Digital tools to support informed decision making among screening invitees in a vulnerable position for population-based cancer screening: A scoping review

[Display omitted] •Screening invitees in vulnerable positions participate less in cancer screening.•Digital tools like videos and decision-aids allow tailoring to individual needs.•We found that digital tools help in reaching and informing vulnerable invitees. Individuals in a vulnerable position ar...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:International journal of medical informatics (Shannon, Ireland) Ireland), 2024-12, Vol.192, p.105625, Article 105625
Hauptverfasser: Oldhoff-Nuijsink, Corine, Derksen, Marloes E., Engelsma, Thomas, Peute, Linda W.P., Fransen, Mirjam P.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:[Display omitted] •Screening invitees in vulnerable positions participate less in cancer screening.•Digital tools like videos and decision-aids allow tailoring to individual needs.•We found that digital tools help in reaching and informing vulnerable invitees. Individuals in a vulnerable position are generally less inclined to participate in population-based cancer screening. Digital tools, such as educational videos, narratives or decision aids, show promise in reaching and informing these invitees by tailoring information needs based on their preferences. This review aims to provide an overview of design features and reported outcomes of digital tools intended to support informed decision making among screening invitees in a vulnerable position. The review was conducted according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Scoping Reviews guidelines. We searched PubMed, Scopus/MEDLINE and Web of Science and included studies when the effectiveness of the digital tool was assessed and focussed on reaching and/or informing screening invitees in a vulnerable position for breast, cervical or colorectal cancer screening. For each included study, the study population, type of digital tool, the development process, reported design features and reported effects were extracted. We found 448 articles, and finally 13 were included in this review after reading full text. Study designs included randomised controlled trials (n = 5), pre-post-test design (n = 7) and experimental design (n = 1). Six different types of digital tools were identified: decision aids (n = 6), educational programs (n = 3), narrative video (n = 1), text-messaging intervention (n = 1), animation video (n = 1), and iPad program (n = 1). A population specific design was applied in 12/13 interventions, such as avoiding jargon and using a voice over function. Reported outcomes measures regarding reaching and informing the target population were: knowledge, attitude, screening intention, self-efficacy, susceptibility, feeling informed, values clarity, and screening uptake. All digital tools reported a significant improvement on at least one of the reported outcome measures. The use of digital tools seems to contribute to reach or inform screening invitees in a vulnerable position for cancer screening. However, insufficient evidence was found regarding the development process of the tools and their effects on outcome measures related to reaching and informing the screening invitees in a vulnerable position.
ISSN:1386-5056
1872-8243
1872-8243
DOI:10.1016/j.ijmedinf.2024.105625