» Articles » PMID: 33209857

Assessing the Implementation of Interventions Addressing Socioeconomic Inequalities in Cancer Screening in High-income Countries

Overview
Publisher Sage Publications
Specialty Public Health
Date 2020 Nov 19
PMID 33209857
Citations 1
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

The context of an intervention may influence its effectiveness and success in meeting the needs of the targeted population. Implementation science frameworks have been developed, but previous literature in this field has been mixed. This paper aimed to assess the implementation success of interventions, identified from a systematic review, that reduced inequalities in cancer screening between people in low and high socioeconomic groups. The implementation framework by Proctor was utilised to assess the potential success of 6 studies reporting on 7 interventions in the "real-world" environment. A standardised rating system to identify the overall implementation success of each intervention was established. Four interventions (57%) demonstrated high potential to be implemented successfully. Interventions included enhanced reminder letters and GP-endorsed screening invitations, containing evidence on the acceptability, from participants and stakeholders, appropriateness and direct cost of the intervention. While some interventions reduced socioeconomic inequalities in cancer screening participation, there have been missed opportunities to integrate the experiences of the targeted population into design and evaluation components. This has limited the potential for transferability of outcomes to other settings.

Citing Articles

Cancer Screening Rate and Related Factors in the Japanese Child-Rearing Generation.

Okayama M, Nagaoka T, Sugisaki K Healthcare (Basel). 2022; 10(3).

PMID: 35326986 PMC: 8950849. DOI: 10.3390/healthcare10030508.

References
1.
Kemp C, Jarrett B, Kwon C, Song L, Jette N, Sapag J . Implementation science and stigma reduction interventions in low- and middle-income countries: a systematic review. BMC Med. 2019; 17(1):6. PMC: 6376798. DOI: 10.1186/s12916-018-1237-x. View

2.
Kerrison R, Shukla H, Cunningham D, Oyebode O, Friedman E . Text-message reminders increase uptake of routine breast screening appointments: a randomised controlled trial in a hard-to-reach population. Br J Cancer. 2015; 112(6):1005-10. PMC: 4366892. DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2015.36. View

3.
Wardle J, Von Wagner C, Kralj-Hans I, Halloran S, Smith S, McGregor L . Effects of evidence-based strategies to reduce the socioeconomic gradient of uptake in the English NHS Bowel Cancer Screening Programme (ASCEND): four cluster-randomised controlled trials. Lancet. 2015; 387(10020):751-9. PMC: 4761689. DOI: 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01154-X. View

4.
Raine R, Duffy S, Wardle J, Solmi F, Morris S, Howe R . Impact of general practice endorsement on the social gradient in uptake in bowel cancer screening. Br J Cancer. 2016; 114(3):321-6. PMC: 4742577. DOI: 10.1038/bjc.2015.413. View

5.
Reeves P, Edmunds K, Searles A, Wiggers J . Economic evaluations of public health implementation-interventions: a systematic review and guideline for practice. Public Health. 2019; 169:101-113. DOI: 10.1016/j.puhe.2019.01.012. View