Promoting colorectal cancer screening: A scoping review of screening interventions and resources

Leach, Kelsey M.; Granzow, Marni E.; Popalis, Madyson L.; Stoltzfus, Kelsey C.; Moss, Jennifer L.

doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2021.106517

Cited by 17 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…McBride and Gesink ( McBride and Gesink, 2018 ) and O’Keefe et al ( O’Keefe et al, 2018 ) suggested providing kits in these Canadian and USA studies reduced barriers to screen, easier to access (transport, costs), convenient and acted as a reminder. These findings are consistent with two reviews ( Schliemann et al, 2021 , Leach et al, 2021 ). Schliemann et al ( Schliemann et al, 2021 ) found more screening uptake with education and providing kits compared to education alone.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

“…Schliemann et al ( Schliemann et al, 2021 ) found more screening uptake with education and providing kits compared to education alone. Leach et al ( Leach et al, 2021 ) observed a larger effect size in increasing screening among studies which provided free or low-cost screening options. Therefore, providing screening directly to participants can be more effective than education alone.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Educational interventions to improve bowel cancer awareness and screening in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries: A scoping review

Gadd,

Lee,

Sharman

et al. 2024

Preventive Medicine Reports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 93%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Educational interventions to improve bowel cancer awareness and screening in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries: A scoping review

Gadd,

Lee,

Sharman

et al. 2024

Preventive Medicine Reports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…In addition to other interventions to increase cancer screening utilization, several states or tribal entities participating in the NBCCEDP or the Colorectal Cancer Control Program (Table 8) have established a navigation system to enhance appropriate and timely follow‐up for abnormalities identified and timely start of treatments 162‐164 . Patient navigation systems have been associated with improvements in screening utilization and cancer outcomes and a decline in disparities 165,166 …”

Section: Programs and Resources Targeting Cancer Disparitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

American Cancer Society's report on the status of cancer disparities in the United States, 2021

Islami

Guerra

Minihan

et al. 2021

CA A Cancer J Clinicians

183

121

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this report, the authors provide comprehensive and up‐to‐date US data on disparities in cancer occurrence, major risk factors, and access to and utilization of preventive measures and screening by sociodemographic characteristics. They also review programs and resources that have reduced cancer disparities and provide policy recommendations to further mitigate these inequalities. The overall cancer death rate is 19% higher among Black males than among White males. Black females also have a 12% higher overall cancer death rate than their White counterparts despite having an 8% lower incidence rate. There are also substantial variations in death rates for specific cancer types and in stage at diagnosis, survival, exposure to risk factors, and receipt of preventive measures and screening by race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and geographic location. For example, kidney cancer death rates by sex among American Indian/Alaska Native people are ≥64% higher than the corresponding rates in each of the other racial/ethnic groups, and the 5‐year relative survival for all cancers combined is 14% lower among residents of poorer counties than among residents of more affluent counties. Broad and equitable implementation of evidence‐based interventions, such as increasing health insurance coverage through Medicaid expansion or other initiatives, could substantially reduce cancer disparities. However, progress will require not only equitable local, state, and federal policies but also broad interdisciplinary engagement to elevate and address fundamental social inequities and longstanding systemic racism.

show abstract

“…Numerous interventions such as advance notification letters, postal reminders and phone navigation calls have been employed to improve the uptake of CRC screening [ 8 ]. Through a scoping review, Leach et al [ 9 ] investigated the impact of various interventions on colorectal cancer screening in the United States. They reviewed 13 projects promoting CRCS.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are behavioral economics interventions effective in increasing colorectal cancer screening uptake: A systematic review of evidence and meta-analysis?

Ahadinezhad,

Maleki,

Akhondi

et al. 2024

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Various interventions have been investigated to improve the uptake of colorectal cancer screening. In this paper, the authors have attempted to provide a pooled estimate of the effect size of the BE interventions running a systematic review based meta-analysis. In this study, all the published literatures between 2000 and 2022 have been reviewed. Searches were performed in PubMed, Scopus and Cochrane databases. The main outcome was the demanding the one of the colorectal cancer screening tests. The quality assessment was done by two people so that each person evaluated the studies separately and independently based on the individual participant data the modified Jadad scale. Pooled effect size (odds ratio) was estimated using random effects model at 95% confidence interval. Galbraith, Forrest and Funnel plots were used in data analysis. Publication bias was also investigated through Egger’s test. All the analysis was done in STATA 15. From the initial 1966 records, 38 were included in the final analysis in which 72612 cases and 71493 controls have been studied. About 72% have been conducted in the USA. The heterogeneity of the studies was high based on the variation in OR (I2 = 94.6%, heterogeneity X2 = 670.01 (d.f. = 36), p < 0.01). The random effect pooled odds ratio (POR) of behavioral economics (BE) interventions was calculated as 1.26 (95% CI: 1.26 to 1.43). The bias coefficient is noteworthy (3.15) and statistically significant (p< 0.01). According to the results of this meta-analysis, health policy and decision makers can improve the efficiency and cost effectiveness of policies to control this type of cancer by using various behavioral economics interventions. It’s noteworthy that due to the impossibility of categorizing behavioral economics interventions; we could not perform by group analysis.

show abstract

Promoting colorectal cancer screening: A scoping review of screening interventions and resources

Cited by 17 publications

References 26 publications

Educational interventions to improve bowel cancer awareness and screening in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries: A scoping review

Educational interventions to improve bowel cancer awareness and screening in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries: A scoping review

American Cancer Society's report on the status of cancer disparities in the United States, 2021

Are behavioral economics interventions effective in increasing colorectal cancer screening uptake: A systematic review of evidence and meta-analysis?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About