Background Clinical practice does not always reflect best practice and evidence, partly because of unconscious acts of omission, information overload, or inaccessible information. Reminders may help clinicians overcome these problems by prompting them to recall information that they already know or would be expected to know and by providing information or guidance in a more accessible and relevant format, at a particularly appropriate time. This is an update of a previously published review. Objectives To evaluate the effects of reminders automatically generated through a computerized system (computer-generated) and delivered on paper to healthcare professionals on quality of care (outcomes related to healthcare professionals' practice) and patient outcomes (outcomes related to patients' health condition). Search methods We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, six other databases and two trials registers up to 21 September 2016 together with reference checking, citation searching and contact with study authors to identify additional studies. Selection criteria We included individual-or cluster-randomized and non-randomized trials that evaluated the impact of computer-generated reminders delivered on paper to healthcare professionals, alone (single-component intervention) or in addition to one or more co-interventions (multi-component intervention), compared with usual care or the co-intervention(s) without the reminder component. Data collection and analysis Review authors working in pairs independently screened studies for eligibility and abstracted data. For each study, we extracted the primary outcome when it was defined or calculated the median effect size across all reported outcomes. We then calculated the median improvement and interquartile range (IQR) across included studies using the primary outcome or median outcome as representative outcome. We assessed the certainty of the evidence according to the GRADE approach.

Introduction: Interprofessional collaboration (IPC) is becoming more widespread in primary care due to the increasing complex needs of patients. However, its implementation can be challenging. We aimed to identify barriers and facilitators of IPC in primary care settings.Methods: An overview of reviews was carried out. Nine databases were searched, and two independent reviewers took part in review selection, data extraction and quality assessment. A thematic synthesis was carried out to highlight the main barriers and facilitators, according to the type of IPC and their level of intervention (system, organizational, inter-individual and individual).Results: Twenty-nine reviews were included, classified according to six types of IPC: IPC in primary care (large scope) (n = 11), primary care physician (PCP)-nurse in primary care (n = 2), PCP-specialty care provider (n = 3), PCP-pharmacist (n = 2), PCP-mental health care provider (n = 6), and intersectoral collaboration (n = 5). Most barriers and facilitators were reported at the organizational and inter-individual levels. Main barriers referred to lack of time and training, lack of clear roles, fears relating to professional identity and poor communication. Principal facilitators included tools to improve communication, co-location and recognition of other professionals' skills and contribution. Conclusions:The range of barriers and facilitators highlighted in this overview goes beyond specific local contexts and can prove useful for the development of tools or guidelines for successful implementation of IPC in primary care.

No abstract

Original article 200Introduction ! Cancer of the colon and rectum (colorectal cancer [CRC]) is one of the most common cancers diagnosed in Western countries and is a major cause of cancer-associated morbidity and mortality [1,2]. In Europe, the annual age-standardized incidence of CRC is 35 and 55 per 100 000 in women and in men respectively [1]. The age distribution of CRC shows a predominance in patients > 50 years with less than 10 % of patients being younger than 50 years [3]. The mean age at diagnosis was found to range from 65 to 71.5 years [4]. CRC is the second major cause of cancer mortality in both women and men. While the survival rate for early-stage cancers is high, the survival rate for those diagnosed with widespread cancer is low. About 75 % of all new cases of CRC occur in asymptomatic individuals with no known predisposing factor for the disease except age (≥ 50 years old; average risk) [5]. The remaining cases occur in individuals with a family history of CRC or adenomatous polyps, or with a family history of hereditary nonpolyposis colorectal cancer (HNPCC), or with familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) or attenuated FAP. Screening, which refers to the search for colorectal lesions in asymptomatic patients with no personal history of CRC or adenomas, appears to be the best option available to reduce CRC morbidity and mortality by early detection of CRC in individuals ≥ 50 years old. However, there is debate about the best screening method and about whether colonoscopy should be recommended for CRC screening. In April 2008, a multidisciplinary European expert panel was convened in Montreux, Switzerland, to discuss and develop criteria for the appropriate use of colonoscopy. This article presents the literature review on screening for CRC in asymptomatic individuals that was provided to Background and study aims: To summarize the published literature on assessment of appropriateness of colonoscopy for screening for colorectal cancer (CRC) in asymptomatic individuals without personal history of CRC or polyps, and report appropriateness criteria developed by an expert panel, the 2008 European Panel on the Appropriateness of Gastrointestinal Endoscopy, EPAGE II. Methods: A systematic search of guidelines, systematic reviews, and primary studies regarding colonoscopy for screening for colorectal cancer was performed. The RAND/UCLA Appropriateness Method was applied to develop appropriateness criteria for colonoscopy in these circumstances. Results: Available evidence for CRC screening comes from small case-controlled studies, with heterogeneous results, and from indirect evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on fecal occult blood test (FOBT) screening and studies on flexible sigmoidoscopy screening. Most guidelines recommend screening colonos-