Screening reduces the incidence, morbidity, and mortality of colorectal cancer, yet participation tends to be low. We undertook a systematic review and meta-study synthesis of qualitative studies to identify facilitators and barriers to colorectal cancer screening participation. We searched major bibliographic databases for records published in all languages from inception to February 2015. Included primary studies that elicited views and perceptions towards colorectal cancer screening were appraised for relevance and quality. We used a two-stage synthesis to create an interpretation of colorectal cancer screening decisions grounded in primary studies; a thematic analysis to group themes and systematically compare studies and a meta-synthesis to generate an expanded theory of colorectal cancer screening participation.Ninety-four studies were included. The decision to participate in colorectal cancer screening depended on an individual's awareness of colorectal cancer screening. Awareness affected views of cancer, attitudes towards colorectal cancer screening modalities, and motivation for screening. Factors mediating awareness included public education to address misconceptions, primary care physician efforts to recommend screening, and the influence of friends and family. Specific barriers to participation in populations with lower participation rates included language barriers, logistical challenges to attending screening tests, and cultural beliefs. This study identifies key barriers, facilitators, and mediators to colorectal cancer screening participation.Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 25(6); 907-17. Ó2016 AACR.

BackgroundCommunity-based health insurance (CBHI) has evolved as an alternative health financing mechanism to out of pocket payments in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), particularly in areas where government or employer-based health insurance is minimal. This systematic review aimed to assess the barriers and facilitators to implementation, uptake and sustainability of CHBI schemes in LMICs.MethodsWe searched six electronic databases and grey literature. We included both quantitative and qualitative studies written in English language and published after year 1992. Two reviewers worked in duplicate and independently to complete study selection, data abstraction, and assessment of methodological features. We synthesized the findings based on thematic analysis and categorized according to the ecological model into individual, interpersonal, community and systems levels.ResultsOf 15,510 citations, 51 met the eligibility criteria. Individual factors included awareness and understanding of the concept of CBHI, trust in scheme and scheme managers, perceived service quality, and demographic characteristics, which influenced enrollment and sustainability. Interpersonal factors such as household dynamics, other family members enrolled in the scheme, and social solidarity influenced enrollment and renewal of membership. Community-level factors such as culture and community involvement in scheme development influenced enrollment and sustainability of scheme. Systems-level factors encompassed governance, financial and delivery arrangement. Government involvement, accountability of scheme management, and strong policymaker-implementer relation facilitated implementation and sustainability of scheme. Packages that covered outpatient and inpatient care and those tailored to community needs contributed to increased enrollment. Amount and timing of premium collection was reported to negatively influence enrollment while factors reported as threats to sustainability included facility bankruptcy, operating on small budgets, rising healthcare costs, small risk pool, irregular contributions, and overutilization of services. At the delivery level, accessibility of facilities, facility environment, and health personnel influenced enrollment, service utilization and dropout rates.ConclusionThere are a multitude of interrelated factors at the individual, interpersonal, community and systems levels that drive the implementation, uptake and sustainability of CBHI schemes. We discuss the implications of the findings at the policy and research level.Trial registrationThe review protocol is registered in PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews (ID = CRD42015019812).Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12939-018-0721-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

Objectives To map travel policies implemented due to COVID-19 during 2020, and conduct a mixed-methods systematic review of health effects of such policies, and related contextual factors. Design Policy mapping and systematic review Data sources and eligibility criteria for the policy mapping, we searched websites of relevant government bodies and used data from the Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker for a convenient sample of 31 countries across different regions. For the systematic review, we searched Medline (Ovid), PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials and COVID-19 specific databases. We included randomized controlled trial, non-randomized studies, modeling studies, and qualitative studies. Two independent reviewers selected studies, abstracted data and assessed risk of bias. Results Most countries adopted a total border closure at the start of the pandemic. For the remainder of the year, partial border closure banning arrivals from some countries or regions was the most widely adopted measure, followed by mandatory quarantine and screening of travelers. The systematic search identified 69 eligible studies, including 50 modeling studies. Both observational and modeling evidence suggest that border closure may reduce the number of COVID-19 cases, disease spread across countries and between regions, and slow the progression of the outbreak. These effects are likely to be enhanced when implemented early, and when combined with measures reducing transmission rates in the community. Quarantine of travelers may decrease the number of COVID-19 cases but its effectiveness depends on compliance and enforcement and is more effective if followed by testing, especially when less than 14 day-quarantine is considered. Screening at departure and/or arrival is unlikely to detect a large proportion of cases or to delay an outbreak. Effectiveness of screening may be improved with increased sensitivity of screening tests, awareness of travelers, asymptomatic screening, and exit screening at country source. While four studies on contextual evidence found that the majority of the public is supportive of travel restrictions, they uncovered concerns about the unintended harms of those policies. Conclusion Most countries adopted full or partial border closure in response to COVID-19 in 2020. Evidence suggests positive effects on controlling the COVID-19 pandemic for border closure (particularly when implemented early), as well as quarantine of travelers (particularly with higher levels of compliance). While these positive effects are enhanced when implemented in combination with other public health measures, they are associated with concerns by the public regarding some unintended effects.

Background Syrian healthcare workers (HCWs) are among those who fled the Syrian conflict only to face further social and economic challenges in host countries. In Lebanon, this population group cannot formally practice, yet many are believed to be operating informally. These activities remain poorly documented and misunderstood by the academic, policy and humanitarian communities. This study aims to understand mechanisms of informal provision of services, the facilitators and barriers for such practices and to present policy recommendations for building on this adaptive mechanism. Method A qualitative descriptive study based on an in-depth interview approach with a sample of Syrian informal healthcare workers (IHCWs) residing in Lebanon was adopted. Known sponsor networks followed by snowball sampling approaches were used to recruit participants. Data collection occurred between September and December 2017. All interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed and translated into English. An inductive thematic analysis was used. Results Twenty-two participants were recruited. Motivational factors that led HCWs to practice informally were personal (e.g. source of income/livelihood), societal (cultural competency), and need to fulfill a gap in the formal health service sector. Being connected to a network of IHCWs facilitated initiation of the informal practice until eventually becoming part of a community of informal practice. The central challenge was the informal nature of their practice and its negative consequences. Most IHCWs were afraid of arrest by the government upon identification. Most interviewees indicated being discriminated against by host communities in the form of differential wages and tense interpersonal relationships. Almost all recommended a change in policy allowing them to practice formally under a temporary registration until their return to Syria. Conclusion Our study confirmed the presence of IHCWs operating in Lebanon. Despite its informal nature, participants perceived that this practice was filling a gap in the formal health system and was helping to alleviate the burden of IHCWs and refugee health needs. In line with interviewees’ views, we recommend that policy decision makers within humanitarian agencies and the Government of Lebanon explore the possibilities for allowing temporary registration of displaced Syrian IHCW to benefit local host communities and refugee populations. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13031-019-0224-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.