RESUMO
BACKGROUND: A substantial percentage of the US population is not up to date on guideline-recommended cancer screenings. Identifying interventions that effectively improve screening rates would enhance the delivery of such screening. Interventions involving health IT (HIT) show promise, but much remains unknown about how HIT is optimized to support cancer screening in primary care. OBJECTIVE: This scoping review aims to identify (1) HIT-based interventions that effectively support guideline concordance in breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening provision and follow-up in the primary care setting and (2) barriers or facilitators to the implementation of effective HIT in this setting. METHODS: Following scoping review guidelines, we searched MEDLINE, CINAHL Plus, Web of Science, and IEEE Xplore databases for US-based studies from 2015 to 2021 that featured HIT targeting breast, colorectal, and cervical cancer screening in primary care. Studies were dual screened using a review criteria checklist. Data extraction was guided by the following implementation science frameworks: the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance framework; the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change taxonomy; and implementation strategy reporting domains. It was also guided by the Integrated Technology Implementation Model that incorporates theories of both implementation science and technology adoption. Reporting was guided by PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews). RESULTS: A total of 101 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most studies (85/101, 84.2%) involved electronic health record-based HIT interventions. The most common HIT function was clinical decision support, primarily used for panel management or at the point of care. Most studies related to HIT targeting colorectal cancer screening (83/101, 82.2%), followed by studies related to breast cancer screening (28/101, 27.7%), and cervical cancer screening (19/101, 18.8%). Improvements in cancer screening were associated with HIT-based interventions in most studies (36/54, 67% of colorectal cancer-relevant studies; 9/14, 64% of breast cancer-relevant studies; and 7/10, 70% of cervical cancer-relevant studies). Most studies (79/101, 78.2%) reported on the reach of certain interventions, while 17.8% (18/101) of the included studies reported on the adoption or maintenance. Reported barriers and facilitators to HIT adoption primarily related to inner context factors of primary care settings (eg, staffing and organizational policies that support or hinder HIT adoption). Implementation strategies for HIT adoption were reported in 23.8% (24/101) of the included studies. CONCLUSIONS: There are substantial evidence gaps regarding the effectiveness of HIT-based interventions, especially those targeting guideline-concordant breast and colorectal cancer screening in primary care. Even less is known about how to enhance the adoption of technologies that have been proven effective in supporting breast, colorectal, or cervical cancer screening. Research is needed to ensure that the potential benefits of effective HIT-based interventions equitably reach diverse primary care populations.
RESUMO
Background: While technology advances have increased the popularity of remote interventions in underserved and rural cancer communities, less is understood about technology access and preferences for home-based physical activity programs in this cancer survivor population. Purpose: To determine access, preferences, and needs, for a home-based physical activity program in rural cancer survivors. Methods: A Qualtrics Research Panel was recruited to survey adults with cancer across the United States. Participants self-reported demographics, cancer characteristics, technology access and usage, and preferences for a home-based physical activity program. The Godin Leisure Time Exercise Questionnaire (GLTEQ) assessed current levels of physical activity. Descriptive statistics included means and standard deviations for continuous variables, and frequencies for categorical variables. Independent samples t-tests explored differences between rural and non-rural participants. Results: Participants (N=298; mean age=55.2 ± 16.5) had a history of cancer (mean age at diagnosis=46.5), with the most commonly reported cancer type being breast (25.5%), followed by prostate (16.1%). 74.2% resided in rural hometowns. 95% of participants reported accessing the internet daily. On a scale of 0-100, computer/laptop (M=63.4) and mobile phone (M=54.6) were the most preferred delivery modes for a home-based physical activity intervention, and most participants preferred balance/flexibility (72.2%) and aerobic (53.9%) exercises. Desired intervention elements included a frequency of 2-3 times a week (53.5%) for at least 20 minutes (75.7%). While there were notable rural disparities present (e.g., older age at diagnosis, lower levels of education; ps<.001), no differences emerged for technology access or environmental barriers (ps>.08). However, bias due to electronic delivery of the survey should not be discounted. Conclusion: These findings provide insights into the preferred physical activity intervention (e.g., computer delivery, balance/flexibility exercises) in rural cancer survivors, while highlighting the need for personalization. Future efforts should consider these preferences when designing and delivering home-based interventions in this population.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: Investigating the association of the neighborhood social environment on physical activity is complex. A systematic scoping review was performed to (1) provide an inventory of studies assessing the influence of the neighborhood social environment on physical activity since 2006; (2) describe methodologies employed; and (3) formulate recommendations for the field. METHODS: Two databases were searched using terms related to 'physical activity,' 'neighborhood,' and 'social environment' in January 2017. Eligibility criteria included: 1) physical activity as an outcome; 2) neighborhood social environment as a predictor; 3) healthy population (without diagnosed clinical condition or special population); 4) observational or experimental design. Of 1352 studies identified, 181 were included. Textual data relevant to the social environment measurement and analysis were extracted from each article into qualitative software (MAXQDA) and coded to identify social environmental constructs, measurement methods, level of measurement (individual vs. aggregated to neighborhood), and whether authors explicitly recognized the construct as the social environment. The following measures were generated for each construct: number of unique measurements; % of times measured at an aggregate level; % of times authors referred to the construct as the social environment. Social environmental constructs were then grouped into larger descriptive dimensions. RESULTS/FINDINGS: Fifty-nine social environmental constructs were identified and grouped into 9 dimensions: Crime & Safety (n = 133 studies; included in 73% of studies); Economic & Social Disadvantage (n = 55, 33%); Social Cohesion & Capital (n = 47, 26%); Social Relationships (n = 22, 12%); Social Environment (n = 16, 9%); Disorder & Incivilities (n = 15, 8%); Sense of Place/Belonging (n = 8, 4%); Discrimination/Segregation (n = 3, 2%); Civic Participation & Engagement (n = 2, 1%). Across all articles, the social environment was measured using 176 different methods, was measured at an aggregate-level 38% of the time, and referred to as the social environment 23% of the time. CONCLUSIONS: Inconsistent terminology, definitions, and measurement of the social environment and the lack of explicit language identifying constructs as the social environment make it challenging to compare results across studies and draw conclusions. Improvements are needed to increase our understanding of social environmental correlates and/or determinants of physical activity and facilitate cross-disciplinary conversations necessary to effectively intervene to promote physical activity. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42017059580.