PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews
Improving cancer risk understanding: a systematic review of educational interventions for people with, or at high risk of, cancer
Mbathio Dieng, Caroline Watts, Nadine Kasparian, Rachel Morton, Graham Mann, Anne Cust
Citation
Mbathio Dieng, Caroline Watts, Nadine Kasparian, Rachel Morton, Graham Mann, Anne Cust. Improving cancer risk understanding: a systematic review of educational interventions for people with, or at high risk of, cancer.
PROSPERO
2012:CRD42012002861
Available from http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42012002861
Review question(s)
Systematically review the literature to assess the effectiveness of educational interventions on cancer risk perception for people affected by cancer (cancer patients, cancer survivors) or at high risk of cancer, compared to usual care.
Searches
We searched international electronic bibliographic databases MEDLINE (1950 to 2012), PsycINFO (1806 to 2012), Allied and Complementary Medicine (AMED) (1985 to 2012), Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL) (1982 to 2012) and EMBASE (1966 to 2012). The search was conducted without limitations by country, language, year or type of publication, but was limited to human research. Our search strategy was developed in MEDLINE and will be adapted to other databases.
Types of study to be included
Randomised controlled trials.
Non-randomised trials.
Prospective studies.
Condition or domain being studied
Cancer: We include all type of cancers in this review.
Participants/ population
People affected by cancer (cancer patients, cancer survivors) or at moderate or high or risk of cancer.
Intervention(s), exposure(s)
Educational interventions aiming to increase cancer risk understanding among people affected by cancer or at moderate or high or risk of cancer.
Comparator(s)/ control
Usual care.
Context
Educational intervention studies through which, intervention is given to people affected by cancer or at moderate/high risk of cancer. The main objective of the intervention would be to improve people’s understanding of their cancer risk.
Outcome(s)
Primary outcomes
Cancer risk perception/understanding.
Secondary outcomes
None.
Data extraction, (selection and coding)
The study selection will be conducted in two distinct rounds. In the first round, the first reviewer (MD) will screen all manuscripts, titles and abstracts for non-research articles, duplicates and irrelevant references such as single case reports, letters, commentaries, conference abstracts, or those focused on clinical issues . In the second round all the remaining manuscripts will be fully studied by the two reviewers (MD) and (CW). Where there are disagreement, two external reviewers (NK) and (AC) will be consulted and inclusion will be agreed by consensus. The reference lists of all publications identified will be examined for potentially relevant articles not captured by the initial literature search.
Data will be extracted by two reviewers independently using a predefined data extraction form. To ensure transparent and complete reporting of data we will use the PICOS approach (PRISMA statement) to extract data .
Participants: type of cancer, population.
Intervention: type of intervention, description of intervention, recruitment method, duration of intervention.
Comparison: Usual care, another form of intervention, no intervention
Outcomes: Outcome, measure, time of measurement, findings, limitations.
Study design: Intervention, comparison and participants characteristics , outcomes and study design.
Risk of bias (quality) assessment
The methodological quality of the included studies will be assessed using two tools: the Cochrane collaboration tool for assessing risk of bias for randomised controlled trials and the Quality Assessment Scoring for other studies.
Strategy for data synthesis
The extracted data will be summarised into tables and the main features will be presented in the text. We plan to present a quantitative synthesis for randomised controlled trials and a descriptive synthesis for other studies.
Analysis of subgroups or subsets
None planned.
Dissemination plans
Submit for publication in a journal.
Conference presentation.
Contact details for further information
Mbathio Dieng
Room 203, Queen Elizabeth II Research Institute (D02)
The University of Sydney
NSW 2006
Australia
mbathio.dieng@sydney.edu.au
Organisational affiliation of the review
Cancer Epidemiology and Services Research (CESR) The University of Sydney
Ms Mbathio Dieng, The University of Sydney Mrs Caroline Watts, The University of Sydney Dr Nadine Kasparian, The University of New South Wales Dr Rachel Morton, The University of Sydney Professor Graham Mann, The University of Sydney Dr Anne Cust, The University of Sydney
Anticipated or actual start date
25 April 2012
Anticipated completion date
16 November 2012
Funding sources/sponsors
Cancer Institute Australia
Conflicts of interest
None known
Language
English
Country
Australia
Subject index terms status
Subject indexing assigned by CRD
Subject index terms
Health Education; Humans; Neoplasms; Patient Education as Topic; Risk; Risk Factors
Date of registration in PROSPERO
28 August 2012
Date of publication of this revision
28 August 2012
Stage of review at time of this submission
Started
Completed
Preliminary searches
No
Piloting of the study selection process
Formal screening of search results against eligibility criteria
Data extraction
Risk of bias (quality) assessment
Data analysis
Prospective meta-analysis
PROSPERO This information has been provided by the named contact for this review. CRD has accepted this information in good faith and registered the review in PROSPERO. CRD bears no responsibility or liability for the content of this registration record, any associated files or external websites.
