共 50 条
Predictors of participant nonadherence in lung cancer screening programs: a systematic review and meta-analysis
被引:39
|作者:
Lam, Andrew C. L.
[1
,2
]
Aggarwal, Reenika
[1
,3
]
Cheung, Serina
[4
]
Stewart, Erin L.
[1
]
Darling, Gail
[5
]
Lam, Stephen
[6
]
Xu, Wei
[3
,7
]
Liu, Geoffrey
[1
,2
,3
,8
]
Kavanagh, John
[9
]
机构:
[1] Princess Margaret Canc Ctr, Div Med Oncol, 610 Univ Ave, University, ON M5G 2M9, Canada
[2] Univ Toronto, Dept Med, 1 Kings Coll Circle, Toronto, ON M5S 1A8, Canada
[3] Univ Toronto, Dalla Lana Sch Publ Hlth, 155 Coll St, Toronto, ON M5T 1P8, Canada
[4] Univ Toronto, Inst Med Sci, 1 Kings Coll Circle, Toronto, ON M5S 1A8, Canada
[5] Univ Hlth Network, Div Thorac Surg, 200 Elizabeth St, Toronto, ON M5G 2C4, Canada
[6] British Columbia Canc Agcy, 675 West 10th Ave, Vancouver, BC V5Z 1G1, Canada
[7] Princess Margaret Canc Ctr, Dept Biostat, 610 Univ Ave, Toronto, ON M5G 2M9, Canada
[8] Univ Toronto, Dept Med Biophys, 101 Coll St, Toronto, ON M5G 1L7, Canada
[9] Univ Hlth Network, Joint Dept Med Imaging, 263 McCaul St, Toronto, ON M5T 1W5, Canada
来源:
关键词:
Lung cancer;
Lung neoplasms;
Cancer screening;
Mass screening;
Early detection of cancer;
Computed tomography;
Patient adherence;
Patient compliance;
Guideline adherence;
Patient satisfaction;
DOSE COMPUTED-TOMOGRAPHY;
ANNUAL FOLLOW-UP;
ADHERENCE;
RISK;
RECOMMENDATIONS;
INTERVENTIONS;
GUIDELINES;
MORTALITY;
STATEMENT;
PROSTATE;
D O I:
10.1016/j.lungcan.2020.05.013
中图分类号:
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号:
100214 ;
摘要:
The low nonadherence rates reported by large low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) lung cancer screening trials were not necessarily replicated outside of trial conditions. This systematic review and meta-analysis identified predictors of participant nonadherence to returning for annual LDCT screening. The systematic review protocol was registered at PROSPERO (CRD42019118347). MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, AgeLine, grey literature sources, and reference lists of included studies were searched until March 1st, 2020. Primary research articles were eligible for inclusion if they screened current or former smokers using LDCT as their primary screening modality and reported on participant demographics or programmatic interventions that predicted nonadherence. Risk of bias assessment was performed at both study and outcome levels. The primary outcome was predictors of nonadherence. The secondary outcomes were relative risks (RR) of second round non-adherence based on identified predictors, which were calculated using random-effects meta-analyses. Across 13 included studies (total n = 15,790; range: 157-3642), the overall rate of nonadherence was 28% (95% CI: 20-37%). Studies identified greater nonadherence in participants younger than 60 or older than 74, with longer travel distances to screening centers, and having a low risk perception of lung cancer. Meta-analyses identified higher nonadherence in community-based compared to academic-based programs, but this did not reach significance (32% versus 27%; p = 0.32). Current smokers were more likely to be nonadherent compared to former smokers (RR 1.23, 95% CI: 1.09-1.40; p < 0.01) while white participants were less likely nonadherent compared to non-white participants (RR 0.69, 95% CI: 0.60-0.81; p < 0.0001). No differences existed between male and female participants (RR 0.99, 95% CI: 0.85-1.15; p = 0.85). Programmatic interventions, including dedicated program coordinators, reminder calls/letters, and mobile LDCT scanners reduced nonadherence in lung cancer screening programs. These interventions should be targeted/tailored toward the subpopulations with the highest nonadherence rates.
引用
收藏
页码:134 / 144
页数:11
相关论文