有症状人群进行粪便免疫化学检测的障碍和促进因素:快速系统范围审查和差距分析

IF 2.1 4区 医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Sienna Hamer‐Kiwacz, Hannah Berntsson, George Galloway, Ann‐Marie Tran, Jia Yun Tan, Daniel Hind, Matthew Kurien
{"title":"有症状人群进行粪便免疫化学检测的障碍和促进因素:快速系统范围审查和差距分析","authors":"Sienna Hamer‐Kiwacz, Hannah Berntsson, George Galloway, Ann‐Marie Tran, Jia Yun Tan, Daniel Hind, Matthew Kurien","doi":"10.1111/jep.14120","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"AimFaecal immunochemical testing (FIT) is used to triage people with signs or symptoms of a colorectal cancer (CRC). Recent guidelines have recommended further research to improve access, uptake and return of FIT. This systematic scoping review aims to understand the barriers and facilitators to FIT testing in symptomatic patients.MethodQualitative, quantitative and mixed‐methods studies published after September 2013 were included. MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO databases were searched to identify publications examining barriers and facilitators to FIT. Initially, the data underwent thematic analysis, and subsequently, factors were aligned to components of the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, Behaviour model. All outcomes are presented in adherence to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses guidelines.ResultsOne thousand two hundred thirty‐two papers were identified; 11 met the inclusion criteria. Barriers and facilitators were identified at the patient (e.g., knowledge), provider (e.g., general practitioner awareness) and service level (e.g., method of providing FIT kits). Factors were categorised into the subcomponents of the model: psychological capability (e.g., lack of FIT knowledge), reflective motivation (e.g., beliefs regarding FIT sampling and faeces being unhygienic) and automatic motivation (e.g., embarrassment, scary, anxiety provoking). Gaps in knowledge emerged in three domains: (1) patient experience, (2) FIT pathway and (3) healthcare professionals experience of FIT.ConclusionThis systematic scoping review provides a summary of the literature on FIT uptake, and identified factors across multiple levels and components. To increase adherence to FIT completion within primary care, a multifaceted theory and evidence‐based approach is needed to underpin future behavioural science interventions.","PeriodicalId":15997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Barriers and facilitators to faecal immunochemical testing in symptomatic populations: A rapid systematic scoping review and gap analysis\",\"authors\":\"Sienna Hamer‐Kiwacz, Hannah Berntsson, George Galloway, Ann‐Marie Tran, Jia Yun Tan, Daniel Hind, Matthew Kurien\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/jep.14120\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"AimFaecal immunochemical testing (FIT) is used to triage people with signs or symptoms of a colorectal cancer (CRC). Recent guidelines have recommended further research to improve access, uptake and return of FIT. This systematic scoping review aims to understand the barriers and facilitators to FIT testing in symptomatic patients.MethodQualitative, quantitative and mixed‐methods studies published after September 2013 were included. MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO databases were searched to identify publications examining barriers and facilitators to FIT. Initially, the data underwent thematic analysis, and subsequently, factors were aligned to components of the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, Behaviour model. All outcomes are presented in adherence to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses guidelines.ResultsOne thousand two hundred thirty‐two papers were identified; 11 met the inclusion criteria. Barriers and facilitators were identified at the patient (e.g., knowledge), provider (e.g., general practitioner awareness) and service level (e.g., method of providing FIT kits). Factors were categorised into the subcomponents of the model: psychological capability (e.g., lack of FIT knowledge), reflective motivation (e.g., beliefs regarding FIT sampling and faeces being unhygienic) and automatic motivation (e.g., embarrassment, scary, anxiety provoking). Gaps in knowledge emerged in three domains: (1) patient experience, (2) FIT pathway and (3) healthcare professionals experience of FIT.ConclusionThis systematic scoping review provides a summary of the literature on FIT uptake, and identified factors across multiple levels and components. To increase adherence to FIT completion within primary care, a multifaceted theory and evidence‐based approach is needed to underpin future behavioural science interventions.\",\"PeriodicalId\":15997,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-09-18\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.14120\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/jep.14120","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的粪便免疫化学检验 (FIT) 用于对有大肠癌 (CRC) 体征或症状的人进行分流。最近的指南建议开展进一步研究,以提高 FIT 的使用率、接受率和回报率。本系统性范围界定综述旨在了解有症状患者进行 FIT 检测的障碍和促进因素。方法纳入 2013 年 9 月之后发表的定性、定量和混合方法研究。检索了 MEDLINE、EMBASE 和 PsycINFO 数据库,以确定研究 FIT 的障碍和促进因素的出版物。首先,对数据进行了主题分析,随后将各因素与能力、机会、动机、行为模型的组成部分进行了比对。所有结果均按照《系统综述和荟萃分析首选报告项目》指南进行表述。从患者(如知识)、提供者(如全科医生的意识)和服务层面(如提供 FIT 工具包的方法)确定了障碍和促进因素。这些因素被归类为该模型的子要素:心理能力(如缺乏 FIT 知识)、反思动机(如对 FIT 采样和粪便不卫生的看法)和自动动机(如尴尬、害怕、焦虑)。在以下三个领域出现了知识空白:(1)患者体验;(2)FIT 途径;(3)医护人员的 FIT 体验。为了提高基层医疗机构完成 FIT 的依从性,需要采用多方面的理论和循证方法来支持未来的行为科学干预措施。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Barriers and facilitators to faecal immunochemical testing in symptomatic populations: A rapid systematic scoping review and gap analysis
AimFaecal immunochemical testing (FIT) is used to triage people with signs or symptoms of a colorectal cancer (CRC). Recent guidelines have recommended further research to improve access, uptake and return of FIT. This systematic scoping review aims to understand the barriers and facilitators to FIT testing in symptomatic patients.MethodQualitative, quantitative and mixed‐methods studies published after September 2013 were included. MEDLINE, EMBASE and PsycINFO databases were searched to identify publications examining barriers and facilitators to FIT. Initially, the data underwent thematic analysis, and subsequently, factors were aligned to components of the Capability, Opportunity, Motivation, Behaviour model. All outcomes are presented in adherence to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta‐Analyses guidelines.ResultsOne thousand two hundred thirty‐two papers were identified; 11 met the inclusion criteria. Barriers and facilitators were identified at the patient (e.g., knowledge), provider (e.g., general practitioner awareness) and service level (e.g., method of providing FIT kits). Factors were categorised into the subcomponents of the model: psychological capability (e.g., lack of FIT knowledge), reflective motivation (e.g., beliefs regarding FIT sampling and faeces being unhygienic) and automatic motivation (e.g., embarrassment, scary, anxiety provoking). Gaps in knowledge emerged in three domains: (1) patient experience, (2) FIT pathway and (3) healthcare professionals experience of FIT.ConclusionThis systematic scoping review provides a summary of the literature on FIT uptake, and identified factors across multiple levels and components. To increase adherence to FIT completion within primary care, a multifaceted theory and evidence‐based approach is needed to underpin future behavioural science interventions.
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
CiteScore
4.80
自引率
4.20%
发文量
143
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice aims to promote the evaluation and development of clinical practice across medicine, nursing and the allied health professions. All aspects of health services research and public health policy analysis and debate are of interest to the Journal whether studied from a population-based or individual patient-centred perspective. Of particular interest to the Journal are submissions on all aspects of clinical effectiveness and efficiency including evidence-based medicine, clinical practice guidelines, clinical decision making, clinical services organisation, implementation and delivery, health economic evaluation, health process and outcome measurement and new or improved methods (conceptual and statistical) for systematic inquiry into clinical practice. Papers may take a classical quantitative or qualitative approach to investigation (or may utilise both techniques) or may take the form of learned essays, structured/systematic reviews and critiques.
×
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