Grupos de Expertos de Cáncer del PAPPS. Recomendaciones de Prevención del Cáncer. Actualización PAPPS 2020

Cancer is a major cause of morbidity and mortality. Tobacco use, unhealthy diet, and physical inactivity are some of the lifestyle risk factors that have led to an increase in cancer. This article updates the evidence, and includes recommendations for prevention strategies for each of the cancers with the highest incidence. These are based on the reduction of risk factors (primary prevention) and early diagnosis of cancer through screening and early detection of signs and symptoms, in medium-risk and high-risk populations

Recomendaciones de prevención del cáncer. Actualización PAPPS 2018

La comisión del Lancet Oncology, integrada por médicos e investigadores de atención primaria (AP), sobre la base de la evidencia científica y argumentos amplios y exhaustivos, ha elaborado un informe sobre la importancia cada vez mayor de la AP en el control del cáncer, desde la prevención hasta el seguimiento después del tratamiento, o en la atención de final de vida1. El informe de la comisión señala la necesidad de modelos de atención integrados, coordinados y acordados entre niveles asistenciales1. En la figura 1 se presenta, a modo de ejemplo, el modelo compartido propuesto por el Cancer Care Manitoba de Canadá2. Destaca la influencia de los profesionales de AP en facilitar estrategias de prevención dirigidas a modificar los estilos de vida y factores de riesgo de cáncer conocidos1. También señala que, cuando los médicos de familia se involucran en los programas de cribado, las tasas de participación aumentan1. Otro elemento en el que incide el informe es en que, para conseguir un diagnóstico de cáncer más precoz, el médico de familia debe tener un mejor acceso a las pruebas diagnósticas y disponer de herramientas de apoyo a las decisiones clínicas a través de la historia clínica informatizada1. Asimismo, apunta la necesidad de ofrecer una atención holística integral que cubra las consecuencias físicas y psicológicas de las personas que han sobrevivido al cáncer. En este artículo, el grupo de Prevención del Cáncer del Programa de Prevención y Promoción de la Salud (PAPPS) de la Sociedad Española de Medicina Familiar y Comunitaria (semFYC)3 actualiza las evidencias y recomendaciones sobre prevención y detección precoz del cáncer en población de riesgo medio y de riesgo elevado. Para clasificar la calidad de la evidencia y la fuerza de las recomendaciones, se ha utilizado el sistema GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation

Recomendaciones de prevención del cáncer. Actualización 2016

En este artículo presentamos una nueva actualización de las recomendaciones sobre prevención y cribados del cáncer del Grupo de Prevención del Cáncer del Programa de Prevención y Promoción de la Salud (PAPPS) de la Sociedad Española de Medicina Familiar y Comunitaria (semFYC). Para la síntesis de la evidencia y la formulación de las recomendaciones hemos utilizado el sistema GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation). GRADE define la fuerza de una recomendación en términos de la confianza que tenemos en que los desenlaces deseados de una intervención (p. ej., los beneficios) sean superiores a los indeseados (p. ej., los inconvenientes y los efectos adversos). En una recomendación a favor, los efectos deseados de una intervención frente a otra superan a los no deseados. En una recomendación en contra, los efectos no deseados superan a los efectos deseados. Ambas recomendaciones pueden ser a su vez fuertes, cuando podemos confiar en que habrá un balance favorable entre efectos deseados y no deseados de una intervención frente a otra, o, por el contrario, débiles, si hay incertidumbre sobre ese balance. Para elaborar las recomendaciones se ha tenido en cuenta la calidad de la evidencia científica, el balance entre beneficios y riesgos, el riesgo basal, los valores y preferencias de las personas y los costes. Las recomendaciones se han valorado desde la perspectiva individual y poblacional. Las personas deben estar informadas de los beneficios y riesgos del cribado. Los valores y preferencias personales son clave a la hora de tomar una decisión: algunas personas le darán mucho valor a los posibles beneficios (p. ej., reducción de la mortalidad), pero otras querrán evitar los riesgos del sobrediagnóstico y sobretratamiento y los posibles perjuicios sobre su calidad de vida. Las recomendaciones propuestas tienen como referencia las revisiones de la US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) y la Canadian Task Force (CTF) instituciones de referencia en la elaboración de recomendaciones de prevención en el contexto de la atención primaria (AP), y el National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Las recomendaciones sobre cribados de cáncer de la USPSTF se pueden consultar en el monográfico de 2014. La USPSTF actualmente está revisando las recomendaciones de cáncer de mama, cuello uterino, próstata y cáncer de piel5. Todas estas instituciones siguen o han adaptado la metodología propuesta por GRADE. Asimismo, se ha tenido en cuenta las directrices de la Estrategia de Cáncer del Sistema Nacional de Salud (SNS), actualmente en proceso de revisión

Are the health messages in schoolbooks based on scientific evidence? A descriptive study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Most textbooks contains messages relating to health. This profuse information requires analysis with regards to the quality of such information. The objective was to identify the scientific evidence on which the health messages in textbooks are based.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>The degree of evidence on which such messages are based was identified and the messages were subsequently classified into three categories: Messages with high, medium or low levels of evidence; Messages with an unknown level of evidence; and Messages with no known evidence.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>844 messages were studied. Of this total, 61% were classified as messages with an unknown level of evidence. Less than 15% fell into the category where the level of evidence was known and less than 6% were classified as possessing high levels of evidence. More than 70% of the messages relating to "Balanced Diets and Malnutrition", "Food Hygiene", "Tobacco", "Sexual behaviour and AIDS" and "Rest and ergonomics" are based on an unknown level of evidence. "Oral health" registered the highest percentage of messages based on a high level of evidence (37.5%), followed by "Pregnancy and newly born infants" (35%). Of the total, 24.6% are not based on any known evidence. Two of the messages appeared to contravene known evidence.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Many of the messages included in school textbooks are not based on scientific evidence. Standards must be established to facilitate the production of texts that include messages that are based on the best available evidence and which can improve children's health more effectively.</p

How European primary care practitioners think the timeliness of cancer diagnosis can be improved: a thematic analysis

Background National European cancer survival rates vary widely. Prolonged diagnostic intervals are thought to be a key factor in explaining these variations. Primary care practitioners (PCPs) frequently play a crucial role during initial cancer diagnosis; their knowledge could be used to improve the planning of more effective approaches to earlier cancer diagnosis. Objectives This study sought the views of PCPs from across Europe on how they thought the timeliness of cancer diagnosis could be improved. Design In an online survey, a final open-ended question asked PCPs how they thought the speed of diagnosis of cancer in primary care could be improved. Thematic analysis was used to analyse the data. Setting A primary care study, with participating centres in 20 European countries. Participants A total of 1352 PCPs answered the final survey question, with a median of 48 per country. Results The main themes identified were: patient-related factors, including health education; care provider-related factors, including continuing medical education; improving communication and interprofessional partnership, particularly between primary and secondary care; factors relating to health system organisation and policies, including improving access to healthcare; easier primary care access to diagnostic tests; and use of information technology. Re-allocation of funding to support timely diagnosis was seen as an issue affecting all of these. Conclusions To achieve more timely cancer diagnosis, health systems need to facilitate earlier patient presentation through education and better access to care, have well-educated clinicians with good access to investigations and better information technology, and adequate primary care cancer diagnostic pathway funding

Perceptions, attitudes and knowledge of evidence-based medicine in primary care in Spain: a study protocol

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The philosophy of evidence-based medicine (EBM) was introduced in the early 90s as a new approach to the practice of medicine, using the best available evidence to make decisions about health care. Despite ongoing controversy, EBM has developed enormously and physicians' attitude towards it is generally positive. Nevertheless, in Spain little is known about this topic. We will therefore undertake a study to explore perceptions, attitudes and knowledge about EBM among primary care physicians.</p> <p>Methods and design</p> <p>A mixed-method study combining qualitative and quantitative designs will target family practitioners in Spain with the objective of evaluating current attitudes and perceptions about evidence-based medicine. The project will consist of two phases: a first phase running focus groups to identify perceptions and attitudes of participants, and a second phase assessing their attitudes and knowledge about EBM by means of a survey. Both phases will explore these issues in three different subgroups: family practitioners, with or without previous formal education in EBM; members of working groups that formulate healthcare recommendations; and physicians in charge of training family practice residents. Additionally, we will undertake a systematic review to identify and synthesize the available evidence on this topic.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>The study will identify and gain insight into the perceived problems and barriers to the practice of evidence-based medicine among general practitioners in Spain. The project will also evaluate the main knowledge gaps and training needs, and explore how evidence-based medicine is being taught to family medicine residents, the medical practitioners of the future. Our results will aid researchers and health care planners in developing strategies to improve the practice of evidence-based medicine in our country.</p

EBM in primary care: a qualitative multicenter study in Spain

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Evidence based medicine (EBM) has made a substantial impact on primary care in Spain over the last few years. However, little research has been done into family physicians (FPs)' attitudes related to EBM. The present study investigates FPs' perceptions of EBM in the primary care context.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>This study used qualitative methodology. Information was obtained from 8 focus groups composed of 67 FPs from 47 health centers in 4 autonomous regions in Spain. Intentional sampling considered participants' previous education in EBM, and their experience as tutors in family medicine or working groups' members of the Spanish Society of Family Practice. Sociological discourse analysis was used with the support of the MAXqda software. Results were validated by means of triangulation among researchers and contrast with participants.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Findings were grouped into three main areas: 1) The tug-of-war between the "science" of EBM and "experience" in the search for good clinical practice in primary care; 2) The development of EBM sensemaking as a reaction to contextual factors and interests; 3) The paradox of doubt and trust in the new EBM experts.</p> <p>The meaning of EBM was dynamically constructed within the primary care context. FPs did not consider good clinical practice was limited to the vision of science that EBM represents. Its use appeared to be conditioned by several factors that transcended the common concept of barriers. Along with concerns about its objectivity, participants showed a tendency to see EBM as the use of simplified guidelines developed by EBM experts.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The identification of science with EBM and its recognition as a useful but insufficient tool for the good clinical practice requires rethinking new meanings of evidence within the primary care reality. Beyond the barriers related to accessing and putting into practice the EBM, its reactive use can determine FPs' questions and EBM development in a direction not always centred on patients' needs. The questioning of experts' authority as a pillar of EBM could be challenged by the emergence of new kinds of EBM texts and experts to believe in.</p