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.

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).

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.

Primary care providers' views on a future lung cancer screening program.

BACKGROUND: The National Lung Screening Trial demonstrated that screening with low-dose computed tomography significantly reduces mortality from lung cancer in high-risk individuals. OBJECTIVE: To describe the role preferences and information needs of primary care providers (PCPs) in a future organized lung cancer screening program. METHODS: We purposively sampled PCPs from diverse health regions of Ontario and from different practice models including family health teams and community health centres. We also recruited family physicians with a leadership role in cancer screening. We used focus groups and a nominal group process to identify informational priorities. Two analysts systematically applied a coding scheme to interview transcripts. RESULTS: Four groups were held with 34 providers and administrative staff [28 (82%) female, 21 (62%) physicians, 7 (20%) other health professionals and 6 (18%) administrative staff]. PCPs and staff were generally positive about a potential lung cancer screening program but had variable views on their involvement. Informational needs included evidence of potential benefits and harms of screening. Most providers preferred that a new program be modelled on positive features of an existing breast cancer screening program. Lung cancer screening was viewed as a new opportunity to counsel patients about smoking cessation. CONCLUSIONS: The development of a future lung cancer screening program should consider the wide variability in the roles that PCPs preferred. An explicit link to existing smoking cessation programs was seen as essential. As providers had significant information needs, learning materials and opportunities should be developed with them.

Reasons For Lack of Follow-up Colonoscopy Among Persons With A Positive Fecal Occult Blood Test Result: A Qualitative Study.

OBJECTIVES: Follow-up colonoscopy rates among persons with positive fecal occult blood test results (FOBT + ) remain suboptimal in many jurisdictions. In Ontario, Canada, primary care providers (PCPs) are responsible for arranging follow-up colonoscopies. The objectives were to understand the reasons for a lack of follow-up colonoscopy and any action plans to address follow-up. METHODS: Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 30 FOBT+ persons and 30 PCPs in Ontario. Eligible FOBT+ persons were identified through administrative databases and included those aged 50-74, with a 6-12 month old FOBT+, no follow-up colonoscopy, and no prior colorectal cancer diagnosis or colectomy. Eligible PCPs had ≥1 rostered FOBT+ person without follow-up colonoscopy. Transcripts were analyzed inductively using Nvivo 11 (QSR International Pty Ltd., 2015). RESULTS: Reasons for lack of follow-up colonoscopy were: person and/or provider believed the FOBT + was a false positive; person was afraid of colonoscopy; person had other health issues; and breakdown in communication of FOBT+ results or colonoscopy appointments. PCPs who initially recommended follow-up colonoscopy did not change the minds of the persons who dismissed the FOBT+ as a false positive and/or who were afraid of the procedure. These FOBT+ persons negotiated an alternative follow-up action plan including repeating the FOBT or not following-up. CONCLUSIONS: PCPs may not adequately counsel FOBT+ persons who believe the FOBT+ is a false positive and/or fear colonoscopy. PCPs may lack fail-safe systems to communicate FOBT+ results and colonoscopy appointments. Using navigators may help address these barriers and increase follow-up rates.

Risk-based lung cancer screening performance in a universal healthcare setting.

Globally, lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer death. Previous trials demonstrated that low-dose computed tomography lung cancer screening of high-risk individuals can reduce lung cancer mortality by 20% or more. Lung cancer screening has been approved by major guidelines in the United States, and over 4,000 sites offer screening. Adoption of lung screening outside the United States has, until recently, been slow. Between June 2017 and May 2019, the Ontario Lung Cancer Screening Pilot successfully recruited 7,768 individuals at high risk identified by using the PLCOm2012noRace lung cancer risk prediction model. In total, 4,451 participants were successfully screened, retained and provided with high-quality follow-up, including appropriate treatment. In the Ontario Lung Cancer Screening Pilot, the lung cancer detection rate and the proportion of early-stage cancers were 2.4% and 79.2%, respectively; serious harms were infrequent; and sensitivity to detect lung cancers was 95.3% or more. With abnormal scans defined as ones leading to diagnostic investigation, specificity was 95.5% (positive predictive value, 35.1%), and adherence to annual recall and early surveillance scans and clinical investigations were high (>85%). The Ontario Lung Cancer Screening Pilot provides insights into how a risk-based organized lung screening program can be implemented in a large, diverse, populous geographic area within a universal healthcare system.

Randomised controlled trials of non-pharmacological interventions to improve patient-reported outcomes of colonoscopy: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Non-pharmacological interventions to improve patient-reported outcomes of colonoscopy may be effective at mitigating negative experiences and perceptions of the procedure, but research to characterise the extent and features of studies of these interventions is limited. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review searching multiple databases for peer-reviewed publications of randomised controlled trials conducted in adults investigating a non-pharmacological intervention to improve patient-reported outcomes of colonoscopy. Study characteristics were tabulated and summarised narratively and graphically. RESULTS: We screened 5939 citations and 962 full texts, and included 245 publications from 39 countries published between 1992 and 2022. Of these, 80.8% were full publications and 19.2% were abstracts. Of the 41.9% of studies reporting funding sources, 11.4% were unfunded. The most common interventions were carbon dioxide and/or water insufflation methods (33.9%), complementary and alternative medicines (eg, acupuncture) (20.0%), and colonoscope technology (eg, magnetic scope guide) (21.6%). Pain was as an outcome across 82.0% of studies. Studies most often used a patient-reported outcome examining patient experience during the procedure (60.0%), but 42.9% of studies included an outcome without specifying the time that the patient experienced the outcome. Most intraprocedural patient-reported outcomes were measured retrospectively rather than contemporaneously, although studies varied in terms of when outcomes were assessed. CONCLUSION: Research on non-pharmacological interventions to improve patient-reported outcomes of colonoscopy is unevenly distributed across types of intervention and features high variation in study design and reporting, in particular around outcomes. Future research efforts into non-pharmacological interventions to improve patient-reported outcomes of colonoscopy should be directed at underinvestigated interventions and developing consensus-based guidelines for study design, with particular attention to how and when outcomes are experienced and measured. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: 42020173906.

Selection of individuals for lung cancer screening based on risk prediction model performance and economic factors - The Ontario experience.

INTRODUCTION: Randomized controlled trials have shown that screening with computed tomography reduces lung cancer mortality but is most effective when applied to high-risk individuals. Accurate lung cancer risk prediction models effectively select individuals for screening. Few pilots or programs have implemented risk models for enrolling individuals for screening in real-world, population-based settings. This report describes implementation of the PLCOm2012 risk prediction model in the Ontario Health (Cancer Care Ontario) lung cancer screening Pilot. METHODS: In the Pilot's Health Technology Assessment, 576 categorical age/pack-years/quit-years scenarios were evaluated using MISCAN microsimulation modeling and cost-effectiveness analyses. A preferred model was selected which provided the most life-years gained per cost. The PLCOm2012 was compared to the preferred MISCAN scenario at a threshold that yielded the same number eligible (risk ≥2.0 %/6-years). RESULTS: The PLCOm2012 had significantly higher sensitivity and predictive value (68.1 % vs 59.6 %, p < 0.0001; 4.90 % vs 4.29 %, p = 0.044), and an Expert Panel selected it for use in the Pilot. The Pilot cancer detection rate was significantly higher than in the NLST (p = 0.009) or NELSON (p = 0.003) and there was a significant shift to early stage compared to historical Ontario Cancer Registry statistics (p < 0.0001). Pre- and post-Pilot evaluations found that conducting quality risk assessments were not excessively time consuming or difficult, and participants' satisfaction was high. CONCLUSIONS: The PLCOm2012 was efficiently implemented in the Pilot in a real-world setting and is being used to transition into a provincial program. Compared to categorical age/pack-years/quit-years criteria, risk assessment using the PLCOm2012 can lead to effective and efficient screening.

Social media and mobile health technology for cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Cancer is one of the leading causes of death globally and many jurisdictions have developed population-based cancer screening programmes to reduce the public health burden of disease. However, screening participation remains suboptimal. Social media and other mobile health (mHealth) technologies are increasingly being used for health promotion and behaviour change. This paper reports on the protocol for a systematic review exploring the effect of social media and other mHealth interventions on cancer screening participation and intention. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This protocol is reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) checklist. We will include any randomised controlled trials or quasi-experimental studies with a pre/post design conducted in adults ≥18 years of age that report on the effectiveness of a social media or mHealth intervention on screening participation or intention (inclusive of breast, cervical, colorectal, prostate and lung cancer). Interventions will be inclusive of those delivered online or through a computer using an established social media platform or a new purpose-built platform, or those delivered through cellphones or other wireless technologies. Any comparator will be acceptable (control group, alternate intervention or pre/post design). We will search Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Scopus, CINAHL, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Communication and Mass Media Complete from 1 January 2000 to 31 May 2019. Two independent reviewers will screen titles, abstracts and full-text articles with conflicts resolved through discussion or by a third reviewer, as needed. The two reviewers will also independently complete risk of bias assessments for each included study. We will report on the characteristics of the studies, participants and interventions in descriptive narrative form and report the absolute and relative differences in screening and intention attributable to social media and mobile technology interventions. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: As this is a systematic review, ethical approval for conduct of this study is not required. We will pursue publication of study results in a relevant peer-reviewed journal and report our findings according to the PRISMA checklist. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42019139615.

Non-pharmacological interventions to improve the patient experience of colonoscopy under moderate or no sedation: a systematic review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The patient experience is a critical dimension of colonoscopy quality. Sedative and analgesic drugs are commonly used to improve the patient experience of colonoscopy, with predominant regimens being deep sedation, typically achieved with propofol, and moderate sedation, typically achieved with an opioid and a benzodiazepine. However, non-pharmacological interventions exist that may be used to improve patient experience. Furthermore, by identifying non-pharmacological interventions to increase the quality of patient experience under moderate sedation, jurisdictions facing rising use of deep sedation for colonoscopy and its significant associated costs may be better able to encourage patients and clinicians to adopt moderate sedation. Advancing either of these aims requires synthesising the evidence and raising awareness around these non-pharmacological interventions to improve the patient experience of colonoscopy. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A systematic review will be conducted that searches multiple electronic databases from inception until 2020 to identify randomised controlled trials evaluating what, if any, non-pharmacological interventions are effective compared with placebo or usual care for improving the patient experience of routine colonoscopy under moderate or no sedation. Two reviewers will independently perform a three-stage screening process and extract all study data using piloted forms. Study quality will be assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool V.2.0. Where multiple studies evaluate a single intervention, evidence will be quantitatively synthesised using pairwise meta-analysis, otherwise narrative syntheses will be undertaken. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This is a review of existing literature not requiring ethics approval. The review findings will be included in future efforts to develop an implementation strategy to reduce the use of deep sedation for routine colonoscopy. They will also be published in a peer-reviewed journal, presented at conferences and contribute to a doctoral thesis. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020173906.

Health Policy as a Barrier to First Nations Peoples' Access to Cancer Screening.

BACKGROUND: First Nations peoples in Ontario are facing increasing rates of cancer and have been found to have poorer survival. Cancer screening is an important strategy to improve cancer outcomes; yet, Indigenous people in Canada are less likely to participate in screening. Ontario has established organized breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening programs; this paper examines the health policy context that informs these programs for First Nations peoples in the province. METHOD: This paper follows an embedded multiple-case study design, drawing upon a document review to outline the existing policy context and on key informant interviews to explore the aforementioned context from the perspective of stakeholders. RESULTS: Policies created by agencies operating across federal, regional and provincial levels impact First Nations peoples' access to screening. Interviews identified issues of jurisdictional ambiguity, appropriateness of program design for First Nations persons and lack of cultural competency as barriers to participation in screening. CONCLUSION: Federal, provincial and regional policy makers must work in collaboration with First Nations peoples to overcome barriers to cancer screening created and sustained by existing policies.

Designing Emails Aimed at Increasing Family Physicians' Use of a Web-Based Audit and Feedback Tool to Improve Cancer Screening Rates: Cocreation Process.

BACKGROUND: Providing clinical performance data to health professionals, a process known as audit and feedback, can play an important role in health system improvement. However, audit and feedback tools can only be effective if the targeted health professionals access and actively review their data. Email is used by Cancer Care Ontario, a provincial cancer agency, to promote access to a Web-based audit and feedback tool called the Screening Activity Report (SAR); however, current emails that lack behavior change content have been ineffective at encouraging log-in to the SAR. OBJECTIVE: The objective of our study was to describe the process and experience of developing email content that incorporates user input and behavior change techniques (BCTs) to promote the use of the SAR among Ontario primary care providers. METHODS: Our interdisciplinary research team first identified BCTs shown to be effective in other settings that could be adapted to promote use of the SAR. We then developed draft BCT-informed email content. Next, we conducted cocreation workshops with physicians who had logged in to the SAR more than once over the past year. Participants provided reactions to researcher-developed BCT-informed content and helped to develop an email that they believed would prompt their colleagues to use the SAR. Content from cocreation workshops was brought to focus groups with physicians who had not used the SAR in the past year. We analyzed notes from the cocreation workshops and focus groups to inform decisions about content. Finally, 8 emails were created to test BCT-informed content in a 2×2×2 factorial randomized experiment. RESULTS: We identified 3 key tensions during the development of the email that required us to balance user input with scientific evidence, organizational policies, and our scientific objectives, which are as follows: conflict between user preference and scientific evidence, privacy constraints around personalizing unencrypted emails with performance data, and using cocreation methods in a study with the objective of developing an email that featured BCT-informed content. CONCLUSIONS: Teams tasked with developing content to promote health professional engagement with audit and feedback or other quality improvement tools might consider cocreation processes for developing communications that are informed by both users and BCTs. Teams should be cautious about making decisions solely based on user reactions because what users seem to prefer is not always the same as what works. Furthermore, implementing user recommendations may not always be feasible. Teams may face challenges when using cocreation methods to develop a product with the simultaneous goal of having clearly defined variables to test in later studies. The expected role of users, evidence, and the implementation context all warrant consideration to determine whether and how cocreation methods could help to achieve design and scientific objectives.

Testing Behavior Change Techniques to Encourage Primary Care Physicians to Access Cancer Screening Audit and Feedback Reports: Protocol for a Factorial Randomized Experiment of Email Content.

BACKGROUND: Cancer Care Ontario's Screening Activity Report (SAR) is an online audit and feedback tool designed to help primary care physicians in Ontario, Canada, identify patients who are overdue for cancer screening or have abnormal results requiring follow-up. Use of the SAR is associated with increased screening rates. To encourage SAR use, Cancer Care Ontario sends monthly emails to registered primary care physicians announcing that updated data are available. However, analytics reveal that 50% of email recipients do not open the email and less than 7% click the embedded link to log in to their report. OBJECTIVE: The goal of the study is to determine whether rewritten emails result in increased log-ins. This manuscript describes how different user- and theory-informed messages intended to improve the impact of the monthly emails will be experimentally tested and how a process evaluation will explore why and how any effects observed were (or were not) achieved. METHODS: A user-centered approach was used to rewrite the content of the monthly email, including messages operationalizing 3 behavior change techniques: anticipated regret, material incentive (behavior), and problem solving. A pragmatic, 2x2x2 factorial experiment within a multiphase optimization strategy will test the redesigned emails with an embedded qualitative process evaluation to understand how and why the emails may or may not have worked. Trial outcomes will be ascertained using routinely collected administrative data. Physicians will be recruited for semistructured interviews using convenience and snowball sampling. RESULTS: As of April 2017, 5576 primary care physicians across the province of Ontario, Canada, had voluntarily registered for the SAR, and in so doing, signed up to receive the monthly email updates. From May to August 2017 participants received the redesigned monthly emails with content specific to their allocated experimental condition prompting use of the SAR. We have not yet begun analyses. CONCLUSIONS: This study will inform how to communicate effectively with primary care providers by email and identify which behavior change techniques tested are most effective at encouraging engagement with an audit and feedback report. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03124316; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03124316 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6w2MqDWGu).

Audit and feedback interventions to improve endoscopist performance: Principles and effectiveness.

There is considerable variation in the quality of colonoscopy, attributable in part to endoscopist performance. Audit and feedback (A&F) provides health professionals with a summary of their performance over a period of time and is a common strategy used to improve provider performance. In this review, we discuss current understanding of the mechanism of A&F and describe specific features of effective A&F. To date, trials of A&F to improve colonoscopy performance report heterogeneous results, in part because colonoscopy is a complex procedural skill but also because the quality improvement interventions were sub-optimally implemented or inadequately evaluated. Nonetheless, evidence from a wide range of literature suggests that A&F has the potential to improve endoscopist performance. We discuss future directions for research in this area and provide guidance for providers or health system planners wishing to implement A&F to address quality of colonoscopy in their practice and/or jurisdiction.

Cultura y organización en la donación de sangre: los casos de Argentina y Canadá / Culture and organization of blood donation: the cases of Argentina and Canada

En este libro se exploran aspectos principales del mundo de la donación de sangre tanto de aquellos que remiten a los dispositivos institucionales de recolección de sangre como los que refieren a las decisiones individuales que acercan o alejan del acto donativo. Con la mirada puesta en las situaciones de la Argentina y Canadá, los autores presentan los factores culturales y organizacionales que contribuyen a nutrir la experiencia de los actores (donantes, médicos, voluntarios, personal auxiliar) que intervienen en este proceso. Mediante un rico material empírico se exponen las tensiones y transiciones que atraviesan los sistemas de sangre y la capacidad que estos tienen de contener y reflejar características y arreglos de las sociedades contemporáneas.