Skin Cancer Education Interventions for Primary Care Providers: A Scoping Review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Brown AE
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9202989 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Jul
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Skin Cancer Education Interventions for Primary Care Providers: A Scoping Review.
Brown Ashley E AE Najmi Maleka M Duke Taylor T Grabell Daniel A DA Koshelev Misha V MV Nelson Kelly C KC
Journal of general internal medicine 20220616 9
Primary care physicians (PCPs) are often the first line of defense against skin cancers. Despite this, many PCPs do not receive a comprehensive training in skin conditions. Educational interventions aimed at skin cancer screening instruction for PCPs offer an opportunity to detect skin cancer at earlier stages and subsequent improved morbidity and mortality. A scoping review was conducted to collect data about previously reported skin cancer screening interventions for PCPs. A structured literat ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:PurposeTo identify published literature regarding cancer survivorship education programs for primary care providers (PCPs) and assess their outcomes.MethodsPubMed, Embase, and CINAHL databases were searched between January 2005 and September 2020. The Quality of Cancer Survivorship Care Framework and Kirkpatrick's 4-level evaluation model were used to summarize program content and outcomes, respectively. Data extraction and critical appraisal were conducted by two authors.ResultsTwenty-one studies were included, describing self-directed online courses (n=4), presentations (n=2), workshops and training sessions (n=6), placement programs (n=3), a live webinar, a fellowship program, a referral program, a survivorship conference, a dual in-person workshop and webinar, and an in-person seminar and online webinar series. Eight studies described the use of a learner framework or theory to guide program development. All 21 programs were generally beneficial to PCP learners (e.g., increased confidence, knowledge, behavior change); however, methodological bias suggests caution in accepting claims. Three studies reported positive outcomes at the patient level (i.e., satisfaction with care) and organizational level (i.e., increased screening referrals, changes to institution practice standards).ConclusionsA range of cancer survivorship PCP education programs exist. Evidence for clinical effectiveness was rarely reported. Future educational programs should be tailored to PCPs, utilize an evidence-based survivorship framework, and evaluate patient- and system-level outcomes.Implications for cancer survivorsPCPs have an important role in addressing the diverse health care needs of cancer survivors. Improving the content, approach, and evaluation of PCP-focused cancer survivorship education programs could have a positive impact on health outcomes among cancer survivors.
| S-EPMC7990618 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Skin cancer is a growing global problem and a significant health and economic burden. Despite the practical necessity for skin cancer to be managed in primary care settings, little is known about how quality of care is or should be measured in this setting. This scoping review aimed to capture the breadth and range of contemporary evidence related to the measurement of quality in skin cancer management in primary care settings. Six databases were searched for relevant texts reporting on quality measurement in primary care skin cancer management. Data from 46 texts published since 2011 were extracted, and quality measures were catalogued according to the three domains of the Donabedian model of healthcare quality (structure, process and outcome). Quality measures within each domain were inductively analysed into 13 key emergent groups. These represented what were deemed to be the most relevant components of skin cancer management as related to structure, process or outcomes measurement. Four groups related to the structural elements of care provision (e.g. diagnostic tools and equipment), five related to the process of care delivery (e.g. diagnostic processes) and four related to the outcomes of care (e.g. poor treatment outcomes). A broad range of quality measures have been documented, based predominantly on articles using retrospective cohort designs; systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials were limited.
| S-EPMC10952799 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In many countries, patients with concerning skin lesions will first consult a primary care physician (PCP). Dermoscopy has an evidence base supporting its use in primary care for skin cancer detection, but need for training has been cited as a key barrier to its use. How PCPs train to use dermoscopy is unclear. A scoping literature review was carried out to examine what is known from the published literature about PCP training in dermoscopy. The methodological steps taken in this review followed those described by Arksey and O'Malley, as revised by Levac et al. Four electronic databases were searched for evidence published up to June 2018. Sixteen articles were identified for analysis, all published since 2000. Ten training programs were identified all of which addressed dermoscopy of pigmented skin lesions, among other topics. Ten articles reported on a range of outcomes measured after training and showed generally positive results in terms of improved diagnostic performance, although no meta-analysis was conducted. However, it was unclear whether trained PCPs continued to use dermoscopy after training. Observational questionnaire data revealed that many PCPs use dermoscopy in practice without any formal training. The literature generally supports the use of dermoscopy by PCPs, but it is unclear whether current training leads to long-term change in PCPs' use of dermoscopy in clinical practice. Understanding this problem, as well as exploring PCPs' training needs, is essential to develop training programs that will facilitate the uptake and use of dermoscopy in primary care.
| S-EPMC7363668 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundComprehensive cancer care requires effective collaboration by interprofessional healthcare teams. The need to develop educational initiatives to improve interprofessional collaboration is increasingly recognised. However, there is no agreement regarding the interprofessional competencies required for effective cancer care leading to much variation on the focus of research, planning and managing change. A scoping review was conducted to identify the current status of IPE in cancer care and to summarise the results of previous research in order to guide the development of interprofessional education in cancer care.MethodsThe JBI Scoping Review guidelines were used to guide the process of the review. A search of the available literature was conducted in CINAHL, MEDLINE (Ovid), PubMed, PsycInfo, Scopus databases from January 2012 to March 2023 to investigate IPE for health professional clinicians working in cancer care.ResultsOf the 825 initial references and 153 studies imported for screening, a total of 28 studies were included in the final review. From those studies, seven focused on the need for IPE and interprofessional competence for oncology healthcare professionals, four reviewed existing IPE programs and 17 described the development and evaluation of interprofessional education. Findings show variation and lack of concept definitions underpinning research in IPE in cancer care settings. Variation also exists in the range of research activities in IPE, most notably related to communication, teamwork and the development of interprofessional practice. The evaluation of impact of IPE is mainly focused on health care professionals' self-evaluation and general feedback. Impact on patient care was only evaluated in one study.ConclusionsBased on the results, interprofessional education research in the field of cancer care is limited in Europe. Thus, there is a significant increase in publications in the last five years. A more systematic focus on the theoretical framework and definition of concepts would be of value. Research and programme development should be based on a shared understanding on what constitutes the interprofessional competences and IPE. Programmes to develop interprofessional practice should be developed and implemented systematically with inclusion of validated assessment methods, and evaluated and improved regularly.
| S-EPMC11253347 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundIn areas without convenient access to dermatology care, primary care providers (PCPs) serve as an important patient resource for early skin cancer detection. To determine the most effective strategy for skin cancer detection training in PCPs, we conducted a systematic review of educational interventions and performed a meta-analysis on sensitivity and specificity outcomes in PCPs.ObjectivesTo summarize data on skin cancer sensitivity and specificity outcomes for PCP-targeted training programs and diagnostic algorithms. Our PCP cohort included practicing physicians, trainee physicians, and advanced practice practitioners.MethodsA literature search was performed in MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library for relevant English-language articles published worldwide from 2000 onward. Results were screened for eligibility, and overlapping datasets were reconciled. Data extracted included the educational intervention, diagnostic algorithm, and outcomes of interest (sensitivity and specificity). Outcomes were pooled across interventions that taught the same diagnostic algorithm. A bivariate model was fit to compare different interventions/algorithms. This review followed the PRISMA guidelines.ResultsIn total, 21 articles were included in this review, encompassing over 58,610 assessments of skin lesions by about 1529 participants worldwide. Training programs that implemented the triage-amalgamated dermoscopic algorithm (TADA) demonstrated high pooled sensitivity (91.7%) and high pooled specificity (81.4%) among PCPs.Conclusions and relevanceOverall, this systematic review and meta-analysis showed that dermoscopy training in PCPs was generally associated with gains in skin cancer sensitivity without loss of specificity. Clinically, this correlates with fewer skin cancers overlooked by PCPs and fewer excisions of benign lesions.
| S-EPMC11869934 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Serious educational games have shown effectiveness in improving various health outcomes. Previous reviews of health education games have focused on specific diseases, certain medical subjects, fixed target groups, or limited outcomes of interest. Given the recent surge in health game studies, a scoping review of health education games is needed to provide an updated overview of various aspects of such serious games. OBJECTIVE:This study aimed to conduct a scoping review of the design and evaluation of serious educational games for health targeting health care providers, patients, and public (health) users. METHODS:We identified 2313 studies using a unique combination of keywords in the PubMed and ScienceDirect databases. A total of 161 studies were included in this review after removing duplicates (n=55) and excluding studies not meeting our inclusion criteria (1917 based on title and abstract and 180 after reviewing the full text). The results were stratified based on games targeting health care providers, patients, and public users. RESULTS:Most health education games were developed and evaluated in America (82/161, 50.9%) and Europe (64/161, 39.8%), with a considerable number of studies published after 2012. We discovered 58.4% (94/161) of studies aiming to improve knowledge learning and 41.6% (67/161) to enhance skill development. The studies targeted various categories of end users: health care providers (42/161, 26.1%), patients (38/161, 23.6%), public users (75/161, 46.6%), and a mix of users (6/161, 3.7%). Among games targeting patients, only 13% (6/44) targeted a specific disease, whereas a growing majority targeted lifestyle behaviors, social interactions, cognition, and generic health issues (eg, safety and nutrition). Among 101 studies reporting gameplay specifications, the most common gameplay duration was 30 to 45 min. Of the 61 studies reporting game repetition, only 14% (9/61) of the games allowed the users to play the game with unlimited repetitions. From 32 studies that measured follow-up duration after the game intervention, only 1 study reported a 2-year postintervention follow-up. More than 57.7% (93/161) of the games did not have a multidisciplinary team to design, develop, or assess the game. CONCLUSIONS:Serious games are increasingly used for health education targeting a variety of end users. This study offers an updated scoping review of the studies assessing the value of serious games in improving health education. The results showed a promising trend in diversifying the application of health education games that go beyond a specific medical condition. However, our findings indicate the need for health education game development and adoption in developing countries and the need to focus on multidisciplinary teamwork in designing effective health education games. Furthermore, future health games should expand the duration and repetition of games and increase the length of the follow-up assessments to provide evidence on long-term effectiveness.
| S-EPMC7082739 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Trauma in early childhood is a significant public health concern. Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC) services are uniquely positioned to buffer the negative impact of early childhood trauma on children. This scoping review synthesized studies evaluating trauma-informed interventions in ECEC settings through a systematic search of four relevant online databases (PsycINFO, Medline, ERIC, A+ Education). Fourteen studies met the inclusion criteria, with 12 ECEC center-based trauma-informed interventions evaluated. Types and components of trauma-informed interventions, outcomes, and measures are presented. Findings suggest that trauma-informed interventions in ECEC settings are nascent but growing. Increasingly, programs are adopting multi-tiered system of support to address early childhood trauma, with these models suggesting promising results. The predominant focus of ECEC center-based trauma-informed interventions was upskilling teachers through training and coaching, with studies focused on assessment of teacher-level outcomes. Child, organization, and caregiver-level outcomes are not explored to the same extent, with evaluation of organizational outcomes relying predominately on qualitative methods. Whilst the short-term outcomes of trauma-informed approaches in ECEC have been examined, longer-term impacts and the causal mechanistic pathways of such programs have yet to be explored.
| S-EPMC10666515 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundDisease prevention is a central aspect of primary care practice and is comprised of primary (eg, vaccinations), secondary (eg, screenings), tertiary (eg, chronic condition monitoring), and quaternary (eg, prevention of overmedicalization) levels. Despite rapid digital transformation of primary care practices, digital health interventions (DHIs) in preventive care have yet to be systematically evaluated.ObjectiveThis review aimed to identify and describe the scope and use of current DHIs for preventive care in primary care settings.MethodsA scoping review to identify literature published from 2014 to 2020 was conducted across multiple databases using keywords and Medical Subject Headings terms covering primary care professionals, prevention and care management, and digital health. A subgroup analysis identified relevant studies conducted in US primary care settings, excluding DHIs that use the electronic health record (EHR) as a retrospective data capture tool. Technology descriptions, outcomes (eg, health care performance and implementation science), and study quality as per Oxford levels of evidence were abstracted.ResultsThe search yielded 5274 citations, of which 1060 full-text articles were identified. Following a subgroup analysis, 241 articles met the inclusion criteria. Studies primarily examined DHIs among health information technologies, including EHRs (166/241, 68.9%), clinical decision support (88/241, 36.5%), telehealth (88/241, 36.5%), and multiple technologies (154/241, 63.9%). DHIs were predominantly used for tertiary prevention (131/241, 54.4%). Of the core primary care functions, comprehensiveness was addressed most frequently (213/241, 88.4%). DHI users were providers (205/241, 85.1%), patients (111/241, 46.1%), or multiple types (89/241, 36.9%). Reported outcomes were primarily clinical (179/241, 70.1%), and statistically significant improvements were common (192/241, 79.7%). Results were summarized across the following 5 topics for the most novel/distinct DHIs: population-centered, patient-centered, care access expansion, panel-centered (dashboarding), and application-driven DHIs. The quality of the included studies was moderate to low.ConclusionsPreventive DHIs in primary care settings demonstrated meaningful improvements in both clinical and nonclinical outcomes, and across user types; however, adoption and implementation in the US were limited primarily to EHR platforms, and users were mainly clinicians receiving alerts regarding care management for their patients. Evaluations of negative results, effects on health disparities, and many other gaps remain to be explored.
| S-EPMC8817213 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionCancer screening is an integral component of primary care, and providers can play a key role in facilitating screening. While much work has focused on patient interventions, there has been less attention on primary care provider (PCP) interventions. In addition, marginalised patients experience disparities in cancer screening which are likely to worsen if not addressed. The objective of this scoping review is to report on the range, extent and nature of PCP interventions that maximise cancer screening participation among marginalised patients. Our review will target cancers where there is strong evidence to support screening, including lung, cervical, breast and colorectal cancers.Methods and analysisThis is a scoping review conducted in accordance with the framework by Levac et al. Comprehensive searches will be conducted by a health sciences librarian using Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, Scopus, CINAHL Complete and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. We will include peer-reviewed English language literature published from 1 January 2000 to 31 March 2022 that describes PCP interventions to maximise cancer screening participation for breast, cervical, lung and colorectal cancers. Two independent reviewers will screen all articles and identify eligible studies for inclusion in two stages: title and abstract, then full text. A third reviewer will resolve any discrepancies. Charted data will be synthesised through a narrative synthesis using a piloted data extraction form informed by the Template for Intervention Description and Replication checklist.Ethics and disseminationSince this is a synthesis of digitally published literature, no ethics approval is needed for this work. We will target appropriate primary care or cancer screening journals and conference presentations to publish and disseminate the results of this scoping review. The results will also be used to inform an ongoing research study developing PCP interventions for addressing cancer screening with marginalised patients.
| S-EPMC10123851 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundPlacebo interventions can have meaningful effects for patients. However, little is known about the circumstances of their use in clinical practice. We aimed to investigate to what extent and in which way Swiss primary care providers use placebo interventions. Furthermore we explored their ideas about the ethical and legal issues involved.Methods599 questionnaires were sent to general practitioners (GPs) and paediatricians in private practice in the Canton of Zurich in Switzerland. To allow for subgroup analysis GPs in urban, suburban, and rural areas as well as paediatricians were selected in an even ratio.Results233 questionnaires were completed (response rate 47%). 28% of participants reported that they never used placebo interventions. More participants used impure placebos therapeutically than pure placebos (57% versus 17%, McNemar's chi(2) = 78, p < 0.001). There is not one clear main reason for placebo prescription. Placebo use was communicated to patients mostly as being "a drug or a therapy" (64%). The most frequently chosen ethical premise was that they "can be used as long as the physician and the patient work together in partnership" (60% for pure and 75% for impure placebos, McNemar's chi(2) = 12, p < 0.001). A considerable number of participants (11-38%) were indecisive about statements regarding the ethical and legal legitimacy of using placebos.ConclusionThe data obtained from Swiss primary care providers reflect a broad variety of views about placebo interventions as well as a widespread uncertainty regarding their legitimacy. Primary care providers seem to preferentially use impure as compared to pure placebos in their daily practice. An intense debate is required on appropriate standards regarding the clinical use of placebo interventions among medical professionals.
| S-EPMC2731747 | biostudies-literature