RESUMEN
Introduction: Obesity is a known risk factor for the development of cancers, and a significant proportion of the population may be at risk of developing cancer owing to their weight status. There is acknowledged societal stigma towards people living with obesity, which can influence health behaviors and deter help seeking, such as cancer screening. Healthcare professionals' attitudes and views toward people living with obesity may adversely affect the patient-professional interface and treatment. Methods: A systematic review was carried out which aimed to explore the impact of living with obesity on the uptake of three main cancer-screening services: breast, cervical, and colorectal. Results: Ten studies were included in the review. Three main areas were identified from both a patient and healthcare professional perspective: barriers and challenges to screening, gender issues, and disparities in the population living with obesity. Conclusion: Further research is needed to improve uptake of cancer screening services, and for education on weight bias, which is often unconscious, to be considered for healthcare professionals working in cancer screening services. This may help to increase the incidence of early differential diagnosis of potential cancers and improve health outcomes for people living with obesity.
RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The largest proportion of people with dementia worldwide live in low- and middle- income countries (LMICs), with dementia prevalence continuing to rise. Assessment and diagnosis of dementia involves identifying the impact of cognitive decline on function, usually measured by instrumental activities of daily living (IADLs). OBJECTIVE: This review aimed to identify IADL measures which are specifically developed, validated, or adapted for use in LMICs to guide selection of such tools. METHODS: A systematic search was conducted (fourteen databases) up to April 2020. Only studies reporting on development, validation, or adaptation of IADL measures for dementia or cognitive impairment among older adults (aged over 50) in LMICs were included. The QUADAS 2 was used to assess quality of diagnostic accuracy studies. RESULTS: 22 papers met inclusion criteria; identifying 19 discrete IADL tools across 11 LMICs. These were either translated from IADL measures used in high-income countries (nâ=â6), translated and adapted for cultural differences (nâ=â6), or newly developed for target LMIC populations (nâ=â7). Seven measures were investigated in multiple studies; overall quality of diagnostic accuracy was moderate to good. CONCLUSION: Reliability, validity, and accuracy of IADL measures for supporting dementia diagnosis within LMICs was reported. Key components to consider when selecting an IADL tool for such settings were highlighted, including choosing culturally appropriate, time-efficient tools that account for gender- and literacy-bias, and can be conducted by any volunteer with appropriate training. There is a need for greater technical and external validation of IADL tools across different regions, countries, populations, and cultures.
