Meissner H I, Breen N, Coyne C, Legler J M, Green D T, Edwards B K
Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland 20892-7330, USA.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 1998 Oct;7(10):951-61.
An extensive body of intervention research to promote breast and cervical cancer screening has accumulated over the last three decades, but its coverage and comprehensiveness have not been assessed. We evaluated published reports of these interventions and propose a framework of critical elements for authors and researchers to use when contributing to this literature. We identified all articles describing breast and cervical cancer screening interventions published between January 1960 and May 1997 in the United States and abstracted specified critical elements in the broad areas of: (a) needs assessment; (b) intervention study design; and (c) analysis methods and study outcomes from each article using a template developed for that purpose. Fifty-eight studies met our criteria for inclusion. Thirty-eight focused exclusively on breast cancer screening, 7 promoted cervical cancer screening, and 13 were designed to promote screening for both cancers. The amount of detail reported varied among the 58 studies. All studies reported the outcome measures used to assess the effectiveness of the intervention, yet only 40% of the studies reported the investigators' original hypotheses or research questions. Needs assessment data were reported in 84% of the studies. Data sources ranged from national surveys to local intervention baseline surveys. Population characteristics reported also varied, with most studies reporting age and race of the study population (78 and 71%, respectively), and fewer studies reporting income and education (53 and 38%, respectively). As the field of behavioral intervention research progressed, we found that more recent studies included and reported many of the parameters we had identified as critical. If this trend continues, it will enhance the reproducibility of studies, enable comparisons between interventions, and provide a reference point for measuring progress in this area. To facilitate this trend toward uniform reporting, we propose an evaluative framework of critical elements for authors to use when developing and reporting their research. The comprehensive assessment of literature that this article provides should be useful background to investigators planning and reporting cancer control interventions, to funding agencies choosing and guiding quality research, and to publishers to help them enhance the quality and utility of their publications.
在过去三十年里,积累了大量旨在促进乳腺癌和宫颈癌筛查的干预研究,但尚未对其覆盖范围和全面性进行评估。我们评估了这些干预措施的已发表报告,并为作者和研究人员在撰写相关文献时使用提出了一个关键要素框架。我们识别出1960年1月至1997年5月在美国发表的所有描述乳腺癌和宫颈癌筛查干预措施的文章,并使用为此目的开发的模板提取了以下广泛领域中的特定关键要素:(a) 需求评估;(b) 干预研究设计;(c) 分析方法和各篇文章的研究结果。58项研究符合我们的纳入标准。38项仅专注于乳腺癌筛查,7项促进宫颈癌筛查,13项旨在促进两种癌症的筛查。58项研究报告的详细程度各不相同。所有研究都报告了用于评估干预措施有效性的结果指标,但只有40%的研究报告了研究者最初的假设或研究问题。84%的研究报告了需求评估数据。数据来源从全国性调查到地方干预基线调查不等。所报告的人群特征也各不相同,大多数研究报告了研究人群的年龄和种族(分别为78%和71%),较少研究报告了收入和教育程度(分别为53%和38%)。随着行为干预研究领域的发展,我们发现最近的研究纳入并报告了许多我们确定为关键的参数。如果这种趋势持续下去,将提高研究的可重复性,便于干预措施之间的比较,并为衡量该领域的进展提供一个参考点。为促进这种统一报告的趋势,我们为作者在开展和报告研究时使用提出了一个关键要素评估框架。本文提供的文献综合评估对于计划和报告癌症控制干预措施的研究者、选择和指导高质量研究的资助机构以及帮助提高出版物质量和实用性的出版商而言,应是有用的背景资料。