User's perspectives of barriers and facilitators to implementing quality colonoscopy services in Canada: a study protocol

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Colorectal cancer (CRC) represents a serious and growing health problem in Canada. Colonoscopy is used for screening and diagnosis of symptomatic or high CRC risk individuals. Although a number of countries are now implementing quality colonoscopy services, knowledge synthesis of barriers and facilitators perceived by healthcare professionals and patients during implementation has not been carried out. In addition, the perspectives of various stakeholders towards the implementation of quality colonoscopy services and the need of an efficient organisation of such services have been reported in the literature but have not been synthesised yet. The present study aims to produce a comprehensive synthesis of actual knowledge on the barriers and facilitators perceived by all stakeholders to the implementation of quality colonoscopy services in Canada.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>First, we will conduct a comprehensive review of the scientific literature and other published documentation on the barriers and facilitators to implementing quality colonoscopy services. Standardised literature searches and data extraction methods will be used. The quality of the studies and their relevance to informing decisions on colonoscopy services implementation will be assessed. For each group of users identified, barriers and facilitators will be categorised and compiled using narrative synthesis and meta-analytical techniques. The principle factors identified for each group of users will then be validated for its applicability to various Canadian contexts using the Delphi study method. Following this study, a set of strategies will be identified to inform decision makers involved in the implementation of quality colonoscopy services across Canadian jurisdictions.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>This study will be the first to systematically summarise the barriers and facilitators to implementation of quality colonoscopy services perceived by different groups and to consider the local contexts in order to ensure the applicability of this knowledge to the particular realities of various Canadian jurisdictions. Linkages with strategic partners and decision makers in the realisation of this project will favour the utilisation of its results to support strategies for implementing quality colonoscopy services and CRC screening programs in the Canadian health system.</p

Explaining variation in Down's syndrome screening uptake: comparing the Netherlands with England and Denmark using documentary analysis and expert stakeholder interviews.

Background: The offer of prenatal Down’s syndrome screening is part of routine antenatal care in most of Europe; however screening uptake varies significantly across countries. Although a decision to accept or reject screening is a personal choice, it is unlikely that the widely differing uptake rates across countries can be explained by variation in individual values alone. The aim of this study was to compare Down’s syndrome screening policies and programmes in the Netherlands, where uptake is relatively low ( 90% respectively), in an attempt to explain the observed variation in national uptake rates. Methods: We used a mixed methods approach with an embedded design: a) documentary analysis and b) expert stakeholder analysis. National central statistical offices and legal documents were studied first to gain insight in demographic characteristics, cultural background, organization and structure of healthcare followed by documentary analysis of primary and secondary sources on relevant documents on DSS policies and programme. To enhance interpretation of these findings we performed in-depth interviews with relevant expert stakeholders. Results: There were many similarities in the demographics, healthcare systems, government abortion legislation and Down’s syndrome screening policy across the studied countries. However, the additional cost for Down’s syndrome screening over and above standard antenatal care in the Netherlands and an emphasis on the ‘right not to know’ about screening in this country were identified as potential explanations for the ‘low’ uptake rates of Down’s syndrome screening in the Netherlands. The social context and positive framing of the offer at the service delivery level may play a role in the relatively high uptake rates in Denmark. Conclusions: This paper makes an important contribution to understanding how macro-level demographic, social and healthcare delivery factors may have an impact on national uptake rates for Down’s syndrome screening. It has suggested a number of policy level and system characteristics that may go some way to explaining the relatively low uptake rates of Down’s syndrome screening in the Netherlands when compared to England and Denmark

A proposal for colorectal cancer screening pilots

SIGLEAvailable from British Library Document Supply Centre-DSC:GPE/4163 / BLDSC - British Library Document Supply CentreGBUnited Kingdo

A summary of the colorectal cancer screening workshops and background papers

SIGLEAvailable from British Library Document Supply Centre-DSC:98/32459 / BLDSC - British Library Document Supply CentreGBUnited Kingdo

Antenatal psychosocial assessment for reducing perinatal mental health morbidity

Background: Mental health conditions arising in the perinatal period, including depression, have the potential to impact negatively on not only the woman but also her partner, infant, and family. The capacity for routine, universal antenatal psychosocial assessment, and thus the potential for reduction of morbidity, is very significant. Objectives: To evaluate the impact of antenatal psychosocial assessment on perinatal mental health morbidity. Search strategy: We searched the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group’s Trials Register, the Cochrane Depression, Anxiety and Neurosis Group’s Trials Register (CCDANTR-Studies), HSRProj in theNational Library ofMedicine (USA), and the Current Controlled Trials website: http://www.controlled trials.com/ and the UK National Research Register (last searched March 2008). Selection criteria: Randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials. Data collection and analysis: At least two review authors independently assessed trials for eligibility; they also extracted data from included trials and assessed the trials for potential bias. Main results: Two trials met criteria for an RCT of antenatal psychosocial assessment.One trial examined the impact of an antenatal tool (ALPHA) on clinician awareness of psychosocial risk, and the capacity of the antenatal ALPHA to predict women with elevated postnatal Edinburgh Depression Scale (EDS) scores, finding a trend towards increased clinician awareness of ’high level’ psychosocial risk where the ALPHA were seen for numbers of women with antenatal EDS scores, a score of greater than 9 being identified by ALPHA as of concern for depression (RR 0.69 95% CI 0.35 to 1.38); 139 providers. The other trial reported no differences in EPS scores greater than 12 at 16 weeks postpartum between the intervention (communication about the EDS scores with the woman and her healthcare providers plus a patient information booklet) and the standard care groups (RR 0.86 95% CI 0.61 to 1.21; 371 women). Authors’ conclusions: While the use of an antenatal psychosocial assessment may increase the clinician’s awareness of psychosocial risk, neither of these small studies provides sufficient evidence that routine antenatal psychosocial assessment by itself leads to improved perinatal mental health outcomes. Further studies with better sample size and statistical power are required to further explore this important public health issue. It will also be important to examine outcomes up to one year postpartum not only for mother, but also infant and family