Primary care provider interventions for addressing cancer screening participation with marginalised patients: a scoping review protocol.

INTRODUCTION: Cancer 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 ANALYSIS: This 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 DISSEMINATION: Since 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.

Academic Productivity of Equity-Deserving Physician Scholars During COVID-19: A Scoping Review.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic presented new barriers and exacerbated existing inequities for physician scholars. While COVID-19's impact on academic productivity among women has received attention, the pandemic may have posed additional challenges for scholars from a wider range of equity-deserving groups, including those who hold multiple equity-deserving identities. To examine this concern, the authors conducted a scoping review of the literature through an intersectionality lens. METHOD: The authors searched peer-reviewed literature published March 1, 2020, to December 16, 2021, in Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, and PubMed. The authors excluded studies not written in English and/or outside of academic medicine. From included studies, they extracted data regarding descriptions of how COVID-19 impacted academic productivity of equity-deserving physician scholars, analyses on the pandemic's reported impact on productivity of physician scholars from equity-deserving groups, and strategies provided to reduce the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on academic productivity of physician scholars from equity-deserving groups. RESULTS: Of 11,587 unique articles, 44 met inclusion criteria, including 15 nonempirical studies and 29 empirical studies (22 bibliometrics studies, 6 surveys, and 1 qualitative study). All included articles focused on the gendered impact of the pandemic on academic productivity. The majority of their recommendations focused on how to alleviate the burden of the pandemic on women, particularly those in the early stages of their career and/or with children, without consideration of scholars who hold multiple and intersecting identities from a wider range of equity-deserving groups. CONCLUSIONS: Findings indicate a lack of published literature on the pandemic's impact on physician scholars from equity-deserving groups, including a lack of consideration of physician scholars who experience multiple forms of discrimination. Well-intentioned measures by academic institutions to reduce the impact on scholars may inadvertently risk reproducing and sustaining inequities that equity-deserving scholars faced during the pandemic.

Guidelines for Reporting Trial Protocols and Completed Trials Modified Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic and Other Extenuating Circumstances: The CONSERVE 2021 Statement.

Importance: Extenuating circumstances can trigger unplanned changes to randomized trials and introduce methodological, ethical, feasibility, and analytical challenges that can potentially compromise the validity of findings. Numerous randomized trials have required changes in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, but guidance for reporting such modifications is incomplete. Objective: As a joint extension for the CONSORT and SPIRIT reporting guidelines, CONSERVE (CONSORT and SPIRIT Extension for RCTs Revised in Extenuating Circumstances) aims to improve reporting of trial protocols and completed trials that undergo important modifications in response to extenuating circumstances. Evidence: A panel of 37 international trial investigators, patient representatives, methodologists and statisticians, ethicists, funders, regulators, and journal editors convened to develop the guideline. The panel developed CONSERVE following an accelerated, iterative process between June 2020 and February 2021 involving (1) a rapid literature review of multiple databases (OVID Medline, OVID EMBASE, and EBSCO CINAHL) and gray literature sources from 2003 to March 2021; (2) consensus-based panelist meetings using a modified Delphi process and surveys; and (3) a global survey of trial stakeholders. Findings: The rapid review yielded 41 673 citations, of which 38 titles were relevant, including emerging guidance from regulatory and funding agencies for managing the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on trials. However, no generalizable guidance for all circumstances in which trials and trial protocols might face unanticipated modifications were identified. The CONSERVE panel used these findings to develop a consensus reporting guidelines following 4 rounds of meetings and surveys. Responses were received from 198 professionals from 34 countries, of whom 90% (n = 178) indicated that they understood the concept definitions and 85.4% (n = 169) indicated that they understood and could use the implementation tool. Feedback from survey respondents was used to finalize the guideline and confirm that the guideline's core concepts were applicable and had utility for the trial community. CONSERVE incorporates an implementation tool and checklists tailored to trial reports and trial protocols for which extenuating circumstances have resulted in important modifications to the intended study procedures. The checklists include 4 sections capturing extenuating circumstances, important modifications, responsible parties, and interim data analyses. Conclusions and Relevance: CONSERVE offers an extension to CONSORT and SPIRIT that could improve the transparency, quality, and completeness of reporting important modifications to trials in extenuating circumstances such as COVID-19.