Marion Lamort-Bouché1,2, Philippe Sarnin3, Gerjo Kok4, Sabrina Rouat3, Julien Péron5,6, Laurent Letrilliart2,7, Jean-Baptiste Fassier1,8. 1. UMRESTTE UMR T 9405, Unité Mixte de Recherche Epidémiologique et de Surveillance Transport Travail Environnement, Univ Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, Lyon, France. 2. Collège Universitaire de Médecine Générale, Univ Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, Lyon, France. 3. Groupe de Recherche en Psychologie Sociale (GREPS-EA 4163), Univ Lyon, Université Lumière Lyon 2, Lyon, France. 4. Department of Work and Social Psychology, Maastricht University, Maastricht, The Netherlands. 5. Laboratoire de Biométrie et Biologie Evolutive LBBE-UMR 5558, Univ Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, Lyon, France. 6. Service d'Oncologie Médicale, Institut de Cancérologie des Hospices Civils de Lyon (IC-HCL), Pierre-Bénite, France. 7. Health Services and Performance Research (HESPER-EA 7425), Univ Lyon, Université Claude Bernard Lyon 1, Université Lyon 2, Lyon, France. 8. Service de Médecine et Santé au Travail, Hospices Civils de Lyon, Lyon, France.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The Intervention Mapping (IM) protocol provides a structured framework to develop, implement, and evaluate complex interventions. The main objective of this review was to identify and describe the content of the interventions developed in the field of cancer with the IM protocol. Secondary objectives were to assess their fidelity to the IM protocol and to review their theoretical frameworks. METHODS: Medline, Web of Science, PsycINFO, PASCAL, FRANCIS, and BDSP databases were searched. All titles and abstracts were reviewed. A standardized extraction form was developed. All included studies were reviewed by 2 reviewers blinded to each other. RESULTS: Sixteen studies were identified, and these reported 15 interventions. The objectives were to increase cancer screening participation (n = 7), early consultation (n = 1), and aftercare/quality of life among cancer survivors (n = 7). Six reported a complete participatory planning group, and 7 described a complete logic model of the problem. Ten studies described a complete logic model of change. The main theoretical frameworks used were the theory of planned behaviour (n = 8), the transtheoretical model (n = 6), the health belief model (n = 6), and the social cognitive theory (n = 6). The environment was rarely integrated in the interventions (n = 4). Five interventions were reported as effective. CONCLUSIONS: Culturally relevant interventions were developed with the IM protocol that were effective to increase cancer screening and reduce social disparities, particularly when they were developed through a participative approach and integrated the environment. Stakeholders' involvement and the role of the environment were heterogeneously integrated in the interventions.
OBJECTIVES: The Intervention Mapping (IM) protocol provides a structured framework to develop, implement, and evaluate complex interventions. The main objective of this review was to identify and describe the content of the interventions developed in the field of cancer with the IM protocol. Secondary objectives were to assess their fidelity to the IM protocol and to review their theoretical frameworks. METHODS: Medline, Web of Science, PsycINFO, PASCAL, FRANCIS, and BDSP databases were searched. All titles and abstracts were reviewed. A standardized extraction form was developed. All included studies were reviewed by 2 reviewers blinded to each other. RESULTS: Sixteen studies were identified, and these reported 15 interventions. The objectives were to increase cancer screening participation (n = 7), early consultation (n = 1), and aftercare/quality of life among cancer survivors (n = 7). Six reported a complete participatory planning group, and 7 described a complete logic model of the problem. Ten studies described a complete logic model of change. The main theoretical frameworks used were the theory of planned behaviour (n = 8), the transtheoretical model (n = 6), the health belief model (n = 6), and the social cognitive theory (n = 6). The environment was rarely integrated in the interventions (n = 4). Five interventions were reported as effective. CONCLUSIONS: Culturally relevant interventions were developed with the IM protocol that were effective to increase cancer screening and reduce social disparities, particularly when they were developed through a participative approach and integrated the environment. Stakeholders' involvement and the role of the environment were heterogeneously integrated in the interventions.
Authors: Chantal M den Bakker; Frederieke G Schaafsma; Eva van der Meij; Wilhelmus Jhj Meijerink; Baukje van den Heuvel; Astrid H Baan; Paul Hp Davids; Petrus C Scholten; Suzan van der Meij; W Marchien van Baal; Annette D van Dalsen; Daniel J Lips; Jan Willem van der Steeg; Wouter Kg Leclercq; Peggy Maj Geomini; Esther Cj Consten; Steven E Schraffordt Koops; Steve Mm de Castro; Paul Jm van Kesteren; Huib A Cense; Hein Bac Stockmann; A Dorien Ten Cate; Hendrik J Bonjer; Judith Af Huirne; Johannes R Anema Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2019-02-06 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: M A Greidanus; A G E M de Boer; C M Tiedtke; M H W Frings-Dresen; A E de Rijk; S J Tamminga Journal: J Cancer Surviv Date: 2020-01-14 Impact factor: 4.442
Authors: Maartje C Bakhuys Roozeboom; Noortje M Wiezer; Cécile R L Boot; Paulien M Bongers; Roosmarijn M C Schelvis Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-02-11 Impact factor: 3.390