Public acceptance and uptake of oesophageal adenocarcinoma screening strategies: A mixed-methods systematic review

被引:9
|
作者
Sijben, Jasmijn [1 ]
Peters, Yonne [1 ]
van der Velden, Kim [1 ]
Rainey, Linda [2 ]
Siersema, Peter D. [1 ]
Broeders, Mireille J. M. [2 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Radboud Univ Nijmegen Med Ctr, Radboud Inst Hlth Sci, Dept Gastroenterol & Hepatol, Geert Grootepl Zuid 8, NL-6500 HB Nijmegen, Netherlands
[2] Radboud Univ Nijmegen Med Ctr, Radboud Inst Hlth Sci, Geert Grootepl Zuid 8, NL-6500 HB Nijmegen, Netherlands
[3] Dutch Expert Ctr Screening, Wijchenseweg 101, NL-6538 SW Nijmegen, Netherlands
关键词
Esophageal Neoplasms; Barrett Esophagus; Mass screening; Early detection of cancer; Endoscopy; Diagnostic Techniques; Digestive System; Patient Acceptance of Health Care; Patient reported outcome measures; Patient preference; Patient participation; Qualitative Research; BARRETTS-ESOPHAGUS; TRANSNASAL ESOPHAGOSCOPY; CAPSULE ENDOSCOPY; CANCER; ACCEPTABILITY; GUIDELINES; MANAGEMENT; DIAGNOSIS; BURDEN; TRIAL;
D O I
10.1016/j.eclinm.2022.101367
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
Oesophageal adenocarcinoma (OAC) is increasingly diagnosed and often fatal, thus representing a growing global health concern. Screening for its precursor, Barrett's oesophagus (BO), combined with endoscopic surveillance and treatment of dysplasia might prevent OAC. This review aimed to systematically explore the public's acceptance and uptake of novel screening strategies for OAC. We systematically searched three electronic databases (Ovid Medline/PubMed, Ovid EMBASE and PsycINFO) from date of inception to July 2, 2021 and hand-searched references to identify original studies published in English on acceptability and uptake of OAC screening. Two reviewers independently reviewed and appraised retrieved records and two reviewers extracted data (verified by one other reviewer). Of the 3674 unique records, 19 studies with 15 249 participants were included in the review. Thematic analysis of findings showed that acceptability of OAC screening is related to disease awareness, fear, belief in benefit, practicalities and physical discomfort. The findings were mapped on the Integrated Screening Action Model. Minimally invasive screening tests are generally well-tolerated: patient-reported outcomes were reported for sedated upper endoscopy (tolerability ++), transnasal endoscopy (tolerability +), tethered capsule endomicroscopy (tolerability +/-), and the Cytosponge-TFF3 test (acceptability ++). In discrete choice experiments, individuals mainly valued screening test accuracy. OAC screening has been performed in trials using conventional upper endoscopy (n = 231 individuals), transnasal endoscopy (n = 966), capsule endoscopy (n = 657) and the Cytosponge-TFF3 test (n = 9679), with uptake ranging from 14.5% to 48.1%. Intended participation in OAC screening in questionnaire-based studies ranged from 62.8% to 71.4%. We conclude that the general public seems to have interest in OAC screening. The findings will provide input for the design of a screening strategy that incorporates the public's values and preferences to improve informed participation. Identification of a screening strategy effective in reducing OAC mortality and morbidity remains a crucial prerequisite. Copyright (C) 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.
引用
收藏
页数:14
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Access, acceptance and adherence to cancer prehabilitation: a mixed-methods systematic review
    Watts, Tessa
    Courtier, Nicholas
    Fry, Sarah
    Gale, Nichola
    Gillen, Elizabeth
    Mccutchan, Grace
    Patil, Manasi
    Rees, Tracy
    Roche, Dominic
    Wheelwright, Sally
    Hopkinson, Jane
    JOURNAL OF CANCER SURVIVORSHIP, 2024,
  • [2] Engagement strategies in an assertive outreach context: a mixed-methods systematic review
    Berghmans, Ellen
    Vliegen, Nicole
    Destoop, Marianne
    Luyten, Patrick
    JOURNAL OF MENTAL HEALTH, 2024,
  • [3] Trust and Public Health Emergency Events: A Mixed-Methods Systematic Review
    Sopory, Pradeep
    Novak, Julie M.
    Day, Ashleigh M.
    Eckert, Stine
    Wilkins, Lee
    Padgett, Donyale R.
    Noyes, Jane P.
    Allen, Tomas
    Alexander, Nyka
    Vanderford, Marsha L.
    Gamhewage, Gaya M.
    DISASTER MEDICINE AND PUBLIC HEALTH PREPAREDNESS, 2022, 16 (04) : 1653 - 1673
  • [4] EFFECTIVENESS OF COMMUNITY-BASED HEALTH PROMOTION CAMPAIGN METHODS ON CHLAMYDIA SCREENING UPTAKE IN YOUNG PEOPLE: A MIXED-METHODS SYSTEMATIC REVIEW
    Pearce, E.
    Jolly, K.
    Moore, D.
    Harris, B.
    Adriano, A.
    Ross, J.
    SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED INFECTIONS, 2021, 97 : A115 - A116
  • [5] A Mixed-Methods Systematic Review on Syndemics in Rheumatology
    Ramirez-Flores, Maria F.
    Cadena-Trejo, Cinthya
    Motte-Garcia, Emilio
    Juarez-Cruz, Isaac D.
    Fernandez-Garcia, Maria V.
    Gastelum-Strozzi, Alfonso
    Alpizar-Rodriguez, Deshire
    Hernandez-Garduno, Adolfo
    Pelaez-Ballestas, Ingris
    JCR-JOURNAL OF CLINICAL RHEUMATOLOGY, 2023, 29 (03) : 113 - 117
  • [6] Self-care advice for patients after surgery for oesophageal cancer - a mixed-methods systematic review
    Schandl, Anna
    Faernqvist, Kenneth
    Malberg, Kalle
    Nielsen, Sandra
    Lagergren, Pernilla
    JOURNAL OF CANCER SURVIVORSHIP, 2024,
  • [7] Barriers and facilitators to uptake of lung cancer screening: A mixed methods systematic review
    Lin, Yu-an
    Hong, Yu Ting
    Lin, Xiu Jing
    Lin, Jia Ling
    Xiao, Hui Min
    Huang, Fei Fei
    LUNG CANCER, 2022, 172 : 9 - 18
  • [8] Mixed-methods systematic review of shared decision-making tools for cancer screening
    Herrera, D. J.
    van de Veerdonk, W.
    Berhe, N. M.
    Talboom, S.
    van Loo, M.
    Ruiz-Alejos, A.
    Ferrari, A.
    Van Hal, G.
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF PUBLIC HEALTH, 2024, 34
  • [9] Multiple sclerosis and identity: a mixed-methods systematic review
    Graziano, Federica
    Calandri, Emanuela
    Borghi, Martina
    Giacoppo, Ilenia
    Verdiglione, Jessica
    Bonino, Silvia
    DISABILITY AND REHABILITATION, 2024,
  • [10] Fear of relapse in schizophrenia: a mixed-methods systematic review
    Zukowska, Zofia
    Allan, Stephanie
    Eisner, Emily
    Ling, Li
    Gumley, Andrew
    SOCIAL PSYCHIATRY AND PSYCHIATRIC EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2022, 57 (07) : 1305 - 1318