A grey literature review of special events for promoting cancer screenings

BMC Cancer

Cam Escoffery¹  Kirsten C Rodgers¹  Michelle C Kegler¹  Mary Ayala¹  Erika Pinsker²  Regine Haardörfer¹ 

[1] Department of Behavioral Sciences and Health Education, Rollins School of Public Health, 1518 Clifton Road, 5th Floor, Atlanta, GA 30322, USA

[2] University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA

关键词: Cervical cancer;    Colorectal cancer;    Breast cancer;    Cancer education;    Community awareness;    Cancer screening;   

Others  :  855657
DOI  :  10.1186/1471-2407-14-454

 received in 2014-01-10, accepted in 2014-06-10,  发布年份 2014

【 摘 要 】

Background

Cancer remains the second leading cause of mortality in the United States. Special events such as health fairs, screening days or cultural festivals are employed often for community education about cancer screening. A previous systematic review of the published literature was conducted in 2012-2013. The purpose of this study was to conduct a grey literature component of special events that promote breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening in the U.S.

Methods

We conducted a grey literature search of dissertations/theses and conference abstracts. The theses/dissertations were restricted to those: 1) written in English, 2) published from January 1990 to December 2011, 3) examined at least one of the predefined categories of special events, 4) involved cancer screening for breast, cervical, and/or colorectal cancer, 5) included outcome data, and 6) conducted in the United States. A review of U.S. public health and cancer conference abstracts, that were readily available and had focused on at least of 3 cancer types and included outcome data, was conducted. Data were abstracted on the purpose, location, primary audience(s), activities conducted, screening provided onsite or referrals, and evaluation results.

Results

The grey literature review found 6 special events. The types of events found added to the numbers found in the systematic review, especially receptions or parties and cultural festivals/events. All focused on increasing breast and cervical cancer screening except one that focused on breast cancer only. The reach of these events was targeted at mostly minorities or underserved communities. Common evidence-based strategies were group education, small media, and reducing structural barriers. Group education involved presentations from physicians, lay-health advisors, or cancer survivors, while reducing structural barriers included activities such as providing screening appointment sign-ups at the event or providing transportation for event participants. Mammogram screening rates ranged from 6.8% to 60% and Pap tests from 52% to 70%.

Conclusions

Further evaluation of special events to promote cancer screening will prove their effectiveness. A grey literature review can augment a systematic review of published literature. Additional data about these events through the grey literature offered additional insights into the goals, intervention components and outcomes of interventions.

【 授权许可】

   
2014 Escoffery et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

【 图 表 】

【 参考文献 】

• [1]American Cancer Society: Cancer facts & figures 2013. Atlanta: American Cancer Society; 2013.
• [2]Centers for Disease Control and Prevention: Cancer screening–United States. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2012, 61(3):41-45.
• [3]Siegel R, Naishadham D, Jemal A: Cancer statistics 2012. CA Canc J Clin 2012, 62(1):10-29.
• [4]Edwards BK, Ward E, Kohler BA, Eheman C, Zauber AG, Anderson RN, Jemal A, Schymura MJ, Lansdorp-Vogelaar I, Seeff LC, van Ballegooijen M, Goede SL, Ries LA: Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975-2006, featuring colorectal cancer trends and impact of interventions to reduce future rates. Cancer 2010, 116(3):544-573.
• [5]Klabunde CN, Vernon SW, Nadel MR, Breen N, Seeff LC, Brown ML: Barriers to colorectal cancer screening: a comparison of reports from primary care physicians and average-risk adults. Med Care 2005, 43(9):939-944.
• [6]Klabunde CN, Schenck AP, Davis WW: Barriers to colorectal cancer screening among Medicare consumers. Am J Prev Med 2006, 30(4):313-319.
• [7]George SA: Barriers to breast cancer screening: an integrative review. Health Care Women In 2000, 21(1):53-65.
• [8]Sabatino SA, Lawrence B, Elder R, Mercer SL, Wilson KM, DeVinney B, Melillo S, Carvalho M, Taplin S, Bastani R, Rimer BK, Vernon SW, Melvin CL, Taylor V, Fernandez M, Glanz K, Community Preventive Services Task Force: Effectiveness of interventions to increase screening for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers: nine updated systematic reviews for the guide to community preventive services. Am J Prev Med 2012, 43(1):97-118.
• [9]Baron RC, Melillo S, Rimer BK, Coates RJ, Kerner J, Habarta N, Chattopadhyay S, Sabatino SA, Elder R, Leeks KJ, Task Force on Community Preventive Services: Intervention to increase recommendation and delivery of screening for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers by healthcare providers: a systematic review of provider reminders. Am J Prev Med 2010, 38(1):110-117.
• [10]Escoffery C, Rodgers KC, Kegler MC, Haardörfer R, Howard D, Liang S, Pinsker E, Roland KB, Allen J, Ory MG, Bastani R, Fernandez ME, Risendal BC, Byrd T, Coronado G: A systematic review of special events to promote breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening in the United States. BMC Publ Health 2014, 14:274.
• [11]Hart C: Doing a literature search: a comprehensive guide for the social sciences. London: Sage; 2001.
• [12]Hopewell S, McDonald S, Clarke M, Egger M: Grey literature in meta-analyses of randomized trials of health care interventions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007, 18(12):MR000010.
• [13]Higgins JPT, Green S: Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0. London: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. [updated March 2011]
• [14]Lefebvre C, Manheimer E, Glanville JL: Chapter 6: Searching for studies. In Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0. Edited by Higgins JPT, Green S. London: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011.
• [15]Scherer RW, Langenberg P, von Elm E: Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2007, 18(2):MR000005.
• [16]Dobbins M, Robeson P: A methodology for searching the grey literature for effectiveness evidence syntheses related to public health. Ottawa: The Public Health Agency of Canada; 2006.
• [17]Sun A: Promoting breast cancer screening among Chinese American women through young children's theatrical performance. PhD thesis. Minneapolis MN: Walden University; 2009.
• [18]Hunt B, Vasquez-Jones G, Taylor C, Rodriguez W, Jimenez N, Shah A: Reaching at-risk women to promote breast cancer screening on the westside of Chicago. Washington DC: Sinai Urban Health Institute; 2011.
• [19]White K, Garces I, McGuire A, Isabel S: Does conducting routine community health outreach events reach new women: An evaluation of a breast and cervical cancer screening program for Latina immigrant women. Denver: University of Alabama; 2010.
• [20]Rice C, Kirk A, Talwar D, Wood R, Ory M: Implementation of an Evidence-Based Cancer Prevention and Control Program through Texas AgriLife Extension: Friend to Friend. Austin: Texas Agrilife Extension Service; 2011.
• [21]Vera-Cala L, Martinez-Donate A, Vedro R, Angulo R, Atkinson T: Effectiveness of Cuidandome (Taking Care of Me): a communitywide intervention to promote breast and cervical cancer screening among low-acculturated Latinas in Dane County, Wisconsin. Washington DC: University of Wisconsin at Madison; 2011.
• [22]Dahlke DV, Gines V, Villarreal S, Ory M: Increasing screening rates for Latinas using health fiestas and promotoras. Houston: Texas A&M Health Science Center. Cancer Prevention and Research Institute of Texas Conference; 2011.
• [23]Brouwers MC, De Vito C, Bahirathan L, Carol A, Carroll JC, Cotterchio M, Dobbins M, Lent B, Levitt C, Lewis N, McGregor SE, Paszat L, Rand C, Wathen N: Effective interventions to increase the uptake of breast, cervical and colorectal cancer screening: an implementation guideline. Implement Sci 2011, 6:112.
• [24]Macias EP, Morales LS: Utilization of health care services among adults attending a health fair in south Los Angeles County. J Comm Health 2000, 25(1):35-46.
• [25]von Elm E, Costanza MC, Walder B, Tramèr MR: More insight into the fate of biomedical meeting abstracts: a systematic review. BMC Med Res Methodol 2003, 3:12.
• [26]Sprague S, Bhandari M, Devereaux PJ, Swiontkowski MF, Tornetta P, Cook DJ, Dirschl D, Schemitsch EH, Guyatt GH: Barriers to full-text publication following presentation of abstracts at annual orthopaedic meetings. J Bone Joint Surg Am 2003, 85-A:158-163.
• [27]Krzyzanowska MK, Pintilie M, Tannock IF: Factors associated with failure to publish large randomized trials presented at an oncology meeting. JAMA 2003, 290(4):495-501.
• [28]Benzies KM, Premji S, Hayden KA, Serrett K: State-of-the-evidence reviews: advantages and challenges of including grey literature. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs 2006, 3(2):55-61.
• [29]Hopewell S, Clarke M: How completely are trials reported? Clin Trials 2005, 2(3):265-268.
• [30]Hopewell S, Clarke M, Moher D, Wager E, Middleton P, Altman DG, Schulz KF, Consort Group: CONSORT for reporting randomized trials in journal and conference abstracts. Lancet 2008, 371:281-283.
• [31]Hannon PA, Fernandez ME, Williams RS, Mullen PD, Escoffery C, Kreuter MW, Pfeiffer D, Kegler MC, Reese L, Mistry R, Bowen DJ: Cancer control planners' perceptions and use of evidence-based programs. J Publ Health Manag Pract 2010, 16(3):E1-E8.
• [32]Young T, Hopewell S: Methods for obtaining unpublished data. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011, 11:MR000027.
• [33]Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, PRISMA Group: Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Ann Intern Med 2009, 151(4):W64.