Annals of family medicine

ISSN:

国家:

Australia

影响因子:

SCIE收录情况:

JCR分区:

J G Walker; S Licqurish; P P C Chiang; M Pirotta; J D Emery; J G Walker; S Licqurish; P P C Chiang; M Pirotta; J D Emery
2015-09 相关链接

摘要

PURPOSE: We conducted this review to identify published randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of cancer risk assessment tools used in primary care and to determine their impact on clinical utility (clinicians), screening uptake (patients), and psychosocial outcomes (patients). METHODS: We searched EMBASE, PubMed and the Cochrane databases for RCTs of cancer risk assessment tools in primary care up to May 2014. Only studies set in primary care, with patients eligible for screening, and English-language articles were included. RESULTS: The review included 11 trials of 7 risk tools. The trials were heterogeneous with respect to type of tool that was used, type(s) of cancer assessed, and outcomes measured. Evidence suggested risk tools improved patient risk perception, knowledge, and screening intentions, but not necessarily screening behavior. Overall, uptake of a tool was greater if initiated by patients, if used by a dedicated clinician, and when combined with decision support. There was no increase in cancer worry. Health promotion messages within the tool had positive effects on behavior change. Trials were limited by low-recruitment uptake, and the heterogeneity of the findings necessitated a narrative review rather than a meta-analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Risk tools may increase intentions to have cancer screening, but additional interventions at the clinician or health system levels may be needed to increase risk-appropriate cancer screening behavior

cancer screening; practice-based research; primary care; risk assessment tools.

技术资源 ; 卫生服务

混合人群

Not Available

除非特别说明,本系统中所有内容都受版权保护,并保留所有权利。