健康和美国癌症筛查干预的社会决定因素:系统回顾

IF 503.1 1区 医学 Q1 ONCOLOGY
Ariella R. Korn PhD, MPH, Callie Walsh-Bailey MPH, Margarita Correa-Mendez PhD, MPH, Peter DelNero PhD, MPH, Meagan Pilar PhD, MPH, Brittney Sandler MLIS, Ross C. Brownson PhD, Karen M. Emmons PhD, April Y. Oh PhD, MPH
{"title":"健康和美国癌症筛查干预的社会决定因素:系统回顾","authors":"Ariella R. Korn PhD, MPH,&nbsp;Callie Walsh-Bailey MPH,&nbsp;Margarita Correa-Mendez PhD, MPH,&nbsp;Peter DelNero PhD, MPH,&nbsp;Meagan Pilar PhD, MPH,&nbsp;Brittney Sandler MLIS,&nbsp;Ross C. Brownson PhD,&nbsp;Karen M. Emmons PhD,&nbsp;April Y. Oh PhD, MPH","doi":"10.3322/caac.21801","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>There remains a need to synthesize linkages between social determinants of health (SDOH) and cancer screening to reduce persistent inequities contributing to the US cancer burden. The authors conducted a systematic review of US-based breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer screening intervention studies to summarize how SDOH have been considered in interventions and relationships between SDOH and screening. Five databases were searched for peer-reviewed research articles published in English between 2010 and 2021. The Covidence software platform was used to screen articles and extract data using a standardized template. Data items included study and intervention characteristics, SDOH intervention components and measures, and screening outcomes. The findings were summarized using descriptive statistics and narratives. The review included 144 studies among diverse population groups. SDOH interventions increased screening rates overall by a median of 8.4 percentage points (interquartile interval, 1.8–18.8 percentage points). The objective of most interventions was to increase community demand (90.3%) and access (84.0%) to screening. SDOH interventions related to health care access and quality were most prevalent (227 unique intervention components). Other SDOH, including educational, social/community, environmental, and economic factors, were less common (90, 52, 21, and zero intervention components, respectively). Studies that included analyses of health policy, access to care, and lower costs yielded the largest proportions of favorable associations with screening outcomes. SDOH were predominantly measured at the individual level. This review describes how SDOH have been considered in the design and evaluation of cancer screening interventions and effect sizes for SDOH interventions. Findings may guide future intervention and implementation research aiming to reduce US screening inequities.</p>","PeriodicalId":137,"journal":{"name":"CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians","volume":"73 5","pages":"461-479"},"PeriodicalIF":503.1000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-17","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.3322/caac.21801","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Social determinants of health and US cancer screening interventions: A systematic review\",\"authors\":\"Ariella R. Korn PhD, MPH,&nbsp;Callie Walsh-Bailey MPH,&nbsp;Margarita Correa-Mendez PhD, MPH,&nbsp;Peter DelNero PhD, MPH,&nbsp;Meagan Pilar PhD, MPH,&nbsp;Brittney Sandler MLIS,&nbsp;Ross C. Brownson PhD,&nbsp;Karen M. Emmons PhD,&nbsp;April Y. Oh PhD, MPH\",\"doi\":\"10.3322/caac.21801\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>There remains a need to synthesize linkages between social determinants of health (SDOH) and cancer screening to reduce persistent inequities contributing to the US cancer burden. The authors conducted a systematic review of US-based breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer screening intervention studies to summarize how SDOH have been considered in interventions and relationships between SDOH and screening. Five databases were searched for peer-reviewed research articles published in English between 2010 and 2021. The Covidence software platform was used to screen articles and extract data using a standardized template. Data items included study and intervention characteristics, SDOH intervention components and measures, and screening outcomes. The findings were summarized using descriptive statistics and narratives. The review included 144 studies among diverse population groups. SDOH interventions increased screening rates overall by a median of 8.4 percentage points (interquartile interval, 1.8–18.8 percentage points). The objective of most interventions was to increase community demand (90.3%) and access (84.0%) to screening. SDOH interventions related to health care access and quality were most prevalent (227 unique intervention components). Other SDOH, including educational, social/community, environmental, and economic factors, were less common (90, 52, 21, and zero intervention components, respectively). Studies that included analyses of health policy, access to care, and lower costs yielded the largest proportions of favorable associations with screening outcomes. SDOH were predominantly measured at the individual level. This review describes how SDOH have been considered in the design and evaluation of cancer screening interventions and effect sizes for SDOH interventions. Findings may guide future intervention and implementation research aiming to reduce US screening inequities.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":137,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians\",\"volume\":\"73 5\",\"pages\":\"461-479\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":503.1000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-17\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.3322/caac.21801\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.3322/caac.21801\",\"RegionNum\":1,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.3322/caac.21801","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

仍然需要综合健康的社会决定因素(SDOH)和癌症筛查之间的联系,以减少导致美国癌症负担的持续不平等。作者对美国的乳腺癌、宫颈癌、结直肠癌和肺癌筛查干预研究进行了系统回顾,总结了在干预措施中如何考虑SDOH以及SDOH与筛查之间的关系。在五个数据库中检索了2010年至2021年间发表的英文同行评议研究文章。采用冠状病毒软件平台筛选文章,并使用标准化模板提取数据。数据项目包括研究和干预特征、SDOH干预成分和措施以及筛查结果。使用描述性统计和叙述对调查结果进行了总结。该综述包括144项不同人群的研究。SDOH干预使总体筛查率中位数提高了8.4个百分点(四分位数间隔为1.8-18.8个百分点)。大多数干预措施的目标是增加社区对筛查的需求(90.3%)和可及性(84.0%)。与卫生保健可及性和质量相关的SDOH干预措施最为普遍(227个独特干预组成部分)。其他SDOH,包括教育、社会/社区、环境和经济因素,不太常见(分别为90、52、21和零干预成分)。包括卫生政策、获得保健和较低成本分析在内的研究得出了与筛查结果有利关联的最大比例。SDOH主要在个体水平上测量。这篇综述描述了在设计和评估癌症筛查干预措施以及SDOH干预措施的效应大小时如何考虑SDOH。研究结果可以指导未来旨在减少美国筛查不公平的干预和实施研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Social determinants of health and US cancer screening interventions: A systematic review

There remains a need to synthesize linkages between social determinants of health (SDOH) and cancer screening to reduce persistent inequities contributing to the US cancer burden. The authors conducted a systematic review of US-based breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer screening intervention studies to summarize how SDOH have been considered in interventions and relationships between SDOH and screening. Five databases were searched for peer-reviewed research articles published in English between 2010 and 2021. The Covidence software platform was used to screen articles and extract data using a standardized template. Data items included study and intervention characteristics, SDOH intervention components and measures, and screening outcomes. The findings were summarized using descriptive statistics and narratives. The review included 144 studies among diverse population groups. SDOH interventions increased screening rates overall by a median of 8.4 percentage points (interquartile interval, 1.8–18.8 percentage points). The objective of most interventions was to increase community demand (90.3%) and access (84.0%) to screening. SDOH interventions related to health care access and quality were most prevalent (227 unique intervention components). Other SDOH, including educational, social/community, environmental, and economic factors, were less common (90, 52, 21, and zero intervention components, respectively). Studies that included analyses of health policy, access to care, and lower costs yielded the largest proportions of favorable associations with screening outcomes. SDOH were predominantly measured at the individual level. This review describes how SDOH have been considered in the design and evaluation of cancer screening interventions and effect sizes for SDOH interventions. Findings may guide future intervention and implementation research aiming to reduce US screening inequities.

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
873.20
自引率
0.10%
发文量
51
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians" has been published by the American Cancer Society since 1950, making it one of the oldest peer-reviewed journals in oncology. It maintains the highest impact factor among all ISI-ranked journals. The journal effectively reaches a broad and diverse audience of health professionals, offering a unique platform to disseminate information on cancer prevention, early detection, various treatment modalities, palliative care, advocacy matters, quality-of-life topics, and more. As the premier journal of the American Cancer Society, it publishes mission-driven content that significantly influences patient care.
×
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