ObjectiveTo determine the effectiveness of physical activity interventions involving mobile applications (apps) or trackers with automated and continuous self-monitoring and feedback.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesPubMed and seven additional databases, from 2007 to 2020.Study selectionRandomised controlled trials in adults (18–65 years old) without chronic illness, testing a mobile app or an activity tracker, with any comparison, where the main outcome was a physical activity measure. Independent screening was conducted.Data extraction and synthesisWe conducted random effects meta-analysis and all effect sizes were transformed into standardised difference in means (SDM). We conducted exploratory metaregression with continuous and discrete moderators identified as statistically significant in subgroup analyses.Main outcome measuresPhysical activity: daily step counts, min/week of moderate-to-vigorous physical activity, weekly days exercised, min/week of total physical activity, metabolic equivalents.ResultsThirty-five studies met inclusion criteria and 28 were included in the meta-analysis (n=7454 participants, 28% women). The meta-analysis showed a small-to-moderate positive effect on physical activity measures (SDM 0.350, 95% CI 0.236 to 0.465, I2=69%, T2=0.051) corresponding to 1850 steps per day (95% CI 1247 to 2457). Interventions including text-messaging and personalisation features were significantly more effective in subgroup analyses and metaregression.ConclusionInterventions using apps or trackers seem to be effective in promoting physical activity. Longer studies are needed to assess the impact of different intervention components on long-term engagement and effectiveness.

Background: According to the Wonca International Dictionary for General/Family Practice Quaternary Prevention is defined as: ‘Action taken to identify patient at risk of overmedicalization, to protect him from new medical invasion, and to suggest to him interventions, which are ethically acceptable.’ The concept of quaternary prevention was initially proposed by Marc Jamoulle and the targets were mainly patients with illness but without a disease. Objectives: The purpose of this opinion article is to open the debate around a new possible definition and a new conceptual model of quaternary prevention based on the belief that quaternary prevention should be present in physicians’ minds for every intervention they suggest to a patient. Discussion: The debate around quaternary prevention is vital in the context of contemporary medicine and has expanded worldwide. The human being may suffer harm from medical interventions from conception, during their childhood, during their entire healthy lifetime as well as during a self-limited disease, a chronic disease, or a terminal disease. The current definition of quaternary prevention has limitations because it excludes patients and medical interventions where a quaternary prevention perspective would be needed and useful to protect patients from harm. In this context, a new definition and conceptual model of quaternary prevention is proposed. Conclusion: In this new proposal, quaternary prevention is defined as an ‘action taken to protect individuals (persons/patients) from medical interventions that are likely to cause more harm than good.’

Background Cervical cancer screening has been effective in reducing incidence and mortality of cervical cancer, leading European countries to implement screening programs. However, migrant women show lower screening participation compared to nationals. This scoping review aims to provide a synthesis of the growing evidence on factors associated with participation in cervical cancer screening among migrant women in Europe. Methods Electronic peer-reviewed databases were searched in November 2019 for studies on factors related to the participation of migrants in cervical cancer screening conducted in EU/EFTA countries, using comprehensive search expressions. Retrieved articles were screened and those eligible were selected for data extraction. Quantitative and qualitative studies were included. Factors were classified in barriers and facilitators and were divided into further categories. Results Twenty out of 96 articles were selected and analyzed. Factors associated with participation in cervical cancer screening were classified in categories related to sociodemographic, healthcare-system, psychological, migration, knowledge, language, and cultural factors. Lack of information, lack of female healthcare providers, poor language skills, and emotional responses to the test (especially fear, embarrassment and discomfort) were the most reported barriers to cervical cancer screening. Encouragement from healthcare providers and information available in migrants’ languages were frequently stated as facilitators. Results on the role of sociodemographic factors, such as age, education, employment and marital status, are the most conflicting, highlighting the complexity of the issue and the possibility of interactions between factors, resulting in different effects on cervical cancer screening participation among migrant women. Several identified barriers to screening are like those to access to healthcare services in general. Conclusions Efforts to increase migrant women’s participation in CCS must target barriers to access to healthcare services in general but also specific barriers, including cultural differences about sexuality and gender, past traumatic personal experiences, and the gender and competences of healthcare professionals performing CCS. Healthcare services should strengthen resources to meet migrants’ needs, including having CCS information translated and culturally adapted, as well as healthcare providers with skills to deal with cultural background. These findings can contribute to improve CCS programs among migrant women, reducing health disparities and enhancing their overall health and well-being.

Objectives To assess how often harm is quantified in randomised trials of cancer screening.Design Two authors independently extracted data on harms from randomised cancer screening trials. Binary outcomes were described as proportions and continuous outcomes with medians and interquartile ranges.Data sources For cancer screening previously assessed in a Cochrane review, we identified trials from their reference lists and updated the search in CENTRAL. For cancer screening not assessed in a Cochrane review, we searched CENTRAL, Medline, and Embase.Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Randomised trials that assessed the efficacy of cancer screening for reducing incidence of cancer, cancer specific mortality, and/or all cause mortality.Data extraction Two reviewers independently assessed articles for eligibility. Two reviewers, who were blinded to the identity of the study’s authors, assessed whether absolute numbers or incidence rates of outcomes related to harm were provided separately for the screening and control groups. The outcomes were false positive findings, overdiagnosis, negative psychosocial consequences, somatic complications, invasive follow-up procedures, all cause mortality, and withdrawals because of adverse events.Results Out of 4590 articles assessed, 198 (57 trials, 10 screening technologies) matched the inclusion criteria. False positive findings were quantified in two of 57 trials (4%, 95% confidence interval 0% to 12%), overdiagnosis in four (7%, 2% to 18%), negative psychosocial consequences in five (9%, 3% to 20%), somatic complications in 11 (19%, 10% to 32%), use of invasive follow-up procedures in 27 (47%, 34% to 61%), all cause mortality in 34 (60%, 46% to 72%), and withdrawals because of adverse effects in one trial (2%, 0% to 11%). The median percentage of space in the results section that reported harms was 12% (interquartile range 2-19%).Conclusions Cancer screening trials seldom quantify the harms of screening. Of the 57 cancer screening trials examined, the most important harms of screening—overdiagnosis and false positive findings—were quantified in only 7% and 4%, respectively.

Denmark, contributed with data acquisition and received financial compensation for her work. 1. Pedersen JH, Ashraf H, Dirksen A, et al. The Danish randomized lung cancer CT screening trial: overall design and results of the prevalence round.

Background The COVID-19 pandemic is straining health systems and disrupting the delivery of health care services, in particular, for older adults and people with chronic conditions, who are particularly vulnerable to COVID-19 infection. Objective The aim of this project was to support primary health care provision with a digital health platform that will allow primary care physicians and nurses to remotely manage the care of patients with chronic diseases or COVID-19 infections. Methods For the rapid design and implementation of a digital platform to support primary health care services, we followed the Design Science implementation framework: (1) problem identification and motivation, (2) definition of the objectives aligned with goal-oriented care, (3) artefact design and development based on Scrum, (4) solution demonstration, (5) evaluation, and (6) communication. Results The digital platform was developed for the specific objectives of the project and successfully piloted in 3 primary health care centers in the Lisbon Health Region. Health professionals (n=53) were able to remotely manage their first patients safely and thoroughly, with high degrees of satisfaction. Conclusions Although still in the first steps of implementation, its positive uptake, by both health care providers and patients, is a promising result. There were several limitations including the low number of participating health care units. Further research is planned to deploy the platform to many more primary health care centers and evaluate the impact on patient’s health related outcomes.

BackgroundProstate cancer is a leading cause of cancer among men. Because screening for prostate cancer is a controversial issue, many experts in the field have defended the use of shared decision making using validated decision aids, which can be presented in different formats (eg, written, multimedia, Web). Recent studies have concluded that decision aids improve knowledge and reduce decisional conflict.ObjectiveThis meta-analysis aimed to investigate the impact of using Web-based decision aids to support men’s prostate cancer screening decisions in comparison with usual care and other formats of decision aids.MethodsWe searched PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases up to November 2016. This search identified randomized controlled trials, which assessed Web-based decision aids for men making a prostate cancer screening decision and reported quality of decision-making outcomes. Two reviewers independently screened citations for inclusion criteria, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Using a random-effects model, meta-analyses were conducted pooling results using mean differences (MD), standardized mean differences (SMD), and relative risks (RR).ResultsOf 2406 unique citations, 7 randomized controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. For risk of bias, selective outcome reporting and participant/personnel blinding were mostly rated as unclear due to inadequate reporting. Based on seven items, two studies had high risk of bias for one item. Compared to usual care, Web-based decision aids increased knowledge (SMD 0.46; 95% CI 0.18-0.75), reduced decisional conflict (MD –7.07%; 95% CI –9.44 to –4.71), and reduced the practitioner control role in the decision-making process (RR 0.50; 95% CI 0.31-0.81). Web-based decision aids compared to printed decision aids yielded no differences in knowledge, decisional conflict, and participation in decision or screening behaviors. Compared to video decision aids, Web-based decision aids showed lower average knowledge scores (SMD –0.50; 95% CI –0.88 to –0.12) and a slight decrease in prostate-specific antigen screening (RR 1.12; 95% CI 1.01-1.25).ConclusionsAccording to this analysis, Web-based decision aids performed similarly to alternative formats (ie, printed, video) for the assessed decision-quality outcomes. The low cost, readiness, availability, and anonymity of the Web can be an advantage for increasing access to decision aids that support prostate cancer screening decisions among men.

In low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) screening for lung cancer, all three main conditions for overdiagnosis in cancer screening are present: 1) a reservoir of slowly or nongrowing lung cancer exists; 2) LDCT is a high-resolution imaging technology with the potential to identify this reservoir; and 3) eligible screening participants have a high risk of dying from causes other than lung cancer. The degree of overdiagnosis in cancer screening is most validly estimated in high-quality randomised controlled trials (RCTs), with enough follow-up time after the end of screening to avoid lead-time bias and without contamination of the control group.Nine RCTs investigating LDCT screening were identified. Two RCTs were excluded because lung cancer incidence after the end of screening was not published. Two other RCTs using active comparators were also excluded. Therefore, five RCTs were included: two trials were at low risk of bias, two of some concern and one at high risk of bias. In a meta-analysis of the two low risk of bias RCTs including 8156 healthy current or former smokers, 49% of the screen-detected cancers were overdiagnosed. There is uncertainty about this substantial degree of overdiagnosis due to unexplained heterogeneity and low precision of the summed estimate across the two trials.Key pointsNine randomised controlled trials (RCTs) on low-dose computed tomography screening were identified; five were included for meta-analysis but only two of those were at low risk of bias.In a meta-analysis of recent low risk of bias RCTs including 8156 healthy current or former smokers from developed countries, we found that 49% of the screen-detected cancers may be overdiagnosed.There is uncertainty about the degree of overdiagnosis in lung cancer screening due to unexplained heterogeneity and low precision of the point estimate.If only high-quality RCTs are included in the meta-analysis, the degree of overdiagnosis is substantial.Educational aimsTo appreciate that low-dose computed tomography screening for lung cancer meets all three main conditions for overdiagnosis in cancer screening: a reservoir of indolent cancers exists in the population; the screening test is able to “tap” this reservoir by detecting biologically indolent cancers as well as biologically important cancers; and the population being screened is characterised by a relatively high competing risk of death from other causesTo learn about biases that might affect the estimates of overdiagnosis in randomised controlled trials in cancer screening