Amoxicillin-induced acute aseptic meningitis

S. Prieto-González,R. Escoda,E. Coloma,J. Grau

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jocn.2010.07.122

IF: 2.116

2011-03-01

Journal of Clinical Neuroscience

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

The Impact of Interventions Addressing Socioeconomic Inequalities in Cancer-Related Outcomes in High-Income Countries: A Systematic Review

Annie Bygrave,Kate Whittaker,Sanchia Aranda AM,Aranda AM Sanchia

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4081/jphr.2020.1711

2020-07-28

Journal of Public Health Research

Abstract:Background High cancer mortality is a major source of burden. Population-wide programs have been developed to improve cancer outcomes, and although effective in improving outcomes overall, the socioeconomically disadvantaged population have disproportionately benefited. This systematic review evaluated interventions aimed at addressing inequalities in cancer-related outcomes between low and high socioeconomic groups within high-income countries. Materials and Methods The Cochrane Register of Controlled Trials, EMBASE, and PubMed searches were completed in October 2018. Data extraction and quality appraisal were guided by established mechanisms. Impact of interventions, using odds ratios, with respective 95% confidence intervals were presented, where available. Results Sixteen studies reporting on 19 interventions were included. Seven interventions (37%) reduced socioeconomic inequalities in cancer-related outcomes, focusing on participation in cancer screening. Interventions included pre-formulated implementation intentions; GP-endorsed screening invitations; enhanced reminder letters; text message reminders; and implementation of an organised screening program. Conclusions This systematic review found limited evidence on the efficacy of existing interventions that aimed to reduce inequalities in cancer-related outcomes between people living in low and high socioeconomic areas among high-income countries. Future interventions should consider the specific needs of people living in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas to improve the efficacy of an intervention.
Diagnostic impression cytology for external eye disease.

S. L. Maskin,K. Heitman,A. W. Lawton,R. Yee

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/00003226-198912000-00009

IF: 3.152

1989-12-01

Cornea

Abstract:The authors describe their experience with the use of impression cytology (IC) as a diagnostic aid in the evaluation of external eye disorders. IC is shown to be useful for diagnosis of epithelial cell storage disorders, infectious diseases, and allergic disorders.
Evaluation of the Cost-Effectiveness of Evidence-Based Interventions to Increase Female Breast and Cervical Cancer Screens: A Systematic Review

Victoria Phillips,Daniela Franco Montoya,E. Kathleen Adams

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16061134

2024-03-14

Cancers

Abstract:Purpose: To systematically review published cost-effectiveness analyses of Evidence-Based Interventions (EBIs) recommended by the United States Community Preventive Services Task Force (CPSTF) to increase breast and cervical cancer screening. Methods: We searched PubMed and Embase for prospective cost-effectiveness evaluations of EBIs for breast and cervical cancer screening since 1999. We reviewed studies according to the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) and compared the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICERs), defined as cost per additional woman screened, adjusted to 2021 USD, within and across EBIs by cancer type. Results: We identified eleven studies meeting our review criteria: nine were breast cancer-focused, one breast and cervical cancer combined, and one cervical only, which together reported twenty-four cost-effectiveness assessments of outreach programs spanning eight EBIs. One-on-one education programs were the most common EBI evaluated. The average ICER across breast cancer studies was USD 545 (standard deviation [SD] = USD 729.3), while that for cervical cancer studies was USD 197 (SD = 186.6. Provider reminder/recall systems for women already linked to formal care were the most cost-effective, with an average ICERs of USD 41.3 and USD 10.6 for breast and cervical cancer, respectively. Conclusions: Variability in ICERs across and within EBIs reflect the population studied, the specific EBI, and study settings, and was relatively high. ICER estimate uncertainty and the potential for program replicability in other settings and with other populations were not addressed. Given these limitations, using existing cost-effectiveness estimates to inform program funding allocations is not warranted at this time. Additional research is needed on outreach programs for cervical cancer and those which serve minority populations for either of the female cancer screens.

oncology
Systematic Review of Interventions Addressing Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Cancer Care and Health Outcomes

Shakira J Grant,Juan Yanguela,Olufeyisayo Odebunmi,Alyssa A Grimshaw,Smith Giri,Stephanie B Wheeler,Shakira J. Grant,Alyssa A. Grimshaw,Stephanie B. Wheeler

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1200/jco.23.01290

IF: 45.3

2024-02-22

Journal of Clinical Oncology

Abstract:PURPOSE Cancer health disparities result from complex interactions among socioeconomic, behavioral, and biological factors, disproportionately affecting marginalized racial and ethnic groups. The objective of this review is to synthesize existing evidence on interventions addressing racial or ethnic disparities in cancer-related health care access and clinical outcomes. METHODS A comprehensive search of Cochrane Library, Google Scholar, Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, PubMed, Scopus, and Web of Science Core Collection was conducted from database inception to February 23, 2023. Controlled vocabulary and keywords helped to identify studies on cancer-related disparities and interventions in adults age 18 years or older. Two reviewers followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis reporting guidelines. Study quality was assessed using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tool. RESULTS Of 7,526 screened studies, 34 met the inclusion criteria involving 24,134 participants. Most studies focused on breast cancer (n = 17) and Hispanic/Latino populations (n = 10) and enrolled participants primarily from community-based sites (n = 19). Twenty-one studies examined patient-centered outcomes, such as health-related quality of life and psychological well-being, while 15 studies assessed process-of-care outcomes, such as timeliness of care. Most studies followed a community-based participatory research framework. Five patient-centered outcome studies reported a positive intervention effect, often combining cancer education with psychological well-being interventions. Among the 15 process-of-care outcome studies, nine reported positive effects, with the majority (n = 8) being navigation-based interventions. CONCLUSION This systematic review emphasizes the vital role of community partnerships in addressing racial and ethnic disparities in oncology care and highlights the need for standardized approaches in intervention research because of the heterogeneity of studied interventions. Furthermore, the prevailing emphasis on breast cancer and Hispanic populations indicates the need for future investigations into other priority demographic groups.

oncology
Breast and Cervical Cancer Screenings: A Systematic Economic Review of Patient Navigation Services

Sajal K. Chattopadhyay,Akash Pillai,Jeffrey Reynolds,Verughese Jacob,Donatus Ekwueme,Yinan Peng,Alison E. Cuellar

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2024.06.005

IF: 6.604

2024-06-14

American Journal of Preventive Medicine

Abstract:Introduction This paper examined the economic evidence of patient navigation services to increase breast and cervical cancer screenings among historically disadvantaged racial and ethnic populations and people with lower incomes. Methods The literature search strategy for this systematic review included English-language studies conducted in high-income countries that were published from database inception to December 2022. Studies on patients with existing cancer or without healthcare system involvement were excluded. Analysis was completed in January 2023. All monetary values reported are in 2022 U.S. dollars. Results The search yielded 3 breast cancer, 2 cervical cancer, and 2 multiple cancer studies that combined breast and cervical cancer with other cancer screenings. For breast cancer screening, the intervention cost per patient ranged from 10,245. Two studies reported 740 as intervention cost per additional person screened. Changes in healthcare cost per person from 2 studies were 2,437. Two studies reported cost per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained of 39,159 while one study reported cost per life year (LY) gained of 103 and 56 and 924). Discussion All estimates of cost per QALY/LY saved for breast cancer screening were below a conservative threshold of $50,000 indicating that patient navigation services for breast cancer screening were cost-effective. There is limited evidence to determine cost-effectiveness of patient navigation services for cervical cancer screening.

medicine, general & internal,public, environmental & occupational health
A systematic review of public health interventions to address breast cancer inequalities in low- and middle-income countries

Esther Z. Chanakira,Chloe V. Thomas,Julie Balen,Olena Mandrik

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-024-02620-2

2024-07-27

Systematic Reviews

Abstract:Breast cancer is the most diagnosed cancer in the world, with a worse prognosis documented in low- and middle-income countries. Inequalities pertaining to breast cancer outcomes are observed at within-country level, with demographics and socioeconomic status as major drivers.

medicine, general & internal
Where are the inequalities in colorectal cancer care in a country with universal healthcare? A systematic review and narrative synthesis

Pickwell-Smith,B. A.,Spencer,K.,Sadeghi,M. H.,Greenley,S.,Lind,M.,Macleod,U.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-080467

IF: 3.006

2024-01-04

BMJ Open

Abstract:Objective Patients diagnosed with colorectal cancer living in more deprived areas experience worse survival than those in more affluent areas. Those living in more deprived areas face barriers to accessing timely, quality healthcare. These barriers may contribute to socioeconomic inequalities in survival. We evaluated the literature for any association between socioeconomic group, hospital delay and treatments received among patients with colorectal cancer in the UK, a country with universal healthcare. Design MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, CENTRAL, SCIE, AMED and PsycINFO were searched from inception to January 2023. Grey literature, including HMIC, BASE and Google Advanced Search, and forward and backward citation searches were conducted. Two reviewers independently reviewed titles, abstracts and full-text articles. Observational UK-based studies were included if they reported socioeconomic measures and an association with either hospital delay or treatments received. The QUIPS tool assessed bias risk, and a narrative synthesis was conducted. The review is reported to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020. Results 41 of the 7209 identified references were included. 12 studies evaluated 7 different hospital intervals. There was a significant association between area-level deprivation and a longer time from first presentation in primary care to diagnosis. 32 studies evaluated treatments received. There were socioeconomic inequalities in surgery and chemotherapy but not radiotherapy. Conclusion Patients with colorectal cancer face inequalities across the cancer care continuum. Further research is needed to understand why and what evidence-based actions can reduce these inequalities in treatment. Qualitative research of patients and clinicians conducted across various settings would provide a rich understanding of the complex factors that drive these inequalities. Further research should also consider using a causal approach to future studies to considerably strengthen the interpretation. Clinicians can try and mitigate some potential causes of colorectal cancer inequalities, including signposting to financial advice and patient transport schemes. PROSPERO registration number CRD42022347652.

medicine, general & internal
Socioeconomic Inequalities in Lung Cancer Treatment: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Lynne F. Forrest,Jean Adams,Helen Wareham,Greg Rubin,Martin White

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001376

2013-02-05

PLoS Medicine

Abstract:BACKGROUND: Intervention-generated inequalities are unintended variations in outcome that result from the organisation and delivery of health interventions. Socioeconomic inequalities in treatment may occur for some common cancers. Although the incidence and outcome of lung cancer varies with socioeconomic position (SEP), it is not known whether socioeconomic inequalities in treatment occur and how these might affect mortality. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of existing research on socioeconomic inequalities in receipt of treatment for lung cancer.METHODS AND FINDINGS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Scopus were searched up to September 2012 for cohort studies of participants with a primary diagnosis of lung cancer (ICD10 C33 or C34), where the outcome was receipt of treatment (rates or odds of receiving treatment) and where the outcome was reported by a measure of SEP. Forty-six papers met the inclusion criteria, and 23 of these papers were included in meta-analysis. Socioeconomic inequalities in receipt of lung cancer treatment were observed. Lower SEP was associated with a reduced likelihood of receiving any treatment (odds ratio [OR] = 0.79 [95% CI 0.73 to 0.86], p<0.001), surgery (OR = 0.68 [CI 0.63 to 0.75], p<0.001) and chemotherapy (OR = 0.82 [95% CI 0.72 to 0.93], p = 0.003), but not radiotherapy (OR = 0.99 [95% CI 0.86 to 1.14], p = 0.89), for lung cancer. The association remained when stage was taken into account for receipt of surgery, and was found in both universal and non-universal health care systems.CONCLUSIONS: Patients with lung cancer living in more socioeconomically deprived circumstances are less likely to receive any type of treatment, surgery, and chemotherapy. These inequalities cannot be accounted for by socioeconomic differences in stage at presentation or by differences in health care system. Further investigation is required to determine the patient, tumour, clinician, and system factors that may contribute to socioeconomic inequalities in receipt of lung cancer treatment.

medicine, general & internal
Social determinants of health and US cancer screening interventions: A systematic review

Ariella R. Korn,Callie Walsh‐Bailey,Margarita Correa‐Mendez,Peter DelNero,Meagan Pilar,Brittney Sandler,Ross C. Brownson,Karen M. Emmons,April Y. Oh

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21801

2023-06-18

Abstract:There remains a need to synthesize linkages between social determinants of health (SDOH) and cancer screening to reduce persistent inequities contributing to the US cancer burden. The authors conducted a systematic review of US‐based breast, cervical, colorectal, and lung cancer screening intervention studies to summarize how SDOH have been considered in interventions and relationships between SDOH and screening. Five databases were searched for peer‐reviewed research articles published in English between 2010 and 2021. The Covidence software platform was used to screen articles and extract data using a standardized template. Data items included study and intervention characteristics, SDOH intervention components and measures, and screening outcomes. The findings were summarized using descriptive statistics and narratives. The review included 144 studies among diverse population groups. SDOH interventions increased screening rates overall by a median of 8.4 percentage points (interquartile interval, 1.8–18.8 percentage points). The objective of most interventions was to increase community demand (90.3%) and access (84.0%) to screening. SDOH interventions related to health care access and quality were most prevalent (227 unique intervention components). Other SDOH, including educational, social/community, environmental, and economic factors, were less common (90, 52, 21, and zero intervention components, respectively). Studies that included analyses of health policy, access to care, and lower costs yielded the largest proportions of favorable associations with screening outcomes. SDOH were predominantly measured at the individual level. This review describes how SDOH have been considered in the design and evaluation of cancer screening interventions and effect sizes for SDOH interventions. Findings may guide future intervention and implementation research aiming to reduce US screening inequities.

oncology
Model-based analyses to compare health and economic outcomes of cancer control: inclusion of disparities

Sue J Goldie,Norman Daniels

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jnci/djr303

2011-09-21

Abstract:Background: Disease simulation models of the health and economic consequences of different prevention and treatment strategies can guide policy decisions about cancer control. However, models that also consider health disparities can identify strategies that improve both population health and its equitable distribution. Methods: We devised a typology of cancer disparities that considers types of inequalities among black, white, and Hispanic populations across different cancers and characteristics important for near-term policy discussions. We illustrated the typology in the specific example of cervical cancer using an existing disease simulation model calibrated to clinical, epidemiological, and cost data for the United States. We calculated average reduction in cancer incidence overall and for black, white, and Hispanic women under five different prevention strategies (Strategies A1, A2, A3, B, and C) and estimated average costs and life expectancy per woman, and the cost-effectiveness ratio for each strategy. Results: Strategies that may provide greater aggregate health benefit than existing options may also exacerbate disparities. Combining human papillomavirus vaccination (Strategy A2) with current cervical cancer screening patterns (Strategy A1) resulted in an average reduction of 69% in cancer incidence overall but a 71.6% reduction for white women, 68.3% for black women, and 63.9% for Hispanic women. Other strategies targeting risk-based screening to racial and ethnic minorities reduced disparities among racial subgroups and resulted in more equitable distribution of benefits among subgroups (reduction in cervical cancer incidence, white vs. Hispanic women, 69.7% vs. 70.1%). Strategies that employ targeted risk-based screening and new screening algorithms, with or without vaccination (Strategies B and C), provide excellent value. The most effective strategy (Strategy C) had a cost-effectiveness ratio of $28,200 per year of life saved when compared with the same strategy without vaccination. Conclusions: We identify screening strategies for cervical cancer that provide greater aggregate health benefit than existing options, offer excellent cost-effectiveness, and have the biggest positive impact in worst-off groups. The typology proposed here may also be useful in research and policy decisions when trade-offs between fairness and cost-effectiveness are unavoidable.
Cancer inequalities experienced by people with disability: a systematic review protocol

Yang,Y.,Afshar,N.,Bergin,R.,Kavanagh,A.,Disney,G.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2023-076070

IF: 3.006

2024-02-09

BMJ Open

Abstract:Introduction Cancer is a leading cause of death and has a significant impact on individuals, families and society. Emerging evidence shows that people with disability face challenges in accessing services which could assist in early cancer diagnosis and optimal treatment, like cancer screening. Consequently, cancer patients with disabilities may present with later-stage disease, have reduced treatment options and experience lower survival rates compared with people without disability. This systematic review aims to summarise and evaluate the existing evidence on (a) inequalities in cancer survival and mortality between people with and without disability, (b) the inequalities in cancer screening and (c) stage at diagnosis that may contribute to the survival/mortality gap. Methods and analysis A literature search will be performed on MEDLINE, Embase, PsycInfo and Scopus up to May 2023. The review will include quantitative studies that reported inequalities in cancer survival and mortality, screening and stage at diagnosis between adults with and without disability. A summary of the characteristics and findings of the included studies will be provided. We will assess the quality of each study using the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomised Studies—of Exposure tool. Depending on the heterogeneity of studies, we will assess whether meta-analysis is appropriate. Ethics and dissemination Ethics approval is not applicable for this study since no original data will be collected. The results will be disseminated through peer-reviewed publications and conference presentations. PROSPERO registration number CRD42023427288.

medicine, general & internal
From Awareness to Action: A Review of Efforts to Reduce Disparities in Breast Cancer Screening

Shiven Nayyar,Swarupa Chakole,Avinash B Taksande,Roshan Prasad,Pratiksha K Munjewar,Mayur B Wanjari

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7759/cureus.40674

2023-06-20

Cureus

Abstract:Breast cancer is a significant public health concern, and addressing disparities in breast cancer screening is crucial for improving early detection and reducing mortality rates. This review article examines efforts to bridge the gap between awareness and action in reducing disparities in breast cancer screening. A systematic approach was employed to gather relevant literature using various databases. The selected studies encompassed a range of interventions, including policy changes, community-based programs, culturally competent interventions, technological advancements, and patient navigation. The review highlights the importance of policies and legislation in improving access to screening services and the impact of community-based initiatives in addressing disparities. Culturally competent interventions, tailored messaging, and language support were found to be effective in improving screening rates among diverse populations. Technological advancements, such as telemedicine and mobile health applications, were identified as promising approaches to increase access to screening services. Patient navigation programs effectively addressed barriers to screening and improved screening rates. The review also discusses evaluating efforts, limitations, and the need for continuous improvement. Future directions and recommendations include addressing gaps in the existing literature, proposing research directions, and providing recommendations for policymakers, healthcare providers, and researchers. By implementing these recommendations and working collaboratively, we can strive for equitable access to breast cancer screening for all populations, ultimately leading to improved outcomes and reduced disparities.
Economic evaluations of pancreatic cancer screening: a systematic review protocol

Robert Wittram,Hans-Helmut König,Christian Brettschneider

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2024-087003

IF: 3.006

2024-08-01

BMJ Open

Abstract:Introduction The early detection of pancreatic cancer is an important step in reducing mortality by offering patients curative treatment. Screening strategies in risk populations and by means of different detection methods have been economically evaluated. However, a synthesis of screening studies to inform resource allocation towards early detection within the disease area has not been done. Therefore, studies evaluating the cost-effectiveness and costs of screening for pancreatic cancer should be systematically reviewed. Methods and analysis A systematic review of economic evaluations reporting the cost-effectiveness or costs of pancreatic cancer screening will be conducted. The electronic databases Medline, Web of Science and EconLit will be searched without geographical or time restrictions. Two independent reviewers will select eligible studies based on predefined criteria. The study quality will be assessed using the Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards statement and the Bias in Economic Evaluation checklist. One reviewer will extract relevant data and a second reviewer will cross-check compliance with the extraction sheet. Key items will include characteristics of screened individuals, the screening strategies used, and costs, health effects and cost-effectiveness as study outputs. Differences of opinion between the reviewers will be solved by consulting a third reviewer. Ethics and dissemination Ethics approval is not required for this study since no original data will be collected. The results will be disseminated through presentations at conferences and publication in a peer-reviewed journal. The results of the systematic review will inform future economic evaluations of pancreatic screening, which provide guidance for decision-making in healthcare resource prioritisation. PROSPERO registration number CRD42023475348.

medicine, general & internal
A Systematic Review of Interventions Targeting Cancer-Related Financial Hardship: Current Evidence and Implications

Shumin Jia,Denise Shuk Ting Cheung,Mu-Hsing Ho,Naomi Takemura,Yongshen Feng,Chia-Chin Lin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1097/NCC.0000000000001393

2024-08-26

Abstract:Background: Despite an increasing emphasis on alleviating financial hardship in cancer care delivery, limited knowledge of evidence-based and effective interventions is available. Objective: This systematic review aimed to identify gaps in the literature and provide insights for future evidence-based interventions targeting financial hardship from both micro and macro perspectives. Methods: We comprehensively searched the PubMed, Web of Science, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), EMBASE, and PsycINFO databases from inception to October 2022. Studies examining the effect of an intervention on mitigating cancer-related financial hardship were included. Results: A total of 24 studies were included. Findings indicate that the most significant positive changes were in the material conditions domain from the micro perspective of financial hardship. From the macro perspective, positive effects were shown for improving access to care, affordability of care, healthcare utilization, and healthcare equity of interventions at the provider or care team level, the community healthcare environment level, and the healthcare system and policy level. Notably, significant heterogeneity was observed among interventions and outcome measurements. Conclusions: This is the first comprehensive systematic review of interventions targeting cancer-related financial hardship from both micro and macro perspectives. No consistently positive effect of the interventions on all domains was reported. Multidisciplinary approaches and higher-level hierarchical and evidence-based interventions are needed to address financial hardship. Implications for practice: Health practitioners should screen and manage financial hardship using a standard and comprehensive measurement at the dyadic level of cancer survivors and caregivers.
A Systematic Review of the Effectiveness of Cervical Cancer Screening and Prevention Interventions for African American Women: Implications for Promoting Health Equity

Ariel Washington,Lisa Smith,Jill Randall,Georgia Anderson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1089/jwh.2023.0635

2024-02-24

Journal of Women s Health

Abstract:African American women suffer under the burden of cervical cancer as they are first in mortality, diagnosed at later stages, and have a survivorship rate that is lower than the national average. The aim of our review is to evaluate the effectiveness of cervical cancer screening and prevention interventions for African American women living in the United States and to assess their commitment to health equity. A literature search was conducted using PubMed, Embase, CINAHL, and Scopus using MeSH terms related to cervical cancer, human papillomavirus (HPV), screening and prevention, and African Americans. This resulted in 1970 articles. Studies were included if they promoted cervical screening or prevention, sampled African American women aged 18 and over, and evaluated interventions. Among the 23 articles that met inclusion criteria, there were a wide variety of intervention strategies, that is, community health workers, patient navigation, patient reminders, self-sampling collection, and HPV vaccination. Health education interventions, when coupled with patient navigation or community health workers, were effective in promoting screening participation (odds ratio: 2.43, 95% confidence interval: 1.47–4.02). There were mixed results regarding the incorporation of health equity principles. This review supports the importance of incorporating health equity principles and community based methods in screening and prevention interventions. Future research and practice should incorporate African American women's perspectives in intervention development and implementation.

medicine, general & internal,public, environmental & occupational health,obstetrics & gynecology,womens studies
Social determinants of health and health inequities in breast cancer screening: a scoping review

Vama Jhumkhawala,Diana Lobaina,Goodness Okwaraji,Yasmine Zerrouki,Sara Burgoa,Adeife Marciniak,Sebastian Densley,Meera Rao,Daniella Diaz,Michelle Knecht,Lea Sacca

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2024.1354717

IF: 5.2

2024-02-06

Frontiers in Public Health

Abstract:Introduction: This scoping review aims to highlight key social determinants of health associated with breast cancer screening behavior in United States women aged ≥40 years old, identify public and private databases with SDOH data at city, state, and national levels, and share lessons learned from United States based observational studies in addressing SDOH in underserved women influencing breast cancer screening behaviors. Methods: The Arksey and O'Malley York methodology was used as guidance for this review: (1) identifying research questions; (2) searching for relevant studies; (3) selecting studies relevant to the research questions; (4) charting the data; and (5) collating, summarizing, and reporting results. Results: The 72 included studies were published between 2013 and 2023. Among the various SDOH identified, those related to socioeconomic status ( n = 96) exhibited the highest frequency. The Health Care Access and Quality category was reported in the highest number of studies ( n = 44; 61%), showing its statistical significance in relation to access to mammography. Insurance status was the most reported sub-categorical factor of Health Care Access and Quality. Discussion: Results may inform future evidence-based interventions aiming to address the underlying factors contributing to low screening rates for breast cancer in the United States.

public, environmental & occupational health
A Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Studies on Gastric Cancer Screening

Diedron Lewis,Laura Jimenez,Manel Haj Mansour,Susan Horton,William W. L. Wong

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/cancers16132353

2024-06-27

Cancers

Abstract:Gastric cancer (GC) poses notable economic and health burdens in settings where the incidence of disease is prevalent. Some countries have established early screening and treatment programs to address these challenges. The objectives of this systematic review were to summarize the cost-effectiveness of gastric cancer screening presented in the literature and to identify the critical factors that influence the cost-effectiveness of screening. This systematic review followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. Economic evaluation studies of gastric cancer screening were reviewed from SCOPUS and PubMed. The Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards 2022 (CHEERS 2022) was used to assess the quality of reporting presented in the selected articles. Only primary economic evaluation studies addressing the cost-effectiveness, cost–utility, and cost–benefit of gastric cancer screening were selected. Two reviewers scrutinized the selected articles (title, abstract, and full text) to determine suitability for the systematic review based on inclusion and exclusion criteria. Authors' consensus was relied on where disagreements arose. The main outcome measures of concern in the systematic review were cost, effectiveness (as measured by either quality-adjusted life years (QALY) or life-years saved (LYS)), and incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) of screening versus either no screening or an alternative screening method. Thirty-one studies were selected for the final review. These studies investigated the cost-effectiveness of GC screening based on either primary, secondary, or a combination of primary and secondary interventions. The main primary intervention was Helicobacter pylori (Hp) screening with eradication, while the main secondary intervention was endoscopic screening. Cost-effectiveness was evaluated against no screening or screening using an alternative method in both observational and model-based studies. Screening was mainly cost-effective in Asian countries or their diasporas where the prevalence of GC was high. GC screening was generally not cost-effective among Western countries. GC screening can be cost-effective, but cost-effectiveness is dependent on context-specific factors, including geographical location, the prevalence of GC in the local population, and the screening tool adopted. However, there is benefit in targeting high-risk population groups in Asian countries and their diaspora for GC screening.

oncology
Racial and socioeconomic disparities in lung cancer screening in the United States: A systematic review

Ernesto Sosa,Gail D’Souza,Aamna Akhtar,Melissa Sur,Kyra Love,Jeanette Duffels,Dan J. Raz,Jae Y. Kim,Virginia Sun,Loretta Erhunmwunsee

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3322/caac.21671

2021-05-20

Abstract:<p>Nonsmall cell lung cancer (NSCLC) is the leading cause of cancer deaths. Lung cancer screening (LCS) reduces NSCLC mortality; however, a lack of diversity in LCS studies may limit the generalizability of the results to marginalized groups who face higher risk for and worse outcomes from NSCLC. Identifying sources of inequity in the LCS pipeline is essential to reduce disparities in NSCLC outcomes. The authors searched 3 major databases for studies published from January 1, 2010 to February 27, 2020 that met the following criteria: 1) included screenees between ages 45 and 80 years who were current or former smokers, 2) written in English, 3) conducted in the United States, and 4) discussed socioeconomic and race-based LCS outcomes. Eligible studies were assessed for risk of bias. Of 3721 studies screened, 21 were eligible. Eligible studies were evaluated, and their findings were categorized into 3 themes related to LCS disparities faced by Black and socioeconomically disadvantaged individuals: 1) eligibility; 2) utilization, perception, and utility; and 3) postscreening behavior and care. Disparities in LCS exist along racial and socioeconomic lines. There are several steps along the LCS pipeline in which Black and socioeconomically disadvantaged individuals miss the potential benefits of LCS, resulting in increased mortality. This study identified potential sources of inequity that require further investigation. The authors recommend the implementation of prospective trials that evaluate eligibility criteria for underserved groups and the creation of interventions focused on improving utilization and follow-up care to decrease LCS disparities.</p>

oncology
Prevention and treatment of early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer: the Value-Based Healthcare approach to address social disparities

Chiara Marzorati,Marianna Masiero,Gabriella Pravettoni

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2217/fon-2023-1038

2024-04-27

Future Oncology

Abstract:Keywords: access inequalities cost–effectiveness financial toxicity lung cancer NSCLC patient centeredness social disparities VBHC paradigm References 1. Fitzmaurice C, Abate D, Abbasi N et al. Global, Regional, and National Cancer Incidence, Mortality, Years of Life Lost, Years Lived With Disability, and Disability-Adjusted Life-Years for 29 Cancer Groups, 1990 to 2017: A Systematic Analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study . JAMA Oncol. 5(12), 1749–1768 ( 2019 ).Medline Google Scholar 2. Baek S, He Y, Allen BG et al. Deep segmentation networks predict survival of non-small-cell lung cancer . Sci Rep. 9(1), 1–10 ( 2019 ).Medline Google Scholar 3. Siegel RL, Miller KD, Jemal A . Cancer statistics . CA Cancer J. Clin. 70(1), 7–30 ( 2020 ).Medline Google Scholar 4. Gorini A, Riva S, Marzorati C, Cropley M, Pravettoni G . Rumination in breast and lung cancer patients: preliminary data within an Italian sample . Psychooncology 27(2), 703–705 ( 2018 ).Medline Google Scholar 5. Lucchiari C, Masiero M, Veronesi G et al. Benefits of E-cigarettes among heavy smokers undergoing a lung cancer screening program: randomized controlled trial protocol . JMIR Res Protoc. 5(1), e21 ( 2016 ).Medline Google Scholar 6. Marzorati C, Mazzocco K, Monzani D et al. One-year quality of life trends in early-stage lung cancer patients after lobectomy . Front.Psychol. 11, 534428 ( 2020 ).Medline Google Scholar 7. Morrison EJ, Novotny PJ, Sloan JA et al. Emotional problems, quality of life, and symptom burden in patients with lung cancer . Clin. Lung Cancer 18(5), 497–503 ( 2017 ).Medline Google Scholar 8. De Koning HJ, Van der Aalst CM, De Jong PA et al. Reduced lung-cancer mortality with volume CT screening in a randomized trial . N. Engl. J. Med. 382(6), 503–513 ( 2020 ).Medline Google Scholar 9. Schabath MB, Cote ML . <span class="references__article-title" -Abstract Truncated-

oncology
Abstract C002: Investigating racial and ethnic healthcare disparities in screenable gynecologic cancers

Daniela P. Blanco

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1538-7755.disp24-c002

2024-09-23

Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers & Prevention

Abstract:In this systematic scoping literature review, we analyzed peer-reviewed literature to develop a comprehensive understanding of the racial and ethnic healthcare inequity regarding the management and treatment of gynecologic cancers. This approach allows for novel summative data to inform future research and equitable treatment of gynecologic. For the analytical review, PubMed was primarily used to retrieve research articles exploring the impact of race and ethnicity on gynecologic cancer outcomes and screenings, focusing on cervical, ovarian, endometrial, fallopian tube, and vulvar cancers from 2015 to 2023. Non-original studies and studies published prior to 2015 were excluded from being reviewed. To ensure the reliability and relevance of the subsequent analysis, findings were uniformly summarized using a synthesis matrix, highlighting common themes across articles. Based on the articles investigated, there is strong evidence pointing to increased incidence of gynecologic cancers diagnosed at later, more aggressive stages in African American and Hispanic women than in Non-Hispanic White women. Additionally, disparities were found in screenings and treatment management. Women-of-color were less likely to be offered education from their healthcare providers on gynecologic cancers, and less likely to be offered preventative screening or vaccines. The disparities in treatment management were most pronounced in African American women, who were less often offered access to lifesaving treatments, such as brachytherapy. However, utilizing outreach programs and enhancing both provider competency and patient education initiatives has lead to an increase in the likelihood of African American and Hispanic women in vaccine compliance and adherence to regular check-ups. Our ongoing review continues to unveil racial and ethnic healthcare inequities and their impact on preventative care, patient-physician relationships, and patient education. The preliminary findings suggest that racial/ethnic disparities contribute to reduced adherence to recommended obstetric screenings and established effective treatment regimens. Additionally, the data shows that increased utilization of outreach programs and patient education helps mitigate these disparities. Citation Format: Daniela P. Blanco. Investigating racial and ethnic healthcare disparities in screenable gynecologic cancers [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 17th AACR Conference on the Science of Cancer Health Disparities in Racial/Ethnic Minorities and the Medically Underserved; 2024 Sep 21-24; Los Angeles, CA. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2024;33(9 Suppl) nr C002.

oncology,public, environmental & occupational health

Amoxicillin-induced acute aseptic meningitis

The Impact of Interventions Addressing Socioeconomic Inequalities in Cancer-Related Outcomes in High-Income Countries: A Systematic Review

Diagnostic impression cytology for external eye disease.

Evaluation of the Cost-Effectiveness of Evidence-Based Interventions to Increase Female Breast and Cervical Cancer Screens: A Systematic Review

Systematic Review of Interventions Addressing Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Cancer Care and Health Outcomes

Breast and Cervical Cancer Screenings: A Systematic Economic Review of Patient Navigation Services

A systematic review of public health interventions to address breast cancer inequalities in low- and middle-income countries

Where are the inequalities in colorectal cancer care in a country with universal healthcare? A systematic review and narrative synthesis

Socioeconomic Inequalities in Lung Cancer Treatment: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

Social determinants of health and US cancer screening interventions: A systematic review

Model-based analyses to compare health and economic outcomes of cancer control: inclusion of disparities

Cancer inequalities experienced by people with disability: a systematic review protocol

From Awareness to Action: A Review of Efforts to Reduce Disparities in Breast Cancer Screening

Economic evaluations of pancreatic cancer screening: a systematic review protocol

A Systematic Review of Interventions Targeting Cancer-Related Financial Hardship: Current Evidence and Implications

A Systematic Review of the Effectiveness of Cervical Cancer Screening and Prevention Interventions for African American Women: Implications for Promoting Health Equity

Social determinants of health and health inequities in breast cancer screening: a scoping review

A Systematic Review of Cost-Effectiveness Studies on Gastric Cancer Screening

Racial and socioeconomic disparities in lung cancer screening in the United States: A systematic review

Prevention and treatment of early-stage non-small-cell lung cancer: the Value-Based Healthcare approach to address social disparities

Abstract C002: Investigating racial and ethnic healthcare disparities in screenable gynecologic cancers