OBJECTIVES To systematically review the literature to determine which interventions improve the screening, diagnosis or treatment of cervical cancer for racial and/or ethnic minorities. DATA SOURCES Medline on OVID, Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, CINAHL, PsycINFO and Cochrane Systematic Reviews. STUDY ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA, PARTICIPANTS AND INTERVENTIONS We searched the above databases for original articles published in English with at least one intervention designed to improve cervical cancer prevention, screening, diagnosis or treatment that linked participants to the healthcare system; that focused on US racial and/or ethnic minority populations; and that measured health outcomes. Articles were reviewed to determine the population, intervention(s), and outcomes. Articles published through August 2010 were included. STUDY APPRAISAL AND SYNTHESIS METHODS One author rated the methodological quality of each of the included articles. The strength of evidence was assessed using the criteria developed by the GRADE Working Group.45,46 RESULTS Thirty-one studies were included. The strength of evidence is moderate that telephone support with navigation increases the rate of screening for cervical cancer in Spanish- and English-speaking populations; low that education delivered by lay health educators with navigation increases the rate of screening for cervical cancer for Latinas, Chinese Americans and Vietnamese Americans; low that a single visit for screening for cervical cancer and follow up of an abnormal result improves the diagnosis and treatment of premalignant disease of the cervix for Latinas; and low that telephone counseling increases the diagnosis and treatment of premalignant lesions of the cervix for African Americans. LIMITATIONS Studies that did not focus on racial and/or ethnic minority populations may have been excluded. In addition, this review excluded interventions that did not link racial and ethnic minorities to the health care system. While inclusion of these studies may have altered our findings, they were outside the scope of our review. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS OF KEY FINDINGS Patient navigation with telephone support or education may be effective at improving screening, diagnosis, and treatment among racial and ethnic minorities. Research is needed to determine the applicability of the findings beyond the populations studied.
The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the great achievements that the biomedical community can accomplish, but raised the question: Can the same medical community that developed a complex vaccine in less than a year during a pandemic help to defeat social injustice and ameliorate the epidemic of health inequity? In this article, the authors, a group of Black academics, call on the graduate medical education (GME) community to reset its trajectory toward solutions for achieving diversity, improving inclusion, and combating racism using education as the new vector. Sponsoring institutions, which include universities, academic medical centers, teaching hospitals, and teaching health centers, are the center of the creation and dissemination of scholarship. They are often the main sources of care for many historically marginalized communities. The GME learning environment must provide the next generation of medical professionals with an understanding of how racism continues to have a destructive influence on health care professionals and their patients. Residents have the practical experience of longitudinal patient care, and a significant portion of an individual’s professional identity is formed during GME; therefore, this is a key time to address explicit stereotyping and to identify implicit bias at the individual level. The authors propose 3 main reset strategies for GME—incorporating inclusive pedagogy and structural competency into education, building a diverse and inclusive learning environment, and activating community engagement—as well as tactics that sponsoring institutions can adapt to address racism at the individual learner, medical education program, and institutional levels. Sustained, comprehensive, and systematic implementation of multiple tactics could make a significant impact. It is an academic and moral imperative for the medical community to contribute to the design and implementation of solutions that directly address racism, shifting how resident physicians are educated and modeling just and inclusive behaviors for the next generation of medical leaders.
COVID-19 forced the switch to virtual for many educational strategies, including simulation. Virtual formats have the potential to broaden access to simulation training, especially in resource-heavy “bootcamp”-type settings. We converted our in-person communication skills bootcamp to telesimulation and compared effectiveness and satisfaction between formats. During June 2020 orientation, 130 entering interns at one institution participated, using Zoom® to perform one mock consultation and three mock handoffs. Faculty rated performance with checklists and gave feedback. Post-bootcamp surveys assessed participant satisfaction and practice preparedness. Telesimulation performance was comparable to in-person for consultations and slightly inferior for handoffs. Survey response rate was 100%. Compared to in-person, there was higher satisfaction with telesimulation, and interns felt more prepared for practice (95% vs 78%, P < .01); 99% recommended the experience. Fifty percent fewer faculty were required for implementation. Telesimulation was well-received and comparable to in-person bootcamp, representing a feasible, scalable training strategy for communication skills essential in hospital medicine.
The majority of learners successfully received workplace feedback using myTIPreport. This web-based tool, incorporating procedures and ACGME Milestones, may be an important transition from other feedback formats.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.