Suppr超能文献

探究女性宫颈癌筛查偏好:一项混合方法系统评价方案

Eliciting women's cervical screening preferences: a mixed methods systematic review protocol.

作者信息

Wood Brianne, Van Katwyk Susan Rogers, El-Khatib Ziad, McFaul Susan, Taljaard Monica, Wright Erica, Graham Ian D, Little Julian

机构信息

School of Epidemiology, Public Health and Preventive Medicine, University of Ottawa, Roger-Guindon Hall, Room 3105, 451 Smyth Road, Ottawa, K1H 8M5, Ontario, Canada.

Department of Public Health Sciences, K9, Karolinska Institutet, Tomtebodavägen 18A; Widerströmska huset, 171 77, Stockholm, Sweden.

出版信息

Syst Rev. 2016 Aug 11;5(1):136. doi: 10.1186/s13643-016-0310-9.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

With the accumulation of evidence regarding potential harms of cancer screening in recent years, researchers, policy-makers, and the public are becoming more critical of population-based cancer screening. Consequently, a high-quality cancer screening program should consider individuals' values and preferences when determining recommendations. In cervical cancer screening, offering women autonomy is considered a "person-centered" approach to health care services; however, it may impact the effectiveness of the program should women choose to not participate. As part of a larger project to investigate women's cervical screening preferences and correlates of these preferences, this systematic review will capture quantitative and qualitative investigations of women's cervical screening preferences and the methods used to elicit them.

DESIGN AND METHODS

This mixed methods synthesis will use a thematic analysis approach to synthesize qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods evidence. This protocol describes the methods that will be used in this investigation. A search strategy has been developed with a health librarian and peer reviewed using PRESS. Based on this strategy, five databases and the gray literature will be searched for studies that meet the inclusion criteria. The quality of the included individual studies will be examined using the Mixed Methods Appraisal Tool. Three reviewers will extract data from the primary studies on the tools or instruments used to elicit women's preferences regarding cervical cancer screening, theoretical frameworks used, outcomes measured, the outstanding themes from quantitative and qualitative evidence, and the identified preferences for cervical cancer screening. We will describe the relationships between study results and the study population, "intervention" (e.g., tool or instrument), and context. We will follow the PRISMA reporting guideline. We will compare findings across studies and between study methods (e.g., qualitative versus quantitative study designs). The strength of the synthesized findings will be assessed using the validated GRADE and CERQual tool.

DISCUSSION

This review will inform the development of a tool to elicit women's cervical screening preferences. Understanding the methods used to elicit women's preferences and what is known about women's cervical screening preferences will be useful for guideline developers who wish to incorporate a woman-centered approach specifically for cervical screening guidelines.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42016035737.

摘要

背景

近年来,随着有关癌症筛查潜在危害的证据不断积累,研究人员、政策制定者和公众对基于人群的癌症筛查愈发挑剔。因此,高质量的癌症筛查项目在确定建议时应考虑个人的价值观和偏好。在宫颈癌筛查中,给予女性自主权被视为一种“以患者为中心”的医疗服务方式;然而,如果女性选择不参与,这可能会影响该项目的有效性。作为一项更大规模项目的一部分,该项目旨在调查女性的宫颈癌筛查偏好及其相关因素,本系统评价将收录关于女性宫颈癌筛查偏好的定量和定性研究,以及用于获取这些偏好的方法。

设计与方法

这项混合方法综合研究将采用主题分析方法,对定性、定量和混合方法的证据进行综合分析。本方案描述了将在本次调查中使用的方法。已与一位健康信息馆员共同制定了检索策略,并使用PRESS进行了同行评审。基于该策略,将检索五个数据库和灰色文献,以查找符合纳入标准的研究。将使用混合方法评估工具检查纳入的单项研究的质量。三位评审员将从原始研究中提取数据,内容包括用于获取女性对宫颈癌筛查偏好的工具或仪器、所使用的理论框架、测量的结果、定量和定性证据中的突出主题,以及确定的宫颈癌筛查偏好。我们将描述研究结果与研究人群、“干预措施”(如工具或仪器)和背景之间的关系。我们将遵循PRISMA报告指南。我们将比较各项研究之间以及研究方法(如定性与定量研究设计)之间的结果。将使用经过验证的GRADE和CERQual工具评估综合研究结果的强度。

讨论

本综述将为开发一种获取女性宫颈癌筛查偏好的工具提供参考。了解用于获取女性偏好的方法以及关于女性宫颈癌筛查偏好的已知信息,对于希望在宫颈癌筛查指南中纳入以女性为中心方法的指南制定者来说将很有帮助。

系统评价注册

PROSPERO CRD42016035737。

相似文献

1
Eliciting women's cervical screening preferences: a mixed methods systematic review protocol.
Syst Rev. 2016 Aug 11;5(1):136. doi: 10.1186/s13643-016-0310-9.
2
Development and field testing of a tool to elicit women's preferences among cervical cancer screening modalities.
J Eval Clin Pract. 2019 Dec;25(6):1169-1181. doi: 10.1111/jep.13258. Epub 2019 Aug 18.
3
Eliciting women's preferences in health care: a review of the literature.
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004 Spring;20(2):145-55. doi: 10.1017/s0266462304000923.
5
Women's autonomy and cervical cancer screening in the Lesotho Demographic and Health Survey 2009.
Soc Sci Med. 2016 Feb;150:23-30. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2015.12.009. Epub 2015 Dec 10.
9
Women's experience of menopause: a systematic review of qualitative evidence.
JBI Database System Rev Implement Rep. 2015 Sep 16;13(8):250-337. doi: 10.11124/jbisrir-2015-1948.
10
Women's colposcopy experience and preferences: a mixed methods study.
BMC Womens Health. 2008 Jan 14;8:2. doi: 10.1186/1472-6874-8-2.

本文引用的文献

2
Benefits and Harms of Breast Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review.
JAMA. 2015 Oct 20;314(15):1615-34. doi: 10.1001/jama.2015.13183.
4
Screening for cancer: advice for high-value care from the American College of Physicians.
Ann Intern Med. 2015 May 19;162(10):718-25. doi: 10.7326/M14-2326.
5
Identifying a "range of reasonable options" for cervical cancer screening.
Obstet Gynecol. 2015 Feb;125(2):308-310. doi: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000000670.
7
Smarter screening for cancer: possibilities and challenges of personalization.
JAMA. 2014 Dec 3;312(21):2211-2. doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.13933.
8
Offering Self-Sampling to Non-Attendees of Organized Primary HPV Screening: When Do Harms Outweigh the Benefits?
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2015 May;24(5):773-82. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-14-0998. Epub 2014 Nov 28.
9
Recommendations on screening for prostate cancer with the prostate-specific antigen test.
CMAJ. 2014 Nov 4;186(16):1225-34. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.140703. Epub 2014 Oct 27.
10
Flexible sigmoidoscopy for colorectal cancer screening: more evidence, persistent ironies.
JAMA. 2014 Aug 13;312(6):601-2. doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.8613.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验