数字健康干预对结直肠癌筛查的吸收:范围审查。

IF 7.7
PLOS digital health Pub Date : 2025-09-25 eCollection Date: 2025-09-01 DOI:10.1371/journal.pdig.0001028
Sujin Kim, Andrew J Whipkey, Jihye Bae, Avinash Bhakta
{"title":"数字健康干预对结直肠癌筛查的吸收:范围审查。","authors":"Sujin Kim, Andrew J Whipkey, Jihye Bae, Avinash Bhakta","doi":"10.1371/journal.pdig.0001028","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Digital health interventions (DHIs) are increasingly employed to improve colorectal cancer (CRC) screening uptake, yet comprehensive syntheses of their effectiveness across diverse contexts remain scarce. This scoping review examines how individual, contextual, technological, and timing-related factors shape CRC screening outcomes in DHI-based trials. Following PRISMA-ScR guidelines, we conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov from March 1 to April 20, 2024, identifying 4,523 records through databases and an additional 2,039 through backward citation tracking. After deduplication and screening, 51 studies were included and charted using the PICOT (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, and Timing) framework. Included studies spanned urban health systems, rural community clinics, and Federally Qualified Health Centers in the United States, Europe, Asia, and Australia, with intervention durations ranging from six weeks to ten years. Keyword co-occurrence mapping revealed four thematic domains: (1) patient-centered technology and adherence, (2) behavioral design and personalization, (3) clinical workflow and provider interaction, and (4) equity, disparities, and community engagement. Findings showed that tailored telephone outreach, mailed fecal immunochemical testing combined with navigation support, EMR-based automated reminders, and mobile applications delivering personalized education increased screening rates by 20.9% to 37.7% compared with conventional approaches. Hybrid models combining digital tools with human facilitation were particularly effective for underserved populations, including racial and ethnic minorities, rural communities, and individuals with limited health literacy. However, research gaps persist for younger adults at risk for early-onset CRC and for understanding the long-term sustainability and cost-effectiveness of digital interventions. Temporal aspects such as intervention timing, frequency, and duration were identified as important factors but were inconsistently reported. Future research should address digital health literacy, implementation barriers, and long-term follow-up to support sustained CRC screening adherence through user-centered, scalable, and culturally responsive digital solutions.</p>","PeriodicalId":74465,"journal":{"name":"PLOS digital health","volume":"4 9","pages":"e0001028"},"PeriodicalIF":7.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12463253/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Digital health interventions for colorectal cancer screening uptake: A scoping review.\",\"authors\":\"Sujin Kim, Andrew J Whipkey, Jihye Bae, Avinash Bhakta\",\"doi\":\"10.1371/journal.pdig.0001028\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Digital health interventions (DHIs) are increasingly employed to improve colorectal cancer (CRC) screening uptake, yet comprehensive syntheses of their effectiveness across diverse contexts remain scarce. This scoping review examines how individual, contextual, technological, and timing-related factors shape CRC screening outcomes in DHI-based trials. Following PRISMA-ScR guidelines, we conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov from March 1 to April 20, 2024, identifying 4,523 records through databases and an additional 2,039 through backward citation tracking. After deduplication and screening, 51 studies were included and charted using the PICOT (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, and Timing) framework. Included studies spanned urban health systems, rural community clinics, and Federally Qualified Health Centers in the United States, Europe, Asia, and Australia, with intervention durations ranging from six weeks to ten years. Keyword co-occurrence mapping revealed four thematic domains: (1) patient-centered technology and adherence, (2) behavioral design and personalization, (3) clinical workflow and provider interaction, and (4) equity, disparities, and community engagement. Findings showed that tailored telephone outreach, mailed fecal immunochemical testing combined with navigation support, EMR-based automated reminders, and mobile applications delivering personalized education increased screening rates by 20.9% to 37.7% compared with conventional approaches. Hybrid models combining digital tools with human facilitation were particularly effective for underserved populations, including racial and ethnic minorities, rural communities, and individuals with limited health literacy. However, research gaps persist for younger adults at risk for early-onset CRC and for understanding the long-term sustainability and cost-effectiveness of digital interventions. Temporal aspects such as intervention timing, frequency, and duration were identified as important factors but were inconsistently reported. Future research should address digital health literacy, implementation barriers, and long-term follow-up to support sustained CRC screening adherence through user-centered, scalable, and culturally responsive digital solutions.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":74465,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"PLOS digital health\",\"volume\":\"4 9\",\"pages\":\"e0001028\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":7.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12463253/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"PLOS digital health\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pdig.0001028\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2025/9/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PLOS digital health","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pdig.0001028","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/9/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

数字健康干预(DHIs)越来越多地用于提高结直肠癌(CRC)筛查的接受程度,但对其在不同背景下的有效性的全面综合仍然很少。本综述探讨了个体、环境、技术和时间相关因素如何影响基于dha的试验中CRC筛查结果。根据PRISMA-ScR指南,我们从2024年3月1日至4月20日对PubMed、b谷歌Scholar和ClinicalTrials.gov进行了系统搜索,通过数据库识别了4,523条记录,通过反向引用跟踪识别了2,039条记录。在重复数据删除和筛选后,纳入了51项研究,并使用PICOT(人口、干预、比较、结果和时间)框架绘制了图表。纳入的研究涵盖了美国、欧洲、亚洲和澳大利亚的城市卫生系统、农村社区诊所和联邦合格卫生中心,干预持续时间从6周到10年不等。关键词共现映射揭示了四个主题领域:(1)以患者为中心的技术和依从性,(2)行为设计和个性化,(3)临床工作流程和提供者互动,以及(4)公平、差异和社区参与。研究结果显示,与传统方法相比,量身定制的电话外展、邮寄粪便免疫化学测试结合导航支持、基于emr的自动提醒以及提供个性化教育的移动应用程序将筛查率提高了20.9%至37.7%。将数字工具与人力便利相结合的混合模式对服务不足的人群特别有效,包括种族和少数民族、农村社区和卫生知识有限的个人。然而,对于有早发性结直肠癌风险的年轻人,以及对数字干预的长期可持续性和成本效益的理解,研究差距仍然存在。时间方面,如干预时间、频率和持续时间被确定为重要因素,但报道不一致。未来的研究应解决数字健康素养、实施障碍和长期随访,通过以用户为中心、可扩展和文化响应的数字解决方案支持持续的CRC筛查依从性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Digital health interventions for colorectal cancer screening uptake: A scoping review.

Digital health interventions for colorectal cancer screening uptake: A scoping review.

Digital health interventions for colorectal cancer screening uptake: A scoping review.

Digital health interventions for colorectal cancer screening uptake: A scoping review.

Digital health interventions (DHIs) are increasingly employed to improve colorectal cancer (CRC) screening uptake, yet comprehensive syntheses of their effectiveness across diverse contexts remain scarce. This scoping review examines how individual, contextual, technological, and timing-related factors shape CRC screening outcomes in DHI-based trials. Following PRISMA-ScR guidelines, we conducted a systematic search of PubMed, Google Scholar, and ClinicalTrials.gov from March 1 to April 20, 2024, identifying 4,523 records through databases and an additional 2,039 through backward citation tracking. After deduplication and screening, 51 studies were included and charted using the PICOT (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome, and Timing) framework. Included studies spanned urban health systems, rural community clinics, and Federally Qualified Health Centers in the United States, Europe, Asia, and Australia, with intervention durations ranging from six weeks to ten years. Keyword co-occurrence mapping revealed four thematic domains: (1) patient-centered technology and adherence, (2) behavioral design and personalization, (3) clinical workflow and provider interaction, and (4) equity, disparities, and community engagement. Findings showed that tailored telephone outreach, mailed fecal immunochemical testing combined with navigation support, EMR-based automated reminders, and mobile applications delivering personalized education increased screening rates by 20.9% to 37.7% compared with conventional approaches. Hybrid models combining digital tools with human facilitation were particularly effective for underserved populations, including racial and ethnic minorities, rural communities, and individuals with limited health literacy. However, research gaps persist for younger adults at risk for early-onset CRC and for understanding the long-term sustainability and cost-effectiveness of digital interventions. Temporal aspects such as intervention timing, frequency, and duration were identified as important factors but were inconsistently reported. Future research should address digital health literacy, implementation barriers, and long-term follow-up to support sustained CRC screening adherence through user-centered, scalable, and culturally responsive digital solutions.

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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信