OBJECTIVE: We conducted a scoping review to identify the types of interventions targeting PFH-CRC, their effectiveness in increasing CRC screening uptake, and the elements associated with the outcomes.
METHODS: The Joanna Briggs Institute methodology for scoping review was followed. The search for eligible articles was conducted from the inception of each database until 17 July 2024 in PubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane, PsycINFO and Web of Science with no restrictions on language.
RESULTS: Thirty studies from 1995 to 2023 across 13 countries were included; mostly from high-income countries. There was considerable variability in study design, intervention characteristics, and screening outcomes. Eleven studies used theoretical frameworks in intervention development. Fourteen studies reported statistically significant increases in screening uptake among PFH-CRC, most using complex, multiple-component interventions. Tailored print materials and patient navigation more consistently demonstrated increased screening uptake, while counselling yielded mixed results.
CONCLUSION: Interventions for promoting CRC screening uptake in PFH-CRC commonly incorporate print material, patient navigation and counselling, often combined into complex interventions. Future research should include more implementation studies to translate these interventions into real-world settings. Additionally, there are gaps in research from low- and middle-income countries, highlighting the need for further research in these resource-limited settings.
METHODS: A pilot cluster randomized controlled trial (cRCT) with qualitative interviews was conducted. Each primary care doctor was considered a cluster and randomized to either the control (usual practice) or intervention (DeSSBack) group. Patient outcomes including Roland-Morris Disability Questionnaire (RMDQ), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale, and a 10-point pain rating scale were measured at baseline and 2-month postintervention. The doctors in the intervention group were interviewed to explore feasibility and acceptability of using DeSSBack.
RESULTS: Thirty-six patients with nonspecific LBP participated in this study (intervention n = 23; control n = 13). Fidelity was poor among patients but good among doctors. The RMDQ and anxiety score had medium effect sizes of 0.718 and 0.480, respectively. The effect sizes for pain score (0.070) and depression score were small (0.087). There was appreciable acceptability and satisfaction with use of DeSSBack, as it was helpful in facilitating thorough and standardized management, providing appropriate treatment plans based on risk stratification, improving consultation time, empowering patient-centred care, and easy to use.
CONCLUSIONS: A future cRCT to evaluate the effectiveness of DeSSBack is feasible to be conducted in a primary care setting with minor modifications. DeSSBack was found useful by doctors and can be improved to enhance efficiency.
TRIAL REGISTRATION: The protocol of the cluster randomized controlled trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04959669).