Risultati per: Lo screening oncologico: come aumentare l’adesione

Annals of Internal Medicine, Volume 175, Issue 10, Page 1383-1391, October 2022.

Objectives
To compare the accuracy of trained level 1 diabetic retinopathy (DR) graders (nurses, endocrinologists and one general practitioner), level 2 graders (midlevel ophthalmologists) and level 3 graders (senior ophthalmologists) in Vietnam against a reference standard from the UK and assess the impact of supplementary targeted grader training.

Design
Diagnostic test accuracy study.

Setting
Secondary care hospitals in Southern Vietnam.

Participants
DR training was delivered to Vietnamese graders in February 2018 by National Health Service (NHS) UK graders. Two-field retinal images (412 patient images) were graded by 14 trained graders in Vietnam between August and October 2018 and then regraded retrospectively by an NHS-certified reference standard UK optometrist (phase I). Further DR training based on phase I results was delivered to graders in November 2019. After training, a randomised subset of images from January to October 2020 (115 patient images) was graded by six of the original cohort (phase II). The reference grader regraded all images from phase I and II retrospectively in masked fashion.

Primary and secondary outcome measures
Sensitivity was calculated at the two different time points, and 2 was used to test significance.

Results
In phase I, the sensitivity for detecting any DR for all grader groups in Vietnam was low (41.8–42.2%) and improved in phase II after additional training was delivered (51.3–87.2%). The greatest improvement was seen among level 1 graders (p

Introduction
Atrial fibrillation (AF) is a common arrhythmia associated with 30% of strokes, as well as other cardiovascular disease, dementia and death. AF meets many criteria for screening, but there is limited evidence that AF screening reduces stroke. Consequently, no countries recommend national screening programmes for AF. The Screening for Atrial Fibrillation with ECG to Reduce stroke (SAFER) trial aims to determine whether screening for AF is effective at reducing risk of stroke. The aim of the pilot study is to assess feasibility of the main trial and inform implementation of screening and trial procedures.

Methods and analysis
SAFER is planned to be a pragmatic randomised controlled trial (RCT) of over 100 000 participants aged 70 years and over, not on long-term anticoagulation therapy at baseline, with an average follow-up of 5 years. Participants are asked to record four traces every day for 3 weeks on a hand-held single-lead ECG device. Cardiologists remotely confirm episodes of AF identified by the device algorithm, and general practitioners follow-up with anticoagulation as appropriate. The pilot study is a cluster RCT in 36 UK general practices, randomised 2:1 control to intervention, recruiting approximately 12 600 participants. Pilot study outcomes include AF detection rate, anticoagulation uptake and other parameters to incorporate into sample size calculations for the main trial. Questionnaires sent to a sample of participants will assess impact of screening on psychological health. Process evaluation and qualitative studies will underpin implementation of screening during the main trial. An economic evaluation using the pilot data will confirm whether it is plausible that screening might be cost-effective.

Ethics and dissemination
The London—Central Research Ethics Committee (19/LO/1597) and Confidentiality Advisory Group (19/CAG/0226) provided ethical approval. Dissemination will be via publications, patient-friendly summaries, reports and engagement with the UK National Screening Committee.

Trial registration number
ISRCTN72104369.

Objective
Colorectal screening using faecal immunochemical tests (FITs) can save lives if the people invited participate. In Scotland, most people intend to complete a FIT but this is not reflected in uptake rates. Planning interventions can bridge this intention-behaviour gap. To develop a tool supporting people willing to do colorectal screening with planning to complete a FIT, this study aimed to identify frequently experienced barriers and solutions to these barriers.

Design
This is a cross-sectional study.

Setting
Participants were recruited through the Scottish Bowel Screening Programme to complete a mailed questionnaire.

Participants
The study included 2387 participants who had completed a FIT (mean age 65 years, 40% female) and 359 participants who had not completed a FIT but were inclined to do so (mean age 63 years, 39% female).

Outcome measures
The questionnaire assessed frequency of endorsement of colorectal screening barriers and solutions.

Results
Participants who had not completed a FIT endorsed significantly more barriers than those who had completed a FIT, when demographic, health and behavioural covariates were held constant (F(1,2053)=13.40, p

Objectives
To assess participants’ satisfaction with and predictors of upper gastrointestinal cancer screening in rural areas.

Design
Cross-sectional study.

Setting
Ten screening centres in seven cities across five provinces in China.

Participants
Of the 452 participants screened during the survey period, 438 completed the survey (response rate: 96.90%).

Primary outcome measures
Screening satisfaction was the primary outcome and it was assessed using the Patient Satisfaction Questionnaire-18. Ordinal logistic regression analysis was used to analyse the predictors of satisfaction.

Results
The percentages of satisfaction with the General Satisfaction, Technical Quality, Interpersonal Manner, Communication, Financial Aspects, Time Spent With Doctor, and Convenience and Accessibility dimensions were 95.89%, 79.68%, 88.36%, 83.56%, 75.11%, 82.19% and 66.44%, respectively. Education (OR 0.25, 95% CI 0.07 to 0.90), health self-assessment (OR 15.29, 95% CI 2.86 to 81.78) and family history of cancer (OR 4.20, 95% CI 1.29 to 13.71) were associated with General Satisfaction. Residence (OR 4.31, 95% CI 1.89 to 9.81) was associated with Technical Quality. Occupation (OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.08 to 0.88), health self-assessment (OR 11.30, 95% CI 3.94 to 32.43), screening purpose (OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.03 to 0.92) and distance from the screening centre (OR 4.59, 95% CI 1.35 to 15.61) were associated with interpersonal manner. Gender (OR 1.85, 95% CI 1.02 to 3.34), residence (OR 3.23, 95% CI 1.23 to 8.53) and endoscopy in the previous year (OR 2.79, 95% CI 1.13 to 6.90) were associated with Communication. Body mass index (BMI; OR 5.06, 95% CI 1.40 to 18.25) and health self-assessment (OR 2.09, 95% CI 1.12 to 3.88) were associated with financial aspects. Gender (OR 1.90, 95% CI 1.07 to 3.38), residence (OR 3.19, 95% CI 1.30 to 7.79), BMI (OR 5.26, 95% CI 1.14 to 24.34) and health self-assessment (OR 2.14, 95% CI 1.06 to 4.34) were associated with time spent with doctor. Gender (OR 1.64, 95% CI 1.04 to 2.60) and residence (OR 3.17, 95% CI 1.46 to 6.88) were associated with convenience and accessibility.

Conclusion
There was heterogeneity across the dimensions of satisfaction with rural upper gastrointestinal cancer screening. Project manager should prioritise improving the aspects related to the convenience and accessibility dimension. Furthermore, to improve the efficiency of potential interventions, the predictors of the various dimensions should be considered.

Introduction
A range of referral criteria and scores have been developed in recent years to help with screening for the need of specialist palliative care (SPC) in advanced, incurable cancer patients. However, referral criteria have not yet been widely implemented in oncology, as they usually need to be revised by physicians or nurses with limited time resources. To develop an easily applicable screening for the need for SPC in incurable cancer inpatients, we aim to (a) test inter-rater reliability of multiprofessional expert opinion as reference standard for SPC need (phase I) and (b) explore the diagnostic validity of selected patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) and routine data for the need of SPC (phase II).

Methods and analysis
Inclusion criteria for patients are metastatic or locally advanced, incurable cancer, ≥18 years of age and informed consent by patient or proxy. (Exclusion criteria: malignant haematological disease as main diagnosis). In phase I, three palliative care consultation teams (PCTs) of three German university hospitals assess the SPC need of 20 patient cases. Fleiss’ Kappa will be calculated for inter-rater reliability. In phase II, 208 patients are consecutively recruited in four inpatient oncology wards of Freiburg University Hospital. The PCT will provide assessment of SPC need. As potential referral criteria, patients complete PROMs and a selection of routine data on person, disease and treatment is documented. Logistic regression models and ROC analyses are employed to test their utility in screening for SPC need.

Ethics and dissemination
Our findings will be published in peer-reviewed journals and presented at national and international scientific meetings and congresses. Ethical approval was granted by the Ethics Committee of Albert-Ludwigs—University Freiburg, Germany (approval no. 20-1103).

Trial registration number
German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00021686, registered on 17 December 2020.

Introduction
Colorectal cancer (CRC) is the second most common cancer in Malaysia and cases are often detected late. Improving screening uptake is key in down-staging cancer and improving patient outcomes. The aim of this study is to develop, implement and evaluate an intervention to improve CRC screening uptake in Malaysia in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. The evaluation will include ascertaining the budgetary impact of implementing and delivering the intervention.

Methods and analysis
The implementation research logic model guided the development of the study and implementation outcome measures were informed by the ‘Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation and Maintenance’ (RE-AIM) framework. This CRC screening intervention for Malaysia uses home-testing and digital, small media, communication to improve CRC screening uptake. A sample of 780 people aged 50–75 years living in Segamat district, Malaysia, will be selected randomly from the South East Asia Community Observatory (SEACO) database. Participants will receive a screening pack as well as a WhatsApp video of a local doctor to undertake a stool test safely and to send a photo of the test result to a confidential mobile number. SEACO staff will inform participants of their result. Quantitative data about follow-up clinic attendance, subsequent hospital tests and outcomes will be collected. Logistic regression will be used to investigate variables that influence screening completion and we will conduct a budget impact-analysis of the intervention and its implementation. Qualitative data about intervention implementation from the perspective of participants and stakeholders will be analysed thematically.

Ethics and dissemination
Ethics approval has been granted by Monash University Human Research Ethics Committee (MUHREC ID: 29107) and the Medical Review and Ethics Committee (Reference: 21-02045-O7G(2)). Results will be disseminated through publications, conferences and community engagement activities.

Trial registration number
National Medical Research Register Malaysia: 21-02045-O7G(2).

Less is More

To the Editor In a recent research letter, Dr Koh and colleagues recently reported on prostate-specific antigen (PSA) recommendations on the public websites of 607 US cancer centers. The authors reported that there were differences in screening recommendations based on age, and that discussion of shared decision-making and the potential harms of screening were not acknowledged by many centers on their websites. We have several critiques of their methods and results.

This systematic review and meta-analysis used databases, such as PubMed, ProQuest, and Scopus, to investigate the association between the COVID-19 pandemic and decreased rates of breast, colorectal, and cervical cancer screening globally.

Men ages 65 to 74 offered comprehensive screening with intensive follow-up had similar mortality as controls.

Introduction
With the exponential progress of patients with COVID-19, unexpected restrictions were directed to limit SARS-CoV-2 dissemination and imposed health-system an entire reformation to diminish transmission risk. These changes likely have caused the full range of cancer screenings and diagnosis gaps. Regardless of the recommendations, prostate cancer (PCa) screening/diagnosis programmes were momentarily postponed. Prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing has been an inexpensive, low-invasive and relatively precise means of detection for PCa screening that would improve the uncovering of any type of PCa. Unfortunately, a decrease in PSA screening would significantly decrease PCa detection, with non-negligible growth in PCa-specific death. This review is designed to improve our understanding of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the screening and diagnosis of patients with PCa.

Methods and analysis
This systematic review will be reported in accordant with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidance. A comprehensive search has been executed through five main electronic databases: PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, Scopus, Embase and ProQuest until 1 March 2022. Besides, grey literature, preprint studies and references of included studies will be searched. The main keywords have been used to perform the search strategy: COVID-19, prostatic neoplasms. All the relevant studies that met the inclusion criteria will be screened, selected and then extracted data by two independent authors. The quality assessment of the included studies will be performed by the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. In case of any disagreement between the two authors in selecting, extracting data and assessing the quality of included studies, it will be resolved via consensus and checked by the third author.

Ethics and dissemination
As this study will be a systematic review without human participants’ involvement, there will be no requirement for ethics approval. Findings will be presented at conferences and in a peer-reviewed journal.

PROSPERO registration number
CRD42021291656.

Objective
To examine and synthesise the literature on adverse childhood experience (ACE) screening in clinical and healthcare settings servicing children (0–11) and young people (12–25).

Design
A systematic review of literature was undertaken.

Data source
PsycInfo, Web of Science, Embase, PubMed and CINAHL were searched through June 2021. Additional searches were also undertaken.

Eligibility criteria
English language studies were included if they reported results of an ACE tool being used in a clinical or healthcare setting, participants were aged between 0 and 25 years and the ACE tool was completed by children/young people or by parents/caregivers/clinicians on behalf of the child/young person. Studies assessing clinicians’ views on ACE screening in children/young people attending health settings were also included.

Data extraction and synthesis
Two independent reviewers extracted data and assessed for risk of bias using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Results were synthesised qualitatively.

Results
Initial searches identified 5231 articles, of which 36 were included in the final review. Findings showed that the most commonly used tool for assessing ACE was the ACE questionnaire; administering ACE tools was found to be feasible and acceptable; there were limited studies looking at the utility, feasibility and acceptability of assessing for ACE in First Nations people; and while four studies provided information on actions taken following ACE screening, no follow-up data were collected to determine whether participants accessed services and/or the impact of accessing services.

Conclusion
As the evidence stands, widespread ACE screening is not recommended for routine clinical use. More research is needed on how and what specific ACE to screen for and the impact of screening on well-being.

PROSPERO registration number
University of York Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD42021260420).

Stroke, Volume 53, Issue 9, Page e424-e425, September 1, 2022.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening between ages 50 and 75 years is a US Preventive Services Task Force Grade A recommendation.1 The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic initially decreased CRC screening participation by as much as 82%,2 and new variants continue to disrupt preventive care. Screening colonoscopy is more vulnerable to pandemic-related delays than the fecal immunochemical test (FIT).2 We estimated the potential clinical impact of pandemic-related interruptions in CRC screening on the US population.

Introduction
The increasing prevalence of developmental disorders in early childhood poses a significant global health burden. Early detection of developmental problems is vital to ensure timely access to early intervention, and universal developmental surveillance is recommended best practice for identifying issues. Despite this, there is currently considerable variation in developmental surveillance and screening between Australian states and territories and low rates of developmental screening uptake by parents. This study aims to evaluate an innovative web-based developmental surveillance programme and a sustainable approach to referral and care pathways, linking primary care general practice (GP) services that fall under federal policy responsibility and state government-funded child health services.

Methods and analysis
The proposed study describes a longitudinal cluster randomised controlled trial (c-RCT) comparing a ‘Watch Me Grow Integrated’ (WMG-I) approach for developmental screening, to Surveillance as Usual (SaU) in GPs. Forty practices will be recruited across New South Wales and Queensland, and randomly allocated into either the (1) WMG-I or (2) SaU group. A cohort of 2000 children will be recruited during their 18-month vaccination visit or opportunistic visit to GP. At the end of the c-RCT, a qualitative study using focus groups/interviews will evaluate parent and practitioner views of the WMG-I programme and inform national and state policy recommendations.

Ethics and dissemination
The South Western Sydney Local Health District (2020/ETH01625), UNSW Sydney (2020/ETH01625) and University of Queensland (2021/HE000667) Human Research Ethics Committees independently reviewed and approved this study. Findings will be reported to the funding bodies, study institutes and partners; families and peer-reviewed conferences/publications.

Trial registration number
ANZCTR12621000680864.