Our system is currently under heavy load due to increased usage. We're actively working on upgrades to improve performance. Thank you for your patience.
2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.pec.2016.05.012
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Impact of non-clinical community-based promotional campaigns on bowel cancer screening engagement: An integrative literature review

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1

Citation Types

2
33
0

Year Published

2018
2018
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 16 publications
(35 citation statements)
references
References 45 publications
2
33
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The impact of communityfocused promotional activities on awareness and screening behaviours can also be difficult to quantify. 24 Innovative and flexible methods need to be considered when delivering and evaluating such programs. 4.…”
Section: Dedicated Tangible Engagement Is Neededmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The impact of communityfocused promotional activities on awareness and screening behaviours can also be difficult to quantify. 24 Innovative and flexible methods need to be considered when delivering and evaluating such programs. 4.…”
Section: Dedicated Tangible Engagement Is Neededmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Using media education (postcards, letters) within primary care and enhancing primary care practice electronic medical records to include reminder systems can also improve screening rates 10. Outside primary care, culturally adapted group education sessions and multicomponent interventions (such as education sessions, videos and special events) have been found to increase screening rates,11 while telephone outreach modestly increases screening 12. Financial support and one-on-one education have been found to be less effective than group education 11.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Outside primary care, culturally adapted group education sessions and multicomponent interventions (such as education sessions, videos and special events) have been found to increase screening rates,11 while telephone outreach modestly increases screening 12. Financial support and one-on-one education have been found to be less effective than group education 11. As the delivery of each of these interventions relies on practitioner, community or cultural group initiatives, they are likely to have limited population reach and so are limited in their capacity to drive increases in the overall population screening rate.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…In addition to barriers to specific screening modalities (e.g., colonoscopy-associated fear and feelings of vulnerability; McLachlan, Clements, & Austoker, 2012), several barriers to CRC screening of any sort have been identified: (a) being unaware of the need for screening; (b) lacking a physician's recommendation; (c) being uninsured for health care or concerned about the cost of the test; (d) not having CRC symptoms, a family history of CRC, or a screened network member; (e) fear of what the procedure might find (Jones, Devers, Kuzel, & Wolf, 2010); (f) confusion about screening options (Jones, Vernon & Wolf, 2010); and (g) fatalism-the sense that health and disease are preordained (e.g., Crosby & Collins, 2017). Fortunately, interventions to overcome CRC screening barriers have had some success; the most effective addressed barriers at levels of community member demand and test access or provider behavior (Martini, Morris, & Preen, 2016; "Cancer Screening: Multicomponent Interventions-Colorectal Cancer," 2016).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%