Analytic Framework [PDF - 410 KB]
When starting an effectiveness review, the systematic review team develops an analytic framework. The analytic framework illustrates how the intervention approach is thought to affect public health. It guides the search for evidence and may be used to summarize the evidence collected. The analytic framework often includes intermediate outcomes, potential effect modifiers, potential harms, and potential additional benefits.
No content is available for this section.
The number of studies and publications do not always correspond (e.g., a publication may include several studies or one study may be explained in several publications).
Byles J, Redman S, Sanson-Fisher R, Boyle C. Effectiveness of two direct-mail strategies to encourage women to have cervical (Pap) smears. Health Promot Int 1995;10(1):5-16.
Byles J, Sanson-Fisher R. Mass mailing campaigns to promote screening for cervical cancer: do they work, and do they continue to work? Aust N Z J Public Health 1996;20(3):254-60.
Dickey L, Petitti D. A patient-held minirecord to promote adult preventive care. J Fam Pract 1992;34(4):457-63.
Dietrich AJ, Duhamel M. Improving geriatric preventive care through a patient-held checklist.Fam Med 1989;21(3):195-8.
Eaker S, Adami HO, Granath F, et al. A large population-based randomized controlled trial to increase attendance at screening for cervical cancer. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2004;13(3):346-54.
Jibaja-Weiss ML, Volk RJ, Kingery P, et al. Tailored messages for breast and cervical cancer screening of low-income and minority women using medical records data. Patient Educ Couns 2003;50(2):123-32.
McAvoy B, Raza R. Can health education increase uptake of cervical smear testing among Asian women? Br Med J 1991;302:833-6.
Mead V, Rhyne R, Wiese W, et al. Impact of environmental patient education on preventive medicine practices. J Fam Pract 1995;40(4):363-9.
Mitchell H, Hirst S, Cockburn J, et al. Cervical cancer screening: a comparison of recruitment strategies among older women. Med J Aust 1991;155:79-82.
Rimer B, Conaway M, Lyna P, et al. The impact of tailored interventions on a community health center population. Patient Educ Couns 1999;37(2):125-40.
Taylor VM, Hislop TG, Jackson JC, et al. A randomized controlled trial of interventions to promote cervical cancer screening among Chinese women in North America. J Natl Cancer Inst 2002;94(9):670-7.
Yancey A, Tanjasiri S, Klein M, Tunder J. Increased cancer screening behaviour in women of color by culturally sensitive video exposure. Prev Med 1995;24:142-8.
de Jonge E, Cloes E, Op de Beeck L, Adriaens B, Lousbergh D, Orye GG, Buntinx F. A quasi-randomized trial on the effectiveness of an invitation letter to improve participation in a setting of opportunistic screening for cervical cancer. European Journal of Cancer Prevention 2008;17:238–42.
Lynch FL, Whitlock EP, Valanis BG, Smith SK. Cost-effectiveness of a tailored intervention to increase screening in HMO women overdue for Pap test and mammography services. Preventive Medicine 2004;38:403–11.
Oscarsson MG, Benzein EG, Wijma BE, Carlsson PG. Promotion of cervical screening among nonattendees: a partial cost-effectiveness analysis. European Journal of Cancer Prevention 2007;16:559–63.
Stein K, Lewendon G, Jenkins R, Davis C. Improving uptake of cervical cancer screening in women with prolonged history of non-attendance for screening: a randomized trial of enhanced invitation methods. J Med Screen 2005;12:185–9.
Thompson B, Thompson LA, Chan NL, Hislop TG, Taylor VM. Cost effectiveness of cervical cancer screening among Chinese women in North America. Asian Pacific J Cancer Prev 2007;8:287-93.
The following outlines the search strategy used for these reviews of interventions to increase breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening: Client Reminders (archived); Client Incentives (archived); Mass Media Targeting Clients (archived); Small Media Targeting Clients; Group Education for Clients (archived); One-on-One Education for Clients (archived); Reducing Structural Barriers for Clients (archived); Reducing Client Out-of-Pocket Costs (archived); Provider Assessment and Feedback (archived); Provider Incentives (archived).
To establish the evidence base the team searched five computerized databases from the earliest entries in each through November 2004: MEDLINE, database of the National Library of Medicine (from 1966); the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health database (CINAHL, from 1982); the Chronic Disease Prevention database (CDP, Cancer Prevention and Control subfield, from 1988); PsycINFO (from 1967); and the Cochrane Library databases. Medical subject headings (MeSH) searched (including all subheadings) are shown below. The team also scanned bibliographies from key articles and solicited other citations from other team members and subject-matter experts. Conference abstracts were not included because, according to Community Guide criteria, they generally do not provide enough information to assess study validity and to address the research questions.
The search identified over 9000 citations whose titles and abstracts were screened for potential relevance to interventions and outcomes of interest; of these, 580 articles were retrieved for full-text review.
Search terms used in five electronic databases to find studies for inclusion in the systematic reviews of cancer screening. Searches were conducted to find all studies of cancer screening including those specific to screening for breast, cervical, or colorectal cancer.
Neoplasms—combined with any of the following headings:
- Early detection
- Mass screening
- Multiphasic screening
- Preventive health services
- Breast neoplasms
- Cervical intraepithelial neoplasia
- (Uterine) cervical neoplasms
- Cervix dysplasia
- Vaginal smears
- Colonic neoplasms
- Colorectal neoplasms
- Occult blood
- Sigmoid neoplasms
No content is available for this section.