scholarly journals Educational pamphlets for improving uptake of cancer screening: a systematic review

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 207 ◽  
Author(s):  
Boon See Teo ◽  
Esther Li ◽  
Clara Tan ◽  
Yasmin Lynda Munro
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Systematic Review ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Prostate Cancer Screening ◽  
Lung Cancer Screening ◽  
Screening Tests ◽  
Research Papers ◽  
Screening Uptake ◽  
Cancer Screening Tests ◽  
Randomised Controlled

ABSTRACT INTRODUCTIONThe effectiveness of cancer screening programmes is highly dependent on screening uptake. Many interventions have been tested to increase screening uptake. AIMThe goal of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of cancer screening pamphlets as a standalone intervention. The outcome of interest was uptake of cancer screening tests. METHODSA systematic review was performed on the effectiveness of pamphlets compared to usual care without pamphlets. We searched five databases for research papers in English from 2000 up to May 2019. Randomised controlled trials were included. This research group independently selected studies, extracted data, assessed risk of bias and then compared the information as a group. RESULTSA total of nine trials involving 4912 participants met our inclusion criteria, of which five were about colorectal cancer screening, three were about prostate cancer screening and one was about lung cancer screening. Five of the nine trials showed that pamphlets alone increased uptake significantly, while the remaining four trials did not show significant effects. DISCUSSIONThere is some evidence that pamphlets increase uptake for cancer screenings, especially for colorectal cancer. Due to the small number of studies in this area, generalisability could be limited.

scholarly journals Google search volume trends for cancer screening terms during the COVID-19 pandemic

2021 ◽  
pp. 096914132199942
Author(s):  
Austin Snyder ◽  
Sean Jang ◽  
Ilana S Nazari ◽  
Avik Som ◽  
Efren J Flores ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Cancer Diagnosis ◽  
Pap Smear ◽  
Marked Decrease ◽  
Lung Cancer Screening ◽  
Screening Tests ◽  
Public Attention ◽  
Search Volume ◽  
Cancer Screening Tests ◽  
Google Search

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to delays in cancer diagnosis, in part due to postponement of cancer screening. We used Google Trends data to assess public attention to cancer screening during the first peak of the COVID-19 pandemic. Search volume for terms related to established cancer screening tests (“colonoscopy,” “mammogram,” “lung cancer screening,” and “pap smear”) showed a marked decrease of up to 76% compared to the pre-pandemic period, a significantly greater drop than for search volume for terms denoting common chronic diseases. Maintaining awareness of cancer screening during future public health crises may decrease delays in cancer diagnosis.

scholarly journals Effect of Financial Incentives on Patient Use of Mailed Colorectal Cancer Screening Tests

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. e191156 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shivan J. Mehta ◽  
Rebecca S. Pepe ◽  
Nicole B. Gabler ◽  
Mounika Kanneganti ◽  
Catherine Reitz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Colorectal Cancer Screening ◽  
Financial Incentives ◽  
Screening Tests ◽  
Cancer Screening Tests ◽  
Patient Use

scholarly journals Use of Colorectal Cancer Screening Tests by State

2018 ◽  
Vol 15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Djenaba A. Joseph ◽  
Jessica B. King ◽  
Thomas B. Richards ◽  
Cheryll C. Thomas ◽  
Lisa C. Richardson
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Colorectal Cancer Screening ◽  
Screening Tests ◽  
Cancer Screening Tests

scholarly journals Public preferences for colorectal cancer screening tests: a review of conjoint analysis studies

2013 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 489-499 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alex Ghanouni ◽  
Samuel G Smith ◽  
Steve Halligan ◽  
Andrew Plumb ◽  
Darren Boone ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Colorectal Cancer Screening ◽  
Conjoint Analysis ◽  
Screening Tests ◽  
Public Preferences ◽  
Cancer Screening Tests

Acceptability of two colorectal cancer screening tests: pain as a key determinant in sigmoidoscopy

Endoscopy ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 49 (11) ◽  
pp. 1075-1086 ◽  
Author(s):  
Benedicte Kirkøen ◽  
Paula Berstad ◽  
Edoardo Botteri ◽  
Eirin Dalén ◽  
Jens Nilsen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Colorectal Cancer Screening ◽  
Odds Ratio ◽  
Adjusted Odds Ratio ◽  
Flexible Sigmoidoscopy ◽  
Screening Tests ◽  
Screening Programs ◽  
Cancer Screening Tests ◽  
Willingness To Recommend

Abstract Background Participants’ experience with a screening test can influence adherence, and therefore the efficacy of screening programs. We compared screening with unsedated flexible sigmoidoscopy and fecal immunochemical testing (FIT) for participants’ satisfaction with the decision and for willingness to repeat colorectal cancer screening. Methods In a prospective, randomized trial 3257 individuals (50 – 74 years) were invited to either flexible sigmoidoscopy or FIT (1:1), of whom 1650 took up the offer (52.6 %). In total, 1497 screening participants completed at least one questionnaire, either before screening, and/or at three time points in the following year, that measured willingness to repeat screening, willingness to recommend screening, and satisfaction with decision to attend. There were 769 and 728 responders in the flexible sigmoidoscopy and FIT group, respectively. Additionally, 581 flexible sigmoidoscopy participants also completed a pain questionnaire. Results 1 year later, 10 % of the flexible sigmoidoscopy participants were not willing to repeat screening, compared to 5 % of FIT participants. A higher percentage of women compared to men would not repeat flexible sigmoidoscopy screening (adjusted odds ratio [OR] 2.52, 95 % confidence interval [95 %CI] 1.48 to 4.28). Notably, 22 % of women reported pain during flexible sigmoidoscopy compared to 5 % of men. When we added pain to the statistical model, pain was significantly associated with unwillingness to repeat flexible sigmoidoscopy (OR 3.15, 95 %CI 1.68 to 5.87), while gender was no longer associated (OR 1.53, 95 %CI 0.82 to 2.88). Conclusion Acceptability for flexible sigmoidoscopy and for FIT was high among Norwegian screening participants, though FIT participants were more willing to repeat screening. Women were less willing to repeat screening with flexible sigmoidoscopy compared to men. This gender difference seemed partly due to pain, and therefore preventable.This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01538550.

Comparison of various strategies for colorectal cancer screening tests

2011 ◽  
Vol 23 (12) ◽  
pp. 1157-1164 ◽  
Author(s):  
Pavel Wohl ◽  
Michal Bednařík ◽  
Petr Wohl ◽  
Milan Červenka ◽  
Julius Špičák
Keyword(s):  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Colorectal Cancer Screening ◽  
Screening Tests ◽  
Cancer Screening Tests
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document