Video Interventions for Reducing Health Inequity in Cancer Screening Programmes: a Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Health equity can lead to disparities in cancer screening, treatment, and mortality. This systematic review aims to identify and describe interventions that used video or DVD formats to reduce health inequity in cancer screening and review the effectiveness of such interventions in increasing screening rates compared to usual care conditions. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Web of Science, Embase, and Cochrane databases for randomized control trials (RCTs) published until 18/01/2023 that compared intervention versus usual care control groups, with the percentage of cancer screening uptake during follow-up as an outcome. The risk of Bias was assessed with the Cochrane Collaboration tool. RESULTS: After screening 4201 abstracts, 192 full texts were assessed for eligibility and 18 were included that focused on colorectal (n = 9), cervical (n = 5), breast (n = 5), and prostate (n = 1) cancer screening. All were based in the USA except one and most focused on ethnicity/race, while some included low-income populations. Most of the video interventions used to increase cervical cancer screening reported positive results. Studies aimed at increasing mammography uptake were mostly effective only in specific groups of participants, such as low-income or less-educated African American women. Results for colorectal cancer screening were conflicting. Videos that were culturally tailored or used emotive format were generally more effective than information-only videos. CONCLUSIONS: Video interventions to increase cancer screening among populations with low screening uptake show some positive effects, though results are mixed. Interventions that use individual and cultural tailoring of the educational material should be further developed and investigated outside of the USA.

Interactive or tailored digital interventions to increase uptake in cervical, breast, and colorectal cancer screening to reduce health inequity: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Significant health inequities exist in screening uptake for certain types of cancer. The review question was to identify and describe interactive, tailored digital, computer, and web-based interventions to reduce health inequity in cancer screening and review the effectiveness of such interventions in increasing screening rates versus usual care. METHODS: We searched four medical literature databases for randomized control trials (RCTs) published until 12 January 2023 that evaluated interventions aimed at increasing the percentage of breast, prostate, cervical, or colorectal cancer screening uptake. Meta-analysis was not conducted due to heterogeneity among studies. RESULTS: After screening 4200 titles and abstracts, 17 studies were included. Studies focused on colorectal ( n  = 10), breast ( n  = 4), cervical ( n  = 2), and prostate ( n  = 1) cancer screening. All were based in the USA except two. Most studies focused on ethnicity/race, while some included low-income populations. Intervention types were heterogeneous and used computer programs, apps, or web-based methods to provide tailored or interactive information to participants about screening risks and options. Some studies found positive effects for increasing cancer screening uptake in the intervention groups compared to usual care, but results were heterogeneous. CONCLUSION: Interventions that use individual and cultural tailoring of cancer screening educational material should be further developed and investigated outside of the USA. Designing effective digital intervention strategies, with components that can be adapted to remote delivery may be an important strategy for reducing health inequities in cancer screening during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.

Interventions to reduce cancer screening inequities: the perspective and role of patients, advocacy groups, and empowerment organizations.

BACKGROUND: Health inequities lead to low rates of cancer screening in certain populations, such as low-income and ethnic minority groups. Different interventions to address this have been developed with mixed results. However, interventions are not always developed in collaboration with the people they target. The aim of our article is to present the viewpoint of patients, survivors, advocates, and lay persons on interventions to increase cancer screening from a health inequity perspective. METHODS: We prepared talking points to guide discussions between coauthors, who included representatives from nine patient and survivor advocacy groups, organizations working for citizen/patient empowerment, and health equity experts. Perspectives and opinions were first collected through video conferencing meetings and a first draft of the paper was prepared. All authors, read through, revised, and discussed the contents to reach an agreement on the final perspectives to be presented. RESULTS: Several themes were identified: it is important to not view screening as a discrete event; barriers underlying an individual's access and willingness to undergo screening span across a continuum; individually tailored interventions are likely to be more effective than a one-size fits-all approach because they may better accommodate the person's personal beliefs, knowledge, behaviors, and preferences; targeting people who are unknown to medical services and largely unreachable is a major challenge; including professional patient advocacy groups and relevant lay persons in the cocreation of interventions at all stages of design, implementation, and evaluation is essential along with relevant stakeholders (healthcare professionals, researchers, local government and community organizations etc). CONCLUSIONS: Interventions to address cancer screening inequity currently do not adequately solve the issue, especially from the viewpoint of patients, survivors, and lay persons. Several core pathways should be focused on when designing and implementing interventions: advancing individually tailored interventions; digital tools and social media; peer-based approaches; empowerment; addressing policy and system barriers; better design of interventions; and collaboration, including the involvement of patients and patient advocacy organizations.

Real-world Evidence for Adherence and Persistence with Atorvastatin Therapy.

Atorvastatin, which has been approved by regulatory agencies for primary- and secondary-prevention patients with dyslipidemia, has historically been the most commonly prescribed statin and is now widely available in generic formulations. Despite widespread statin usage, many patients fail to attain recommended (LDL-C) targets. While several factors impact the successful treatment of dyslipidemia, suboptimal patient adherence is a major limiting factor to medication effectiveness. In this narrative review we sought to investigate patient adherence and persistence with atorvastatin in a real-world setting and to identify barriers to LDL-C goal attainment and therapy outcomes beyond the realm of clinical trials. Moreover, in light of growing generic usage, we carried out targeted literature searches to investigate the impact of generic atorvastatin availability on patient adherence/persistence, and on lipid and efficacy outcomes, compared with branded formulations. Unsurprisingly, real-world data suggest that patient adherence/persistence to atorvastatin is suboptimal, but few studies have attempted to address factors impacting adherence. Data from studies comparing adherence/persistence in patients prescribed branded or generic atorvastatin are limited and show no clear evidence that initiation of a specific preparation of atorvastatin impacts adherence/persistence. Furthermore, results from studies comparing adherence/persistence of patients who switched from the branded to the generic drug are conflicting, although they do suggest that switching may negatively impact adherence over the long term. Additional real-world studies are clearly required to understand potential differences in adherence and persistence between patients initiating treatment with branded versus generic atorvastatin and, moreover, the factors that influence adherence. Targeted education initiatives and additional research are needed to understand and improve patient adherence in a real-world setting.

Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Patients Affected by Non-Communicable Diseases in Europe and in the USA.

An international online patient community, Carenity, conducted a patient study in two independent waves among adults affected by non-communicable diseases (NCDs) in Europe and in the United States of America (USA). The study aimed to assess the real time impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) on the medical conditions of patients with NCDs, their access to health care, and their adaptation to daily life as well as to describe their sources of information on COVID-19 and their needs for specific information and support. During the pandemic, 50% of the patients reported a worsening of their medical condition, and 17% developed a new disease. Additionally, 26% of the respondents reported an impact of the pandemic on regular/long-term treatment intake. 54% of the patients felt very or completely socially isolated and reported a strong impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on their stress level and state of mind, with higher levels observed in the USA compared to Europe. 59% of the respondents wished to have received additional information regarding the risks associated to their medical condition during the pandemic. Television was the most used source of information, whereas physicians were the most trusted one. This study describes the substantial impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on NCD patients.

Impact of single-pill combination therapy on adherence, blood pressure control, and clinical outcomes: a rapid evidence assessment of recent literature.

OBJECTIVE: The 2018 European Society of Cardiology/European Society of Hypertension Guidelines for the management of arterial hypertension raised the need for evidence to support the use of single-pill combination (SPC) therapy in preference to free-dosed therapy for hypertension. This systematic rapid evidence assessment sought to determine if initiating SPC therapy improves adherence, blood pressure (BP) control and/or cardiovascular outcomes vs. initiation of free-dose combination therapy. METHODS: Rapid evidence assessment conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library (1 January 2013-11 January 2019) to identify studies investigating SPC therapy for adults with hypertension. Information on adherence/persistence, BP lowering/goal attainment, and cardiovascular outcomes/events were extracted via two-phase screening process. Studies not focusing on adherence, persistence, or compliance with SPC therapy were excluded. Methodological quality was assessed using appropriate scales. RESULTS: Of 863 citations, 752 failed to meet inclusion or were duplicates. Twenty-nine studies remained following full-text screening. Just four studies (14%) were randomized controlled studies; 25 (86%) were observational. A range of SPC therapies were studied, with calcium channel blocker/angiotensin receptor blocker combinations most common (11/29 studies). Adherence and persistence were generally higher with SPC vs. free-dose combination therapy; 15 studies (54%) directly compared adherence and four (14%) compared persistence. Patients achieving BP targets ranged from 25 to 89%. Despite all studies investigating patients with hypertension only 16 (55%) reported change in BP. Few studies reported on cardiovascular outcomes. Methodological reporting was often suboptimal. CONCLUSION: Adherence and/or persistence were generally higher in patients taking antihypertensives as SPC vs. free-dose combination; however, methodological reporting was suboptimal to facilitate comparison. Specifically designed, well reported studies are required to determine if the increased adherence/persistence seen in patients on SPC regimen leads to improved BP control and/or cardiovascular outcomes.