癌症患者一级亲属结肠镜筛查的影响因素:混合方法系统评价。

IF 3.4 2区 医学 Q1 NURSING
Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing Pub Date : 2024-06-01 Epub Date: 2023-11-10 DOI:10.1111/wvn.12689
Rujin Li, Caixia Li, Li Liu, Weicong Chen, Yang Bai
{"title":"癌症患者一级亲属结肠镜筛查的影响因素:混合方法系统评价。","authors":"Rujin Li, Caixia Li, Li Liu, Weicong Chen, Yang Bai","doi":"10.1111/wvn.12689","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>First-degree relatives (FDRs) of colorectal cancer (CRC) patients have a higher risk of developing CRC than the general population. Ensuring that these at-risk populations receive colonoscopy screening is an effective strategy for reducing the increased risk, but the rates remain low. Colonoscopy screening behavior is influenced by factors at multiple levels. However, most previous reviews failed to review them and their interactions systematically.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>To explore factors influencing FDRs' colonoscopy screening behavior according to the ecological model.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>A mixed-method systematic review was performed in accordance with The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guideline. A comprehensive literature search was conducted using eight bibliographic databases (Medline, EMBASE, PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Scopus, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wan Fang Data, and China Biology Medicine) for the period from January 1995 to February 2023. The Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklists were applied to assess studies qualities. A convergent integrated approach was used for data synthesis and integration.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 24 articles reporting on 23 studies were included. Only one study was rated low quality, and the other 22 studies were rated moderate to high quality. The findings revealed that certain factors and their interactions affected FDRs' colonoscopy screening behaviors according to the ecological model, including misconceptions about CRC and colonoscopy, concerns about the procedure, perceived susceptibility to developing CRC, health motivation, fear of CRC, fatalism, the recommendation from CRC patients, and recommendations from physicians, colonoscopy schedules, cancer taboo, health insurance and cost of colonoscopy.</p><p><strong>Link evidence to action: </strong>Family communication-centered multilevel interventions are recommended to promote colonoscopy screening behavior among FDRs of CRC patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":49355,"journal":{"name":"Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing","volume":" ","pages":"245-252"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Factors affecting colonoscopy screening among first-degree relatives of colorectal cancer patients: A mixed-method systematic review.\",\"authors\":\"Rujin Li, Caixia Li, Li Liu, Weicong Chen, Yang Bai\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/wvn.12689\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>First-degree relatives (FDRs) of colorectal cancer (CRC) patients have a higher risk of developing CRC than the general population. Ensuring that these at-risk populations receive colonoscopy screening is an effective strategy for reducing the increased risk, but the rates remain low. Colonoscopy screening behavior is influenced by factors at multiple levels. However, most previous reviews failed to review them and their interactions systematically.</p><p><strong>Aims: </strong>To explore factors influencing FDRs' colonoscopy screening behavior according to the ecological model.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>A mixed-method systematic review was performed in accordance with The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guideline. A comprehensive literature search was conducted using eight bibliographic databases (Medline, EMBASE, PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Scopus, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wan Fang Data, and China Biology Medicine) for the period from January 1995 to February 2023. The Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklists were applied to assess studies qualities. A convergent integrated approach was used for data synthesis and integration.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In total, 24 articles reporting on 23 studies were included. Only one study was rated low quality, and the other 22 studies were rated moderate to high quality. The findings revealed that certain factors and their interactions affected FDRs' colonoscopy screening behaviors according to the ecological model, including misconceptions about CRC and colonoscopy, concerns about the procedure, perceived susceptibility to developing CRC, health motivation, fear of CRC, fatalism, the recommendation from CRC patients, and recommendations from physicians, colonoscopy schedules, cancer taboo, health insurance and cost of colonoscopy.</p><p><strong>Link evidence to action: </strong>Family communication-centered multilevel interventions are recommended to promote colonoscopy screening behavior among FDRs of CRC patients.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49355,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"245-252\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-06-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/wvn.12689\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2023/11/10 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"NURSING\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/wvn.12689","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/11/10 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"NURSING","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:结直肠癌癌症(CRC)患者的一级亲属(FDRs)比普通人群患CRC的风险更高。确保这些高危人群接受结肠镜检查是降低风险增加的有效策略,但发病率仍然很低。结肠镜检查筛查行为受到多个层面因素的影响。然而,以前的大多数审查都没有系统地审查它们及其相互作用。目的:根据生态学模型探讨影响FDRs结肠镜筛查行为的因素。方法:根据系统评价和荟萃分析的首选报告项目(PRISMA)指南进行混合方法系统评价。1995年1月至2023年2月期间,使用八个书目数据库(Medline、EMBASE、PubMed、Cochrane Library、Scopus、中国国家知识基础设施、万方数据和中国生物医学)进行了全面的文献检索。乔安娜·布里格斯研究所的批判性评估检查表用于评估研究质量。数据综合和集成采用了一种收敛的综合方法。结果:总共有24篇文章报道了23项研究。只有一项研究被评为低质量,其他22项研究被评定为中等至高质量。研究结果显示,根据生态模型,某些因素及其相互作用影响了FDRs的结肠镜检查筛查行为,包括对CRC和结肠镜检查的误解、对手术的担忧、对发展为CRC的易感性、健康动机、对CRC的恐惧、宿命论、CRC患者的建议和医生的建议,结肠镜检查时间表,癌症禁忌,健康保险和结肠镜检查费用。将证据与行动联系起来:建议以家庭沟通为中心的多层次干预措施,以促进CRC患者FDRs的结肠镜检查筛查行为。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Factors affecting colonoscopy screening among first-degree relatives of colorectal cancer patients: A mixed-method systematic review.

Background: First-degree relatives (FDRs) of colorectal cancer (CRC) patients have a higher risk of developing CRC than the general population. Ensuring that these at-risk populations receive colonoscopy screening is an effective strategy for reducing the increased risk, but the rates remain low. Colonoscopy screening behavior is influenced by factors at multiple levels. However, most previous reviews failed to review them and their interactions systematically.

Aims: To explore factors influencing FDRs' colonoscopy screening behavior according to the ecological model.

Method: A mixed-method systematic review was performed in accordance with The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guideline. A comprehensive literature search was conducted using eight bibliographic databases (Medline, EMBASE, PubMed, the Cochrane Library, Scopus, China National Knowledge Infrastructure, Wan Fang Data, and China Biology Medicine) for the period from January 1995 to February 2023. The Joanna Briggs Institute critical appraisal checklists were applied to assess studies qualities. A convergent integrated approach was used for data synthesis and integration.

Results: In total, 24 articles reporting on 23 studies were included. Only one study was rated low quality, and the other 22 studies were rated moderate to high quality. The findings revealed that certain factors and their interactions affected FDRs' colonoscopy screening behaviors according to the ecological model, including misconceptions about CRC and colonoscopy, concerns about the procedure, perceived susceptibility to developing CRC, health motivation, fear of CRC, fatalism, the recommendation from CRC patients, and recommendations from physicians, colonoscopy schedules, cancer taboo, health insurance and cost of colonoscopy.

Link evidence to action: Family communication-centered multilevel interventions are recommended to promote colonoscopy screening behavior among FDRs of CRC patients.

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
6.10
自引率
11.60%
发文量
72
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: The leading nursing society that has brought you the Journal of Nursing Scholarship is pleased to bring you Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing. Now publishing 6 issues per year, this peer-reviewed journal and top information resource from The Honor Society of Nursing, Sigma Theta Tau International, uniquely bridges knowledge and application, taking a global approach in its presentation of research, policy and practice, education and management, and its link to action in real world settings. Worldviews on Evidence-Based Nursing is written especially for: Clinicians Researchers Nurse leaders Managers Administrators Educators Policymakers Worldviews on Evidence­-Based Nursing is a primary source of information for using evidence-based nursing practice to improve patient care by featuring: Knowledge synthesis articles with best practice applications and recommendations for linking evidence to action in real world practice, administra-tive, education and policy settings Original articles and features that present large-scale studies, which challenge and develop the knowledge base about evidence-based practice in nursing and healthcare Special features and columns with information geared to readers’ diverse roles: clinical practice, education, research, policy and administration/leadership Commentaries about current evidence-based practice issues and developments A forum that encourages readers to engage in an ongoing dialogue on critical issues and questions in evidence-based nursing Reviews of the latest publications and resources on evidence-based nursing and healthcare News about professional organizations, conferences and other activities around the world related to evidence-based nursing Links to other global evidence-based nursing resources and organizations.
×
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