What factors influence the uptake of bowel, breast and cervical cancer screening? An overview of international research.

BACKGROUND: For cancer screening programmes to be effective in early detection it is important that those invited can access screening services and understand the benefits of participation. A better understanding of the factors that matter to potential participants of cancer screening programmes can assist in developing strategies to increase current uptake. METHODS: We conducted an overview of systematic reviews to answer the question: What factors influence the uptake of cancer screening services (breast, bowel and cervical) in high-income countries? A thematic approach supported by tabular summaries and qualitative heat maps was used to categorize factors, described as 'barriers' or 'facilitators'. RESULTS: A total of 41 systematic reviews met the criteria for inclusion. The barrier with the greatest number of 'hot spots' across all three screening programmes was a fear of the unknown regarding a possible diagnosis of cancer or abnormal screening results, followed closely by a general lack of knowledge surrounding cancer screening programmes. The greatest collective facilitator to uptake was recommendation by a healthcare provider to attend screening. CONCLUSION: Across all factors 'trust' and 'building trusted relationships' can be seen as integral to the success of cancer screening programmes and must be reflective of collaborative efforts to mitigate barriers and enhance facilitators to uptake. There is future scope to consider interventions that (i) increase demand for screening services, (ii) reduce barriers to uptake of services and/or (iii) are relevant to the healthcare system and those providing services.

Evidencing the impacts of health research: Insights from trials reported in the 2018 Australian Engagement and Impact Assessment.

ISSUE ADDRESSED: While definitions of impact may vary, they often refer to the wider benefits of research evidenced beyond academia. We evaluated case studies featuring randomised trials from the 2018 Engagement and Impact Assessment to better understand how the impacts of health research are evidenced and assessed within Australia. METHODS: We collated and evaluated 'high' scoring case studies submitted by higher education institutions with a focus on randomised trials across all areas of health research. A qualitative coding system was used for manual content analysis to assess the key characteristics of trials reported, subsequent impacts and the methods used to evidence impacts. RESULTS: A total of 14 case studies were identified citing 35 clinical trials. The majority of interventions were behavioural with a focus on mental, behavioural or neurodevelopmental disorders. Most trials were phase III, focused on the treatment of the indication and were funded by industry. Contribution to clinical guidelines was the highest cited research impact. While there was evidence of researchers seeking to maximise trial impact, case studies lacked details on the role of trial participants and other beneficiaries in generating impact. CONCLUSIONS: The impacts of health research can be improved through a better understanding of the priorities and agendas of funders, providing evidence of tangible impact rather than information that is contextual or predictive, and through the early development of impact strategies involving both researchers and beneficiaries. SO WHAT?: Large-scale impact exercises intended for a broad range of disciplines may not be reflective of the depth and scope of health sciences research including trials.

Developing a roadmap to improve trial delivery for under-served groups: results from a UK multi-stakeholder process.

BACKGROUND: Participants in clinical research studies often do not reflect the populations for which healthcare interventions are needed or will be used. Enhancing representation of under-served groups in clinical research is important to ensure that research findings are widely applicable. We describe a multicomponent workstream project to improve representation of under-served groups in clinical trials. METHODS: The project comprised three main strands: (1) a targeted scoping review of literature to identify previous work characterising under-served groups and barriers to inclusion, (2) surveys of professional stakeholders and participant representative groups involved in research delivery to refine these initial findings and identify examples of innovation and good practice and (3) a series of workshops bringing together key stakeholders from funding, design, delivery and participant groups to reach consensus on definitions, barriers and a strategic roadmap for future work. The work was commissioned by the UK National Institute for Health Research Clinical Research Network. Output from these strands was integrated by a steering committee to generate a series of goals, workstream plans and a strategic roadmap for future development work in this area. RESULTS: 'Under-served groups' was identified and agreed by the stakeholder group as the preferred term. Three-quarters of stakeholders felt that a clear definition of under-served groups did not currently exist; definition was challenging and context-specific, but exemplar groups (e.g. those with language barriers or mental illness) were identified as under-served. Barriers to successful inclusion of under-served groups could be clustered into communication between research teams and participant groups; how trials are designed and delivered, differing agendas of research teams and participant groups; and lack of trust in the research process. Four key goals for future work were identified: building long-term relationships with under-served groups, developing training resources to improve design and delivery of trials for under-served groups, developing infrastructure and systems to support this work and working with funders, regulators and other stakeholders to remove barriers to inclusion. CONCLUSIONS: The work of the INCLUDE group over the next 12 months will build on these findings by generating resources customised for different under-served groups to improve the representativeness of trial populations.