Screening for lung cancer with computed tomography: protocol for systematic reviews for the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care.

PURPOSE: Lung cancer is the leading cause of cancer deaths in Canada, and because early cancers are often asymptomatic screening aims to prevent mortality by detecting cancer earlier when treatment is more likely to be curative. These reviews will inform updated recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care on screening for lung cancer. METHODS: We will update the review on the benefits and harms of screening with CT conducted for the task force in 2015 and perform de novo reviews on the comparative effects between (i) trial-based selection criteria and use of risk prediction models and (ii) trial-based nodule classification and different nodule classification systems and on patients' values and preferences. We will search Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central (for questions on benefits and harms from 2015; comparative effects from 2012) and Medline, Scopus, and EconLit (for values and preferences from 2012) via peer-reviewed search strategies, clinical trial registries, and the reference lists of included studies and reviews. Two reviewers will screen all citations (including those in the previous review) and base inclusion decisions on consensus or arbitration by another reviewer. For benefits (i.e., all-cause and cancer-specific mortality and health-related quality of life) and harms (i.e., overdiagnosis, false positives, incidental findings, psychosocial harms from screening, and major complications and mortality from invasive procedures as a result of screening), we will include studies of adults in whom lung cancer is not suspected. We will include randomized controlled trials comparing CT screening with no screening or alternative screening modalities (e.g., chest radiography) or strategies (e.g., CT using different screening intervals, classification systems, and/or patient selection via risk models or biomarkers); non-randomized studies, including modeling studies, will be included for the comparative effects between trial-based and other selection criteria or nodule classification methods. For harms (except overdiagnosis) we will also include non-randomized and uncontrolled studies. For values and preferences, the study design may be any quantitative design that either directly or indirectly measures outcome preferences on outcomes pertaining to lung cancer screening. We will only include studies conducted in Very High Human Development Countries and having full texts in English or French. Data will be extracted by one reviewer with verification by another, with the exception of result data on mortality and cancer incidence (for calculating overdiagnosis) where duplicate extraction will occur. If two or more studies report on the same comparison and it is deemed suitable, we will pool continuous data using a mean difference or standardized mean difference, as applicable, and binary data using relative risks and a DerSimonian and Laird model unless events are rare (< 1%) where we will pool odds ratios using Peto's method or (if zero events) the reciprocal of the opposite treatment arm size correction. For pooling proportions, we will apply suitable transformation (logit or arcsine) depending on the proportions of events. If meta-analysis is not undertaken we will synthesize the data descriptively, considering clinical and methodological differences. For each outcome, two reviewers will independently assess within- and across-study risk of bias and rate the certainty of the evidence using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation), and reach consensus. DISCUSSION: Since 2015, additional trials and longer follow-ups or additional data (e.g., harms, specific patient populations) from previously published trials have been published that will improve our understanding of the benefits and harms of screening. The systematic review of values and preferences will allow fulsome insights that will inform the balance of benefits and harms. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO CRD42022378858.

Recommandations sur le dépistage pour la prévention primaire des fractures de fragilisation.

CONTEXTE: Les fractures de fragilisation sont un important problème de santé chez les adultes âgés et peuvent entraîner des incapacités, des hospitalisations et le placement en établissement de soins de longue durée, en plus de nuire à la qualité de vie. La présente ligne directrice du Groupe d'étude canadien sur les soins de santé préventifs (le Groupe d'étude) formule des recommandations fondées sur des données probantes au sujet du dépistage pour la prévention des fractures de fragilisation chez les personnes âgées de 40 ans et plus vivant dans la collectivité qui ne sont pas sous traitement pharmacologique préventif. MÉTHODES: Nous avons commandé des revues systématiques sur les bénéfices et les préjudices du dépistage, l'exactitude prédictive des outils d'évaluation du risque, les bénéfices du traitement, ainsi que l'acceptabilité de celui-ci par les patients. Nous avons analysé les préjudices des traitements au moyen d'un examen rapide de revues systématiques. Nous avons en outre analysé les valeurs et les préférences des patients par l'entremise de groupes de discussion et auprès d'intervenants mobilisés à certains moments clés, tout au long du projet. Nous avons utilisé l'approche méthodologique GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) afin de déterminer la certitude des données probantes pour chacune des issues cliniques ainsi que la force des recommandations, et nous avons appliqué les lignes directrices de l'instrument AGREE (Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation), du Guidelines International Network (GIN) et du guide de rédaction Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP 2). RECOMMANDATIONS: Nous recommandons un dépistage débutant par une estimation du risque pour la prévention des fractures de fragilisation chez les femmes de 65 ans et plus. Le dépistage se fait d'abord au moyen de l'outil canadien FRAX, qui mesure le risque de fracture, sans densité minérale osseuse (DMO). Le score FRAX devrait guider la prise de décision partagée entourant les bénéfices et les préjudices potentiels de la pharmacothérapie préventive. Après cette discussion, si une pharmacothérapie préventive est envisagée, les médecins devraient demander une mesure de la DMO par absorptiométrie à rayons X biphotonique (DEXA) du col du fémur, puis réévaluer le risque de fracture en intégrant le score T de la DMO au score FRAX (recommandation conditionnelle, données de faible certitude). Nous ne recommandons pas le dépistage chez les femmes de 40­64 ans et les hommes de 40 ans et plus (recommandation forte, données de très faible certitude). Ces recommandations s'appliquent aux personnes vivant dans la collectivité qui ne sont pas sous pharmacothérapie pour la prévention des fractures de fragilisation. INTERPRÉTATION: Le dépistage débutant par une estimation du risque chez les femmes de 65 ans et plus facilite la prise de décision partagée et permet aux patientes d'envisager la pharmacothérapie préventive en fonction de leur propre risque (avant DMO). Le fait de ne pas recommander le dépistage chez les hommes et les femmes plus jeunes rappelle l'importance des bonnes pratiques cliniques, en vertu desquelles les médecins doivent demeurer à l'affût de tout changement de l'état de santé des personnes qui pourrait indiquer qu'elles ont subi une fracture de fragilisation ou pourraient y être plus sujettes.

Recommendations on screening for primary prevention of fragility fractures.

BACKGROUND: Fragility fractures are a major health concern for older adults and can result in disability, admission to hospital and long-term care, and reduced quality of life. This Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (task force) guideline provides evidence-based recommendations on screening to prevent fragility fractures in community-dwelling individuals aged 40 years and older who are not currently on preventive pharmacotherapy. METHODS: We commissioned systematic reviews on benefits and harms of screening, predictive accuracy of risk assessment tools, patient acceptability and benefits of treatment. We analyzed treatment harms via a rapid overview of reviews. We further examined patient values and preferences via focus groups and engaged stakeholders at key points throughout the project. We used the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach to determine the certainty of evidence for each outcome and strength of recommendations, and adhered to Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE), Guidelines International Network and Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP-2) reporting guidance. RECOMMENDATIONS: We recommend "risk assessment-first" screening for prevention of fragility fractures in females aged 65 years and older, with initial application of the Canadian clinical Fracture Risk Assessment Tool (FRAX) without bone mineral density (BMD). The FRAX result should be used to facilitate shared decision-making about the possible benefits and harms of preventive pharmacotherapy. After this discussion, if preventive pharmacotherapy is being considered, clinicians should request BMD measurement using dual-energy x-ray absorptiometry (DXA) of the femoral neck, and re-estimate fracture risk by adding the BMD T-score into FRAX (conditional recommendation, low-certainty evidence). We recommend against screening females aged 40-64 years and males aged 40 years and older (strong recommendation, very low-certainty evidence). These recommendations apply to community-dwelling individuals who are not currently on pharmacotherapy to prevent fragility fractures. INTERPRETATION: Risk assessment-first screening for females aged 65 years and older facilitates shared decision-making and allows patients to consider preventive pharmacotherapy within their individual risk context (before BMD). Recommendations against screening males and younger females emphasize the importance of good clinical practice, where clinicians are alert to changes in health that may indicate the patient has experienced or is at higher risk of fragility fracture.

Clinical public health: harnessing the best of both worlds in sickness and in health. / Santé publique clinique : exploiter le meilleur des deux mondes pour la santé comme pour le traitement des maladies.

INTRODUCTION: Effective, sustained collaboration between clinical and public health professionals can lead to improved individual and population health. The concept of clinical public health promotes collaboration between clinical medicine and public health to address complex, real-world health challenges. In this commentary, we describe the concept of clinical public health, the types of complex problems that require collaboration between individual and population health, and the barriers towards and applications of clinical public health that have become evident during the COVID-19 pandemic. RATIONALE: The focus of clinical medicine on the health of individuals and the aims of public health to promote and protect the health of populations are complementary. Interdisciplinary collaborations at both levels of health interventions are needed to address complex health problems. However, there is a need to address the disciplinary, cultural and financial barriers to achieving greater and sustained collaboration. Recent successes, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, provide a model for such collaboration between clinicians and public health practitioners. CONCLUSION: A public health approach that fosters ongoing collaboration between clinical and public health professionals in the face of complex health threats will have greater impact than the sum of the parts.

INTRODUCTION: Une collaboration efficace et soutenue entre cliniciens et professionnels en santé publique peut améliorer la santé des individus et la santé de la population. Le concept de santé publique clinique favorise cette collaboration entre médecine clinique et santé publique et permet de relever des défis complexes en matière de santé. Dans ce commentaire, nous décrivons le concept de santé publique clinique, les types de problèmes complexes qui nécessitent une collaboration entre les professionnels responsables de la santé des individus et ceux responsables de la santé de la population, de même que les obstacles à la santé publique clinique et les applications de la santé publique clinique qui ont émergé pendant la pandémie de COVID-19. ARGUMENTAIRE: Il existe une complémentarité entre la médecine clinique, qui est axée sur la santé des individus, et la santé publique, qui est axée sur la promotion et la protection de la santé des populations. Une collaboration entre ces deux disciplines est nécessaire pour résoudre les problèmes de santé complexes. Pour ce faire, toutefois, il convient de s'attaquer aux obstacles relatifs aux disciplines, ainsi qu'aux obstacles culturels et financiers qui empêchent une collaboration accrue et durable en la matière. Les succès récents, particulièrement durant la pandémie de COVID-19, constituent un modèle de collaboration de ce type entre cliniciens et praticiens en santé publique. CONCLUSION: Une approche en matière de santé publique qui favorise une collaboration permanente entre cliniciens et professionnels en santé publique pour lutter contre des menaces sanitaires complexes aura plus d'impact que la somme de ses parties.

Defining Clinical Public Health.

PURPOSE: To solve complex health issues, an innovative and multidisciplinary framework is necessary. The Clinical Public Health (CPH) Division was established at the University of Toronto (UofT), Canada to foster inte-gration of primary care, preventive medicine and public health in education, practice and research. To better understand how the construct of CPH might be applied, we surveyed clinicians, researchers and public health professionals affiliated with the CPH Division to assess their understanding of the CPH concept and its utility in fostering broad collaboration. METHODS: A two-wave anonymous survey of the active faculty of the CPH Division, UofT was conducted across Canada. Wave 1 participants (n = 187; 2016) were asked to define CPH, while Wave 2 participants (n = 192; 2017) were provided a synthesis of Wave 1 results and asked to rank each definition. Both waves were asked about the need for a common definition, and to comment on CPH. RESULTS: Response rates for the first and second waves were 25% and 22%, respectively. Of the six definitions of CPH from Wave 1, "the intersection of clinical practice and public health," was most highly ranked by Wave 2 participants. Positive perceptions of CPH included multidisciplinary collaboration, new fields and insights, forward thinking and innovation. Negative perceptions included CPH being a confusing term, too narrow in scope or too clinical. CONCLUSION: The concept of Clinical Public Health can foster multidisciplinary collaboration to address com-plex health issues because it provides a useful framework for bringing together key disciplines and diverse professional specialties.

Screening for the prevention and early detection of cervical cancer: protocol for systematic reviews to inform Canadian recommendations.

PURPOSE: To inform recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care on screening in primary care for the prevention and early detection of cervical cancer by systematically reviewing evidence of (a) effectiveness; (b) test accuracy; (c) individuals' values and preferences; and (d) strategies aimed at improving screening rates. METHODS: De novo reviews will be conducted to evaluate effectiveness and to assess values and preferences. For test accuracy and strategies to improve screening rates, we will integrate studies from existing systematic reviews with search updates to the present. Two Cochrane reviews will provide evidence of adverse pregnancy outcomes from the conservative management of cervical intraepithelial neoplasia. We will search Medline, Embase, and Cochrane Central (except for individuals' values and preferences, where Medline, Scopus, and EconLit will be searched) via peer-reviewed search strategies and the reference lists of included studies and reviews. We will search ClinicalTrials.gov and the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform for ongoing trials. Two reviewers will screen potentially eligible studies and agree on those to include. Data will be extracted by one reviewer with verification by another. Two reviewers will independently assess risk of bias and reach consensus. Where possible and suitable, we will pool studies via meta-analysis. We will compare accuracy data per outcome and per comparison using the Rutter and Gatsonis hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic model and report relative sensitivities and specificities. Findings on values and preferences will be synthesized using a narrative synthesis approach and thematic analysis, depending on study designs. Two reviewers will appraise the certainty of evidence for all outcomes using GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) and come to consensus. DISCUSSION: The publication of guidance on screening in primary care for the prevention and early detection of cervical cancer by the Task Force in 2013 focused on cytology. Since 2013, new studies using human papillomavirus tests for cervical screening have been published that will improve our understanding of screening in primary care settings. This review will inform updated recommendations based on currently available studies and address key evidence gaps noted in our previous review.

Evaluation of a pilot immunization curriculum to meet competency training needs of medical residents.

BACKGROUND: Vaccination is the most cost-effective medical intervention known to prevent morbidity and mortality. However, data are limited on the effectiveness of residency programs in delivering immunization knowledge and skills to trainees. The authors sought to describe the immunization competency needs of medical residents at the University of Toronto (UT), and to develop and evaluate a pilot immunization curriculum. METHODS: Residents at the University of Toronto across nine specialties were recruited to attend a pilot immunization workshop in November 2018. Participants completed a questionnaire before and after the workshop to assess immunization knowledge and compare baseline change. Feedback was also surveyed on the workshop content and process. Descriptive statistics were performed on the knowledge questionnaire and feedback survey. A paired sample T-test compared questionnaire answers before and after the workshop. Descriptive coding was used to identify themes from the feedback survey. RESULTS: Twenty residents from at least six residencies completed the pre-workshop knowledge questionnaire, seventeen attended the workshop, and thirteen completed the post-workshop questionnaire. Ninety-five percent (19/20) strongly agreed that vaccine knowledge was important to their career, and they preferred case-based teaching. The proportion of the thirty-four knowledge questions answered correctly increased from 49% before the workshop to 67% afterwards, with a mean of 2.24 (CI: 1.43, 3.04) more correct answers (P < 0.001). Sixteen residents completed the post-workshop feedback survey. Three themes emerged: first, they found the content specific and practical; second, they wanted more case-based learning and for the workshop to be longer; and third, they felt the content and presenters were of high quality. CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this study suggest current immunization training of UT residents does not meet their training competency requirements. The study's workshop improved participants' immunization knowledge. The information from this study could be used to develop residency immunization curriculum at UT and beyond.

Screening to prevent fragility fractures among adults 40 years and older in primary care: protocol for a systematic review.

PURPOSE: To inform recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care by systematically reviewing direct evidence on the effectiveness and acceptability of screening adults 40 years and older in primary care to reduce fragility fractures and related mortality and morbidity, and indirect evidence on the accuracy of fracture risk prediction tools. Evidence on the benefits and harms of pharmacological treatment will be reviewed, if needed to meaningfully influence the Task Force's decision-making. METHODS: A modified update of an existing systematic review will evaluate screening effectiveness, the accuracy of screening tools, and treatment benefits. For treatment harms, we will integrate studies from existing systematic reviews. A de novo review on acceptability will be conducted. Peer-reviewed searches (Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, PsycINFO [acceptability only]), grey literature, and hand searches of reviews and included studies will update the literature. Based on pre-specified criteria, we will screen studies for inclusion following a liberal-accelerated approach. Final inclusion will be based on consensus. Data extraction for study results will be performed independently by two reviewers while other data will be verified by a second reviewer; there may be some reliance on extracted data from the existing reviews. The risk of bias assessments reported in the existing reviews will be verified and for new studies will be performed independently. When appropriate, results will be pooled using either pairwise random effects meta-analysis (screening and treatment) or restricted maximum likelihood estimation with Hartun-Knapp-Sidnick-Jonkman correction (risk prediction model calibration). Subgroups of interest to explain heterogeneity are age, sex, and menopausal status. Two independent reviewers will rate the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach, with consensus reached for each outcome rated as critical or important by the Task Force. DISCUSSION: Since the publication of other guidance in Canada, new trials have been published that are likely to improve understanding of screening in primary care settings to prevent fragility fractures. A systematic review is required to inform updated recommendations that align with the current evidence base.

Effectiveness of stop smoking interventions among adults: protocol for an overview of systematic reviews and an updated systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Tobacco smoking is the leading cause of cancer, preventable death, and disability. Smoking cessation can increase life expectancy by nearly a decade if achieved in the third or fourth decades of life. Various stop smoking interventions are available including pharmacotherapies, electronic cigarettes, behavioural support, and alternative therapies. This protocol outlines an evidence review which will evaluate the benefits and harms of stop smoking interventions in adults. METHODS: The evidence review will consist of two stages. First, an overview of systematic reviews evaluating the benefits and harms of various stop smoking interventions delivered in or referred from the primary care setting will be conducted. The second stage will involve updating a systematic review on electronic cigarettes identified in the overview; randomized controlled trials will be considered for outcomes relating to benefits while randomized controlled trials, non-randomized controlled trials, and comparative observational studies will be considered for evaluating harms. Search strategies will be developed and peer-reviewed by medical information specialists. The search strategy for the updated review on e-cigarettes will be developed using that of the candidate systematic review. The MEDLINE®, PsycINFO, Embase, and the Cochrane Library electronic databases will be searched as of 2008 for the overview of reviews and from the last search date of the selected review for the updated review. Organizational websites and trial registries will be searched for unpublished or ongoing reviews/studies. Two reviewers will independently screen the title and abstracts of citations using the liberal accelerated method. Full-text screening will be performed independently by two reviewers. Extracted data will be verified by a second reviewer. Disagreements regarding full-text screening and data extraction will be resolved by consensus or third-party adjudication. The methodological quality of systematic reviews, risk of bias of randomized and non-randomized trials, and methodological quality of cohort studies will be evaluated using AMSTAR 2, the Cochrane risk of bias tool, and a modified version of the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network critical appraisal tool, respectively. The GRADE framework will be used to assess the quality of the evidence for outcomes. DISCUSSION: The evidence review will evaluate the benefits and harms of various stop smoking interventions for adults. Findings will be used to inform a national tobacco cessation guideline by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42018099691, CRD42018099692).

Screening for chlamydia and/or gonorrhea in primary health care: protocol for systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae are the most commonly reported sexually transmitted infections in Canada. Existing national guidance on screening for these infections was not based on a systematic review, and recommendations as well as implementation considerations (e.g., population groups, testing and case management) should be explicit and reflect the quality of evidence. The aim of this systematic review is to synthesize research on screening for these infections in sexually active individuals within primary care. We will also review evidence on how people weigh the relative importance of the potential outcomes from screening, rated as most important by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care (CTFPHC) with input from patients and stakeholders. METHODS: We have developed a peer-reviewed strategy to comprehensively search MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and PsycINFO for English and French literature published 1996 onwards. We will also search trial registries and conference proceedings, and mine references lists. Screening, study selection, risk of bias assessments, and quality of findings across studies (for each outcome) will be independently undertaken by two reviewers with consensus for final decisions. Data extraction will be conducted by one reviewer and checked by another for accuracy and completeness. The CTFPHC and content experts will provide input for decisions on study design (i.e., when and whether to include uncontrolled studies for screening effectiveness) and for interpretation of the findings. DISCUSSION: The results section of the review will include a description of all studies, results of all analyses, including planned subgroup and sensitivity analyses, and evidence profiles and summary of findings tables incorporating assessment based on Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methods to communicate our confidence in the estimates of effect. We will compare our findings to others and discuss limitations of the review and available literature. The findings will be used by the CTFPHC-supplemented by consultations with patients and stakeholders and from other sources on issues of feasibility, acceptability, costs/resources, and equity-to inform recommendations on screening to support primary health care providers in delivering preventive care. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), registration number CRD42018100733.