癌筛查覆盖率非常低。本综述旨在评估和综合有关旨在提高医护人员和普通高危人群坚持进行结直肠癌筛查的策略有效性的证据:方法:对评估这些策略有效性的系统性综述(SR)进行了回顾。在电子数据库、元搜索引擎、科克伦图书馆中进行了检索,并通过人工检索。采用了资格和纳入标准,并使用 AMSTAR II 评估了 SR 的质量,使用 GRADE 方法评估了证据的确定性。根据道格蒂提出的策略分类法(以患者/社区为目标、以专业人员为目标以及其他类型的策略)进行了专题综合:结果:共确定了 635 项研究,其中 36 项符合条件,11 项因质量不高而被排除,因此纳入了 10 项战略研究。研究发现了多种效果各异的策略,其中大多数以人群为目标。其中,教育、在特定地点采集标本进行自我检测以及提醒等方法最为突出。对于专业人员,只有教育和提醒才显示出效果。综合策略比单独策略更有效:针对人群的策略比针对专业人员的策略有更多的证据。综合策略显示出更大的有效性,突出表明有必要在每种具体情况下探究人群和专业人员的障碍,以便优先考虑并综合那些已被证明有效并将产生更大影响的策略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
分享
[Effectiveness of strategies to increase adherence to colorectal cancer screening: a systematic review].

Introduction: Coverage for colorectal cancer screening in Argentina is very low. The objective of this review is to assess and synthesize the evidence on the effectiveness of strategies aimed at increasing adherence to colorectal cancer screening among healthcare personnel and the general population at average risk.

Methods: A review of systematic reviews (SRs) that evaluated the effectiveness of these strategies was conducted. Searches were performed in electronic databases, meta-search engines, the Cochrane Library, and through manual searching. Eligibility and inclusion criteria were applied, with assessment of the quality of the SRs using AMSTAR II and the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. Thematic synthesis was conducted based on the taxonomy of strategies proposed by Dougherty (patient/community-targeted, professionaltargeted, and other types of strategies).

Results: A total of 635 studies were identified, with 36 deemed eligible and 11 excluded due to insufficient quality, resulting in the inclusion of 10 SRs. A multiplicity of strategies with varying effectiveness were identified, with the majority targeting the population. Among these, education, self-testing with specimen collection at specific locations, and reminders stood out. For professionals, only education and reminders showed effectiveness. Combined strategies demonstrated greater effectiveness than isolated strategies.

Conclusions: There is more evidence on strategies targeting the population than professionals. Combined strategies showed greater effectiveness, highlighting the need to explore barriers in both the population and professionals in each specific context in order to prioritize and combine those that have proven effective and would have a greater impact.

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
×
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