Background: Cancer is a leading cause of death, and although screening can reduce cancer morbidity and mortality, participation in screening remains suboptimal. Objective: This systematic review and meta-analysis aims to evaluate the effectiveness of social media and mobile health (mHealth) interventions for cancer screening. Methods: We searched for randomized controlled trials and quasi-experimental studies of social media and mHealth interventions promoting cancer screening (breast, cervical, colorectal, lung, and prostate cancers) in adults in MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, Scopus, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and Communication & Mass Media Complete from January 1, 2000, to July 17, 2020. Two independent reviewers screened the titles, abstracts, and full-text articles and completed the risk of bias assessments. We pooled odds ratios for screening participation using the Mantel-Haenszel method in a random-effects model. Results: We screened 18,008 records identifying 39 studies (35 mHealth and 4 social media). The types of interventions included peer support (n=1), education or awareness (n=6), reminders (n=13), or mixed (n=19). The overall pooled odds ratio was 1.49 (95% CI 1.31-1.70), with similar effect sizes across cancer types. Conclusions: Screening programs should consider mHealth interventions because of their promising role in promoting cancer screening participation. Given the limited number of studies identified, further research is needed for social media interventions. Trial Registration: PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews CRD42019139615; https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?RecordID=139615 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID): RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2019-035411

Introduction. The objectives of this systematic review were to evaluate the evidence for different CRC screening tests and to determine the most appropriate ages of initiation and cessation for CRC screening and the most appropriate screening intervals for selected CRC screening tests in people at average risk for CRC.Methods. Electronic databases were searched for studies that addressed the research objectives. Meta-analyses were conducted with clinically homogenous trials. A working group reviewed the evidence to develop conclusions.Results. Thirty RCTs and 29 observational studies were included. Flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS) prevented CRC and led to the largest reduction in CRC mortality with a smaller but significant reduction in CRC mortality with the use of guaiac fecal occult blood tests (gFOBTs). There was insufficient or low quality evidence to support the use of other screening tests, including colonoscopy, as well as changing the ages of initiation and cessation for CRC screening with gFOBTs in Ontario. Either annual or biennial screening using gFOBT reduces CRC-related mortality.Conclusion. The evidentiary base supports the use of FS or FOBT (either annual or biennial) to screen patients at average risk for CRC. This work will guide the development of the provincial CRC screening program.

Colonoscopy is fundamental to the diagnosis and management of digestive diseases and plays a key role in colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and diagnosis. Therefore, it is important to ensure that colonoscopy is of high quality. The present guidance document updates the evidence and recommendations in Cancer Care Ontario’s 2007 Colonoscopy Standards, and was conducted under the aegis of the Program in Evidence-Based Care. It is intended to support quality improvement for colonoscopies for all indications, including follow-up to a positive fecal occult blood test, screening for individuals who have a family history of CRC and those at average risk, investigation for symptomatic patients, and surveillance of those with a history of adenomatous polyps or CRC. A systematic review was performed to evaluate the existing evidence concerning the following three key aspects of colonoscopy: physician endoscopist training and maintenance of competency; institutional quality assurance parameters; and colonoscopy quality indicators and auditable outcomes. Where appropriate, indicators were designated quality indicators (where there was sufficient evidence to recommend a specific target) and auditable outcomes (insufficient evidence to recommend a specific target, but which should be monitored for quality assurance purposes). The guidance document may be used to support colonoscopy quality assurance programs to improve the quality of colonoscopy regardless of indication. Improvements in colonoscopy quality are anticipated to improve important outcomes in digestive diseases, such as reduction of the incidence of and mortality from CRC.

Anal cancer screening may be considered in HIV-infected men who have sex with men because they are at increased risk. Cancer screening can provoke anxiety, which may lead to poorer screening compliance. This study aimed to measure the psychological consequences of anal cancer screening in HIV-infected men who have sex with men. This investigation is a prospective cohort study. This study was conducted in primary and tertiary care HIV clinics in Toronto, Canada. One hundred four HIV-infected men who have sex with men were studied. Psychological impact was measured at 4 time points (before screening, after screening, after receiving results, and before follow-up) using the Impact of Events Scale, the Illness Intrusiveness Ratings Scale, and the Psychological Consequences Questionnaire. Median age was 44, 77% were receiving antiretroviral therapy, and 11% had high-grade anal dysplasia (anal intraepithelial neoplasia 2/3). Fifteen to 32% of the patients reported high levels of negative psychological consequences across the 4 time points; the highest levels occurred at time 2. Higher HIV symptom count and baseline level of negative impact were significantly associated with higher Impact of Events scores, whereas younger age and a higher baseline level of negative impact were significantly associated with higher scores with use of the Illness Intrusiveness Ratings Scale. Anal cancer screening is not associated with greater adverse psychological impact in most HIV-infected men who have sex with men. Younger patients, those with more HIV-related symptoms and greater baseline psychological distress, are at risk for increased psychological distress during screening.