Adaptation and qualitative evaluation of the BETTER intervention for chronic disease prevention and screening by public health nurses in low income neighbourhoods: views of community residents.

BACKGROUND: The BETTER intervention is an effective comprehensive evidence-based program for chronic disease prevention and screening (CDPS) delivered by trained prevention practitioners (PPs), a new role in primary care. An adapted program, BETTER HEALTH, delivered by public health nurses as PPs for community residents in low income neighbourhoods, was recently shown to be effective in improving CDPS actions. To obtain a nuanced understanding about the CDPS needs of community residents and how the BETTER HEALTH intervention was perceived by residents, we studied how the intervention was adapted to a public health setting then conducted a post-visit qualitative evaluation by community residents through focus groups and interviews. METHODS: We first used the ADAPT-ITT model to adapt BETTER for a public health setting in Ontario, Canada. For the post-PP visit qualitative evaluation, we asked community residents who had received a PP visit, about steps they had taken to improve their physical and mental health and the BETTER HEALTH intervention. For both phases, we conducted focus groups and interviews; transcripts were analyzed using the constant comparative method. RESULTS: Thirty-eight community residents participated in either adaptation (n = 14, 64% female; average age 54 y) or evaluation (n = 24, 83% female; average age 60 y) phases. In both adaptation and evaluation, residents described significant challenges including poverty, social isolation, and daily stress, making chronic disease prevention a lower priority. Adaptation results indicated that residents valued learning about CDPS and would attend a confidential visit with a public health nurse who was viewed as trustworthy. Despite challenges, many recipients of BETTER HEALTH perceived they had achieved at least one personal CDPS goal post PP visit. Residents described key relational aspects of the visit including feeling valued, listened to and being understood by the PP. The PPs also provided practical suggestions to overcome barriers to meeting prevention goals. CONCLUSIONS: Residents living in low income neighbourhoods faced daily stress that reduced their capacity to make preventive lifestyle changes. Key adapted features of BETTER HEALTH such as public health nurses as PPs were highly supported by residents. The intervention was perceived valuable for the community by providing access to disease prevention. TRIAL REGISTRATION: #NCT03052959, 10/02/2017.

Validation of a natural language processing algorithm to identify adenomas and measure adenoma detection rates across a health system: a population-level study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Measuring adenoma detection rates (ADRs) at the population level is challenging because pathology reports are often reported in an unstructured format; further, there is significant variation in reporting methods across institutions. Natural language processing (NLP) can be used to extract relevant information from text-based records. We aimed to develop and validate an NLP algorithm to identify colorectal adenomas that could be used to report ADR at the population level in Ontario, Canada. METHODS: The sampling frame included pathology reports from all colonoscopies performed in Ontario in 2015 and 2016. Two random samples of 450 and 1000 reports were selected as the training and validation sets, respectively. Expert clinicians reviewed and classified reports as adenoma or other. The training set was used to develop an NLP algorithm (to identify adenomas) that was evaluated using the validation set. The NLP algorithm test characteristics were calculated using expert review as the reference. We used the algorithm to measure ADR for all endoscopists in Ontario in 2019. RESULTS: The 1450 pathology reports were derived from 62 laboratories, 266 pathologists, and 532 endoscopists. In the training set, the NLP algorithm for any adenoma had a sensitivity of 99.60% (95% confidence interval (CI), 97.77-99.99), specificity of 99.01% (95% CI, 96.49-99.88), positive predictive value of 99.19% (95% CI, 97.12-99.90), and F1 score of .99. Similar results were obtained for the validation set. The median ADR was 33% (interquartile range, 26%-40%). CONCLUSIONS: When we used a population-based sample from Ontario, our NLP algorithm was highly accurate and was used at the system level to measure ADR.

Developing a Health Equity Impact Assessment 'Indigenous Lens Tool' to address challenges in providing equitable cancer screening for indigenous peoples.

BACKGROUND: In spite of past efforts to increase screening uptake, the rates of screening-detectable cancers including breast, cervical, colorectal and lung are rising among Indigenous persons in Ontario compared to other Ontarians. The Ontario Ministry of Health has an equity framework, the Health Equity Impact Assessment (HEIA) Tool, that was developed to guide organizations in the provision of more equitable health and social services. Although the HEIA Tool identifies that the health of Indigenous persons may benefit from more equitable provision of health and social services, it provides very little specific guidance on how to apply the HEIA Tool in a culturally relevant way to policies and programs that may impact Indigenous peoples. DISCUSSION: Guided by the Calls to Action from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, an Indigenous Lens Tool was developed through a collaborative and iterative process with stakeholders at Cancer Care Ontario and with representatives from Indigenous community-based organizations. The Indigenous Lens Tool consists of four scenarios, with supporting documentation that provide context for each step of the HEIA Tool and thereby facilitate application of the equity framework to programs and policies. The document is in no way meant to be comprehensive or representative of the diverse health care experiences of Indigenous peoples living in Canada nor the social determinants that surround health and well-being of Indigenous peoples living in Canada. Rather, this document provides a first step to support development of policies and programs that recognize and uphold the rights to health and well-being of Indigenous peoples living in Canada. CONCLUSIONS: The Indigenous Lens Tool was created to facilitate implementation of an existing health equity framework within Cancer Care Ontario (now Ontario Health). Even though the Indigenous Lens Tool was created for this purpose, the principles contained within it are translatable to other health and social service policy applications.

Effect of Chronic Comorbidities on Follow-up Colonoscopy After Positive Colorectal Cancer Screening Results: A Population-Based Cohort Study.

INTRODUCTION: Fecal occult blood tests (FOBTs) are colorectal cancer screening tests used to identify individuals requiring further investigation with colonoscopy. Delayed colonoscopy after positive FOBT (FOBT+) is associated with poorer cancer outcomes. We assessed the effect of comorbidity on colonoscopy receipt within 12 months after FOBT+. METHODS: Population-based healthcare databases from Ontario, Canada, were linked to assemble a cohort of 50-74-year-old individuals with FOBT+ results between 2008 and 2017. The associations between comorbidities and colonoscopy receipt within 12 months after FOBT+ were examined using multivariable cause-specific hazard regression models. RESULTS: Of 168,701 individuals with FOBT+, 80.5% received colonoscopy within 12 months. In multivariable models, renal failure (hazard ratio [HR] 0.71, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.62-0.82), heart failure (HR 0.77, CI 0.75-0.80), and serious mental illness (HR 0.88, CI 0.85-0.92) were associated with the lowest colonoscopy rates, compared with not having each condition. The number of medical conditions was inversely associated with colonoscopy uptake (≥4 vs 0: HR 0.64, CI 0.58-0.69; 3 vs 0: HR 0.75, CI 0.72-0.78; and 2 vs 0: HR 0.87, CI 0.85-0.89). Having both medical and mental health conditions was associated with a lower colonoscopy uptake relative to no comorbidity (HR 0.88, CI 0.87-0.90). DISCUSSION: Persons with medical and mental health conditions had lower colonoscopy rates after FOBT+ than those without these conditions. Better strategies are needed to optimize colorectal cancer screening and follow-up in individuals with comorbidities.

Long-term Outcomes of Pediatric Living Versus Deceased Donor Liver Transplantation Recipients: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Living donor liver transplantation (LDLT) emerged in the 1980s as a viable alternative to scarce cadaveric organs for pediatric patients. However, pediatric waitlist mortality remains high. Long-term outcomes of living and deceased donor liver transplantation (DDLT) are inconsistently described in the literature. Our aim was to systematically review the safety and efficacy of LDLT after 1 year of transplantation among pediatric patients with all causes of liver failure. We searched the MEDLINE, Medline-in-Process, MEDLINE Epub Ahead of Print, Embase + Embase Classic (OvidSP), and Cochrane (Wiley) from February 1, 1947 to February 26, 2020, without language restrictions. The primary outcomes were patient and graft survival beyond 1 year following transplantation. A meta-analysis of unadjusted and adjusted odds and hazard ratios was performed using a random-effects model. A total of 24 studies with 3677 patients who underwent LDLT and 9098 patients who underwent DDLT were included for analysis. In patients with chronic or combined chronic liver failure and acute liver failure (ALF), 1-year (odds ratio [OR], 0.68; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.53-0.88), 3-year (OR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.61-0.89), 5-year (OR, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.57-0.89), and 10-year (OR, 0.42; 95% CI, 0.18-1.00) patient and 1-year (OR, 0.50; 95% CI, 0.35-0.70), 3-year (OR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.37-0.83), 5-year (OR, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.32-0.76), and 10-year (OR, 0.26; 95% CI, 0.14-0.49) graft survival were consistently better in LDLT recipients compared with those in DDLT recipients. In patients with ALF, no difference was seen between the 2 groups except for 5-year patient survival (OR, 0.60; 95% CI, 0.38-0.95), which favored LDLT. Sensitivity analysis by era showed improved survival in the most recent cohort of patients, consistent with the well-described learning curve for the LDLT technique. LDLT provides superior patient and graft survival outcomes relative to DDLT in pediatric patients with chronic liver failure and ALF. More resources may be needed to develop infrastructures and health care systems to support living liver donation.

Two randomized controlled trials for colorectal cancer screening invitations developed using a behavioral science approach.

The effectiveness of behaviorally informed, targeted invitations to standard invitations and to no invitation (control arm, primary analysis) were compared in the context of an organized colorectal cancer (CRC) screening program. Two multi-arm, pragmatic randomized controlled trials in men (arms: male-specific, unisex, standard invitation, or no invitation) and in women (arms: unisex, standard invitation, or no invitation), were conducted in Ontario, Canada. Eligible persons aged 50-74, due for CRC screening, were randomized. Primary and secondary outcomes were completion of the guaiac fecal occult blood test (gFOBT) and uptake of any colorectal test, respectively, within 5 months of mailing. Impact of invitation type was assessed using logistic regression. Letters were mailed to 75,810 men and women; 38,673 males and 34,453 females were included in the analyses. Men who received the male-specific letter were most likely to screen with gFOBT compared to controls (odds ratio (OR) 7·24, 95% CI: 5·77, 9·09), followed by those receiving the unisex letter (OR 6·75, 95% CI: 5·37, 8·47) and the standard letter (OR 5·99, 95% CI: 4·76, 7·53). Women who received the unisex letter were most likely to be screened with gFOBT compared to controls (OR 7·07, 95% CI: 5·83, 8·59), followed by those receiving the standard letter (OR 6·76, 95% CI: 5·56, 8·21). In both trials, the findings were similar for the secondary outcome. Mailed invitations were effective for both men and women. With greater targeting using the behaviorally informed invitations, the magnitude of benefit relative to no invitation appeared to increase. (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02364895).

Using Facebook to promote the uptake of colorectal cancer screening.

BACKGROUND: The use of social media presents a unique opportunity for cancer screening programs to motivate individuals to get screened. However, we need a better understanding of what types of social media messages for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening are preferred. The objective of this study was to develop social media messages promoting CRC screening uptake to identify messages preferred by the target audience. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative descriptive study and collected data through focus groups with Facebook users of screen-eligible age. Participants were presented with social media messages and asked to provide feedback. Messages were informed by the Health Belief Model, current evidence regarding screening communication and health communication and social media best practices. Focus groups were audio-recorded and transcribed and analysis was completed by two independent coders. If messages generated sufficient discussion, we developed a recommendation regarding the use of the message in a future social media campaign. Recommendations included: strongly consider using this message, consider using this message, proceed with caution, and do not use this message. General considerations about social media campaigns were also noted. RESULTS: A total of 45 individuals participated in six focus groups. We developed recommendations for 7 out of the 18 messages tested; 1 was classified as strongly consider using this message, 4 as consider using this message and 2 as proceed with caution. The data suggest that participants preferred social media messages that were believed to be credible, educational, and with a positive or reassuring tone. Preferred messages tended to increase awareness about CRC risk and screening and prompted participants to ask questions, and to want to learn more about what they could do to lower their risk. Messages that were viewed as humorous, strange or offensive or that had a negative or excessively fearful tone were less well received by study participants. CONCLUSIONS: Facebook users prefer social media messages for CRC that have a positive or reassuring tone, are educational, and that have a credible ad sponsor. Campaign planners should proceed with caution when considering messages that use humor or a fearful tone to avoid undermining their campaign objectives.

Calculation of Stop Ages for Colorectal Cancer Screening Based on Comorbidities and Screening History.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Routine screening for colorectal cancer typically is recommended until age 74 years. Although it has been proposed that a screening stop age could be determined based on sex and comorbidity, less is known about the impact of screening history. We investigated the effects of screening history on the selection of an optimal age to stop screening. METHODS: We used the Microsimulation Screening Analysis-Colon model to estimate the harms and benefits of screening with biennial fecal immunochemical tests by sex, comorbidity status, and screening history. The optimal screening stop age was determined based on the incremental number needed for 1 additional life-year per 1000 screened individuals compared with the threshold provided by stopping screening at 76 years in the average-health population with a perfect screening history (attended all required screening, diagnostic, and follow-up tests) to biennial fecal immunochemical testing from age 50 years. RESULTS: For persons age 76 years, 157 women and 108 men with a perfect screening history would need to be screened to gain 1 life-year per 1000 screened individuals. Previously unscreened women with no comorbid conditions and no history of screening could undergo an initial screening through 90 years, whereas unscreened men could undergo initial screening through 88 years, before this balance is reached. As screening adherence improved or as comorbidities increased, the optimal age to stop screening decreased to a point that, regardless of sex, individuals with severe comorbidities and a perfect screening history should stop screening at age 66 years or younger. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the harm-benefit balance, the optimal stop age for colorectal cancer screening ranges from 66 years for unhealthy individuals with a perfect screening history to 90 years for healthy individuals without prior screening. These findings can be used to assist patients and clinicians in making decisions about screening participation.

Uptake of Colorectal Cancer Screening by Physicians Is Associated With Greater Uptake by Their Patients.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Physicians' own screening practices might affect screening in their patients. We conducted a population-based study to evaluate whether family physicians who underwent colorectal cancer testing were more likely to have patients who underwent colorectal cancer testing. METHODS: We collected demographic and health care information on residents of Ontario, Canada from administrative databases; the sample was restricted to individuals at average risk of colorectal cancer who were 52-74 years old as of April 21, 2016. We obtained a list of all registered physicians in the province; physicians (n = 11,434) were matched with nonphysicians (n = 45,736) on age, sex, and residential location. Uptake of colorectal tests was defined by a record of a fecal occult blood test in the past 2 years, flexible sigmoidoscopy in the past 5 years, or colonoscopy in the past 10 years. Patients were assigned to family physicians based on billing claim frequency, and then the association between colorectal testing in family physicians and their patients was examined using a modified Poisson regression model. RESULTS: Uptake of colorectal tests by physicians and nonphysicians (median age 60 years; 71% men) was 67.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 67.0%-68.7%) and 66.6% (95% CI, 66.2%-67.1%), respectively. Physicians were less likely than nonphysicians to undergo fecal occult blood testing and were more likely to undergo colonoscopy; prevalence ratios were 0.44 (95% CI, 0.42-0.47) and 1.24 (95% CI, 1.22-1.26), respectively. Uptake of colorectal tests by family physicians was associated with greater uptake by their patients (adjusted prevalence ratio, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.08-1.12). CONCLUSIONS: Approximately one-third of physicians and nonphysicians are overdue for colorectal cancer screening. Patients are more likely to be tested if their family physician has been tested. There is an opportunity for physicians to increase their participation in colorectal cancer screening, which could, in turn, motivate their patients to undergo screening.

A Pragmatic Randomized Controlled Trial of an Endoscopist Audit and Feedback Report for Colonoscopy.

INTRODUCTION: Variation in endoscopist performance contributes to poor-quality colonoscopy. Audit and feedback (A/F) can be used to improve physician performance, particularly among lower performing physicians. In this large pragmatic randomized controlled trial, we compared A/F to improve endoscopists' colonoscopy performance to usual practice. METHODS: Endoscopists practicing in Ontario, Canada, in 2014 were randomly assigned in October 2015 (index date) to receive (intervention group, n = 417) or not receive (control group, n = 416) an A/F report generated centrally using health administrative data. Colonoscopy performance was measured in both groups over two 12-month periods: prereport and postreport (relative to the index date). The primary outcome was polypectomy rate (PR). Secondary outcomes were cecal intubation rate, bowel preparation, and premature repeat after normal colonoscopy. A post hoc analysis used adenoma detection rate as the outcome. Outcomes were compared between groups for all endoscopists and for lower performing endoscopists using Poisson regression analyses under a difference-in-difference framework. RESULTS: Among all endoscopists, PR did not significantly improve from prereport to postreport periods for those receiving the intervention (relative rate [RR], intervention vs control: 1.07 vs 1.05, P = 0.09). Among lower performing endoscopists, PR improved significantly (RR, intervention vs control 1.34 vs 1.11, P = 0.02) in the intervention group compared with controls. In this subgroup, adenoma detection rate also improved but not significantly (RR, intervention vs control 1.12 vs 1.04, P = 0.12). There was no significant improvement in secondary outcomes between the intervention and control groups. DISCUSSION: A/F reports for colonoscopy improve performance in lower performing endoscopists (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02595775).

Risk factors for early-onset colorectal cancer: a population-based case-control study in Ontario, Canada.

PURPOSE: There has been an alarming increase in colorectal cancer (CRC) incidence among young adults aged < 50 years, and factors driving this upward trend are unknown. This study investigated associations between various medical, lifestyle, and dietary factors and risk of early-onset CRC (EO-CRC). METHODS: A population-based case-control study was conducted in Ontario, Canada during 2018-2019. EO-CRC cases aged 20-49 years (n = 175) were identified from the Ontario Cancer Registry; sex- and age group-matched controls (n = 253) were recruited through random digit dialing. Data on potential a priori risk factors were collected using a web-based self-reported questionnaire. Odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) were estimated using multivariable logistic regression. RESULTS: Family history of CRC in a first- or second-degree relative (OR 2.37; 95% CI 1.47-3.84), longer sedentary time (≥ 10 vs. < 5 h/day, OR 1.93; 95% CI 1.02-3.65), greater consumption of sugary drinks (≥ 7 vs. < 1 drinks/week, OR 2.99; 95% CI 1.57-5.68), and a more Westernized dietary pattern (quartile 4 vs. 1, OR 1.92; 95% CI 1.01-3.66) were each associated with an increased risk of EO-CRC. Conversely, calcium supplement use (OR 0.53; 95% CI 0.31-0.92), history of allergy or asthma (OR 0.62; 95% CI 0.39-0.98), and greater parity in females (≥ 3 vs. nulliparity, OR 0.29; 95% CI 0.11-0.76) were each associated with a reduced risk. CONCLUSION: Modifiable factors, particularly sedentary behavior and unhealthy diet including sugary drink consumption, may be associated with EO-CRC risk. Our findings, if replicated, may help inform prevention strategies targeted at younger persons.

Influence of chronic comorbidities on periodic colorectal cancer screening participation: A population-based cohort study.

Guidelines recommend regular screening for colorectal cancer (CRC). We examined the effects of chronic comorbidities on periodic CRC testing. Using linked healthcare databases from Ontario, Canada, we assembled a population-based cohort of 50-74-year olds overdue for guideline-recommended CRC screening between April 1, 2004 and March 31, 2016. We implemented multivariable recurrent events models to determine the association between comorbidities and the rate of becoming up-to-date with periodic CRC tests. The cohort included 4,642,422 individuals. CRC testing rates were significantly lower in persons with renal disease on dialysis (hazard ratio, HR 0.66, 95% confidence interval, CI 0.63 to 0.68), heart failure (HR 0.75, CI 0.75 to 0.76), respiratory disease (HR 0.84, CI 0.83 to 0.84), cardiovascular disease (HR 0.85, CI 0.84 to 0.85), diabetes (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.86 to 0.87) and mental illness (HR 0.88, CI 0.87 to 0.88). There was an inverse association between the number of medical conditions and the rate of CRC testing (5 vs. none: HR 0.30, CI 0.25 to 0.36; 4 vs. none: HR 0.48, CI 0.47 to 0.50; 3 vs. none: HR 0.59, CI 0.58 to 0.60; 2 vs. none: HR 0.72, CI 0.71 to 0.72; 1 vs. none: HR 0.85, CI 0.84 to 0.85). Having both medical and mental comorbidities was associated with lower testing rates than either type of comorbidity alone (HR 0.72, CI 0.71 to 0.72). In summary, chronic comorbidities present a barrier to periodic guideline-recommended CRC testing. Exploration of cancer prevention gaps in these populations is warranted.

Development and validation of a risk prediction model for high-risk adenomas at the time of first screening colonoscopy among screening aged Canadians.

The aim of this study was to develop a risk prediction model for high risk adenomas (HRAs) detected at screening colonoscopy based on readily available participant information. The cohort consisted of 3035 participants aged 50 to 74 years with no history of cancer who underwent a primary screening colonoscopy at a centralized colon cancer screening centre between 2008 and 2016. A multivariable logistic regression model was created using CRC risk factors identified from prior research. Model covariates were collected from a baseline questionnaire and included participant demographics (age and sex), lifestyle parameters (body mass index, alcohol, smoking, and vitamin D supplement use) and medical history (family history of CRC and diabetes). Mean participant age was 58.8 years, and 54.7% were male. 249 participants with HRAs were identified (8.2%). An adjusted c-statistic of 0.67 was calculated, and a specificity and negative predictive value of 97.2% (95% CI: 96.5-97.8) and 92.5% (95% CI: 92.2-92.8) for the detection of HRAs, respectively, were achieved using 20% predicted probability as a high-risk threshold. However, only a sensitivity of 12.1% (95% CI: 8.3-16.8) was achieved. Our model has moderate predictive ability, with strengths in being able to rule out those with an absence of HRAs on screening colonoscopy. Maximizing screening efficiency through improved risk prediction can enhance resource allocation. Ultimately, this model has the potential to improve patient care by reducing unnecessary colonoscopies, limiting this invasive procedure to those most likely to have significant findings.

Measuring the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on organized cancer screening and diagnostic follow-up care in Ontario, Canada: A provincial, population-based study.

It is essential to quantify the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on cancer screening, including for vulnerable sub-populations, to inform the development of evidence-based, targeted pandemic recovery strategies. We undertook a population-based retrospective observational study in Ontario, Canada to assess the impact of the pandemic on organized cancer screening and diagnostic services, and assess whether patterns of cancer screening service use and diagnostic delay differ across population sub-groups during the pandemic. Provincial health databases were used to identify age-eligible individuals who participated in one or more of Ontario's breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer screening programs from January 1, 2019-December 31, 2020. Ontario's screening programs delivered 951,000 (-41%) fewer screening tests in 2020 than in 2019 and volumes for most programs remained more than 20% below historical levels by the end of 2020. A smaller percentage of cervical screening participants were older (50-59 and 60-69 years) during the pandemic when compared with 2019. Individuals in the oldest age groups and in lower-income neighborhoods were significantly more likely to experience diagnostic delay following an abnormal breast, cervical, or colorectal cancer screening test during the pandemic, and individuals with a high probability of living on a First Nation reserve were significantly more likely to experience diagnostic delay following an abnormal fecal test. Ongoing monitoring and management of backlogs must continue. Further evaluation is required to identify populations for whom access to cancer screening and diagnostic care has been disproportionately impacted and quantify impacts of these service disruptions on cancer incidence, stage, and mortality. This information is critical to pandemic recovery efforts that are aimed at achieving equitable and timely access to cancer screening-related care.

Social Media and mHealth Technology for Cancer Screening: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Cancer is a leading cause of death, and although screening can reduce cancer morbidity and mortality, participation in screening remains suboptimal. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the effectiveness of social media and mobile health (mHealth) interventions for cancer screening. METHODS: We searched for randomized controlled trials and quasi-experimental studies of social media and mHealth interventions promoting cancer screening (breast, cervical, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancers) in adults in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Scopus, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Communication & Mass Media Complete from January 1, 2000, to July 17, 2020. Two independent reviewers screened the titles, abstracts, and full-text articles and completed the risk of bias assessments. We pooled odds ratios for screening participation using the Mantel-Haenszel method in a random-effects model. RESULTS: We screened 18,008 records identifying 39 studies (35 mHealth and 4 social media). The types of interventions included peer support (n=1), education or awareness (n=6), reminders (n=13), or mixed (n=19). The overall pooled odds ratio was 1.49 (95% CI 1.31-1.70), with similar effect sizes across cancer types. CONCLUSIONS: Screening programs should consider mHealth interventions because of their promising role in promoting cancer screening participation. Given the limited number of studies identified, further research is needed for social media interventions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42019139615; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=139615. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035411.

Anesthesia Assistance in Outpatient Colonoscopy and Risk of Aspiration Pneumonia, Bowel Perforation, and Splenic Injury.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: The increase in use of anesthesia assistance (AA) to achieve deep sedation with propofol during colonoscopy has significantly increased colonoscopy costs without evidence for increased quality and with possible harm. We investigated the effects of AA on colonoscopy complications, specifically bowel perforation, aspiration pneumonia, and splenic injury. METHODS: In a population-based cohort study using administrative databases, we studied adults in Ontario, Canada undergoing outpatient colonoscopy from 2005 through 2012. Patient, endoscopist, institution, and procedure factors were derived. The primary outcome was bowel perforation, defined using a validated algorithm. Secondary outcomes were splenic injury and aspiration pneumonia. Using a matched propensity score approach, we matched persons who had colonoscopy with AA (1:1) with those who did not. We used logistic regression models under a generalized estimating equations approach to explore the relationship between AA and outcomes. RESULTS: Data from 3,059,045 outpatient colonoscopies were analyzed; 862,817 of these included AA. After propensity matching, a cohort of 793,073 patients who had AA and 793,073 without AA was retained for analysis (51% female; 78% were age 50 years or older). Use of AA did not significantly increase risk of perforation (odds ratio [OR], 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.84-1.16) or splenic injury (OR, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.62-1.90]. Use of AA was associated with an increased risk of aspiration pneumonia (OR, 1.63; 95% CI, 1.11-2.37). CONCLUSIONS: In a population-based cohort study, AA for outpatient colonoscopy was associated with a significantly increased risk of aspiration pneumonia, but not bowel perforation or splenic injury. Endoscopists should warn patients, especially those with respiratory compromise, of this risk.

Clinical Practice Guideline on Screening for Colorectal Cancer in Individuals With a Family History of Nonhereditary Colorectal Cancer or Adenoma: The Canadian Association of Gastroenterology Banff Consensus.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: A family history (FH) of colorectal cancer (CRC) increases the risk of developing CRC. These consensus recommendations developed by the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology and endorsed by the American Gastroenterological Association, aim to provide guidance on screening these high-risk individuals. METHODS: Multiple parallel systematic review streams, informed by 10 literature searches, assembled evidence on 5 principal questions around the effect of an FH of CRC or adenomas on the risk of CRC, the age to initiate screening, and the optimal tests and testing intervals. The GRADE (Grading of Recommendation Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach was used to develop the recommendations. RESULTS: Based on the evidence, the Consensus Group was able to strongly recommend CRC screening for all individuals with an FH of CRC or documented adenoma. However, because most of the evidence was very-low quality, the majority of the remaining statements were conditional ("we suggest"). Colonoscopy is suggested (recommended in individuals with ≥2 first-degree relatives [FDRs]), with fecal immunochemical test as an alternative. The elevated risk associated with an FH of ≥1 FDRs with CRC or documented advanced adenoma suggests initiating screening at a younger age (eg, 40-50 years or 10 years younger than age of diagnosis of FDR). In addition, a shorter interval of every 5 years between screening tests was suggested for individuals with ≥2 FDRs, and every 5-10 years for those with FH of 1 FDR with CRC or documented advanced adenoma compared to average-risk individuals. Choosing screening parameters for an individual patient should consider the age of the affected FDR and local resources. It is suggested that individuals with an FH of ≥1 second-degree relatives only, or of nonadvanced adenoma or polyp of unknown histology, be screened according to average-risk guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: The increased risk of CRC associated with an FH of CRC or advanced adenoma warrants more intense screening for CRC. Well-designed prospective studies are needed in order to make definitive evidence-based recommendations about the age to commence screening and appropriate interval between screening tests.

World Endoscopy Organization Consensus Statements on Post-Colonoscopy and Post-Imaging Colorectal Cancer.

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Colonoscopy examination does not always detect colorectal cancer (CRC)- some patients develop CRC after negative findings from an examination. When this occurs before the next recommended examination, it is called interval cancer. From a colonoscopy quality assurance perspective, that term is too restrictive, so the term post-colonoscopy colorectal cancer (PCCRC) was created in 2010. However, PCCRC definitions and methods for calculating rates vary among studies, making it impossible to compare results. We aimed to standardize the terminology, identification, analysis, and reporting of PCCRCs and CRCs detected after other whole-colon imaging evaluations (post-imaging colorectal cancers [PICRCs]). METHODS: A 20-member international team of gastroenterologists, pathologists, and epidemiologists; a radiologist; and a non-medical professional met to formulate a series of recommendations, standardize definitions and categories (to align with interval cancer terminology), develop an algorithm to determine most-plausible etiologies, and develop standardized methodology to calculate rates of PCCRC and PICRC. The team followed the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation II tool. A literature review provided 401 articles to support proposed statements; evidence was rated using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) system. The statements were voted on anonymously by team members, using a modified Delphi approach. RESULTS: The team produced 21 statements that provide comprehensive guidance on PCCRCs and PICRCs. The statements present standardized definitions and terms, as well as methods for qualitative review, determination of etiology, calculation of PCCRC rates, and non-colonoscopic imaging of the colon. CONCLUSIONS: A 20-member international team has provided standardized methods for analysis of etiologies of PCCRCs and PICRCs and defines its use as a quality indicator. The team provides recommendations for clinicians, organizations, researchers, policy makers, and patients.