J G Walker1, S Licqurish2, P P C Chiang2, M Pirotta2, J D Emery3. 1. Department of General Practice, Melbourne Medical School, University of Melbourne, Carlton, Australia walker@unimelb.edu.au. 2. Department of General Practice, Melbourne Medical School, University of Melbourne, Carlton, Australia. 3. Department of General Practice, Melbourne Medical School, University of Melbourne, Carlton, Australia General Practice, School of Primary Aboriginal and Rural Health Care, University of Western Australia, Crawley, Australia The Primary Care Unit, Institute of Public Health, University of Cambridge School of Clinical Medicine, Cambridge, United Kingdom.
Abstract
PURPOSE: We conducted this review to identify published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of cancer risk assessment tools used in primary care and to determine their impact on clinical utility (clinicians), screening uptake (patients), and psychosocial outcomes (patients). METHODS: We searched EMBASE, PubMed and the Cochrane databases for RCTs of cancer risk assessment tools in primary care up to May 2014. Only studies set in primary care, with patients eligible for screening, and English-language articles were included. RESULTS: The review included 11 trials of 7 risk tools. The trials were heterogeneous with respect to type of tool that was used, type(s) of cancer assessed, and outcomes measured. Evidence suggested risk tools improved patient risk perception, knowledge, and screening intentions, but not necessarily screening behavior. Overall, uptake of a tool was greater if initiated by patients, if used by a dedicated clinician, and when combined with decision support. There was no increase in cancer worry. Health promotion messages within the tool had positive effects on behavior change. Trials were limited by low-recruitment uptake, and the heterogeneity of the findings necessitated a narrative review rather than a meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Risk tools may increase intentions to have cancer screening, but additional interventions at the clinician or health system levels may be needed to increase risk-appropriate cancer screening behavior.
PURPOSE: We conducted this review to identify published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of cancer risk assessment tools used in primary care and to determine their impact on clinical utility (clinicians), screening uptake (patients), and psychosocial outcomes (patients). METHODS: We searched EMBASE, PubMed and the Cochrane databases for RCTs of cancer risk assessment tools in primary care up to May 2014. Only studies set in primary care, with patients eligible for screening, and English-language articles were included. RESULTS: The review included 11 trials of 7 risk tools. The trials were heterogeneous with respect to type of tool that was used, type(s) of cancer assessed, and outcomes measured. Evidence suggested risk tools improved patient risk perception, knowledge, and screening intentions, but not necessarily screening behavior. Overall, uptake of a tool was greater if initiated by patients, if used by a dedicated clinician, and when combined with decision support. There was no increase in cancer worry. Health promotion messages within the tool had positive effects on behavior change. Trials were limited by low-recruitment uptake, and the heterogeneity of the findings necessitated a narrative review rather than a meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Risk tools may increase intentions to have cancer screening, but additional interventions at the clinician or health system levels may be needed to increase risk-appropriate cancer screening behavior.
Authors: J M Walboomers; M V Jacobs; M M Manos; F X Bosch; J A Kummer; K V Shah; P J Snijders; J Peto; C J Meijer; N Muñoz Journal: J Pathol Date: 1999-09 Impact factor: 7.996
Authors: Andrew N Freedman; Daniela Seminara; Mitchell H Gail; Patricia Hartge; Graham A Colditz; Rachel Ballard-Barbash; Ruth M Pfeiffer Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2005-05-18 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: M H Gail; L A Brinton; D P Byar; D K Corle; S B Green; C Schairer; J J Mulvihill Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 1989-12-20 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Rachel M Holloway; Clare Wilkinson; Tim J Peters; Ian Russell; David Cohen; Janine Hale; Cerilan Rogers; Helen Lewis Journal: Br J Gen Pract Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 5.386
Authors: Antonieta Medina-Lara; Bogdan Grigore; Ruth Lewis; Jaime Peters; Sarah Price; Paolo Landa; Sophie Robinson; Richard Neal; William Hamilton; Anne E Spencer Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2020-11 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Brigid Adviento; Michael Conner; Alexander Sarkisian; Nicolette Walano; Hans Andersson; Jordan Karlitz Journal: J Prim Care Community Health Date: 2021 Jan-Dec
Authors: Shakira Milton; Jon D Emery; Jane Rinaldi; Joanne Kinder; Adrian Bickerstaffe; Sibel Saya; Mark A Jenkins; Jennifer McIntosh Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2022-05-12 Impact factor: 7.960
Authors: Jennifer G Walker; Adrian Bickerstaffe; Nadira Hewabandu; Sanjay Maddumarachchi; James G Dowty; Mark Jenkins; Marie Pirotta; Fiona M Walter; Jon D Emery Journal: BMC Med Inform Decis Mak Date: 2017-01-19 Impact factor: 2.796