Belinda Goodwin

Dr. Belinda Goodwin

orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

10Years (2017-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
3 June 2017 in Journal of Gambling Studies
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
MBMatthew Browne
Matthew Browne
BGBelinda Goodwin
Belinda Goodwin
MRMatthew Rockloff
Matthew Rockloff

4 November 2019 in Systematic Reviews
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
BGBelinda Goodwin
Belinda Goodwin
MIMichael J. Ireland
Michael J. Ireland
SMSonja March
Sonja March
LMLarry Myers
Larry Myers
FCFiona Crawford-Williams
Fiona Crawford-Williams
JDJeff Dunn
Jeff Dunn
Background: Population mail-out bowel screening programs are a convenient, cost-effective and sensitive method of detecting colorectal cancer (CRC). Despite the increased survival rates associated with early detection of CRC, in many countries, 50% or more of eligible individuals do not participate in such programs. The current study systematically reviews interventions applied to increase fecal occult blood test (FOBT) kit return, specifically in population mail-out programs. Methods: Five electronic databases (PubMed, PsycINFO, Scopus, CINAHL, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses) were searched for articles published before the 10th of March 2018. Studies were included if they reported the results of an intervention designed to increase the return rate of FOBT kits that had been mailed to individuals’ homes. PRISMA systematic review reporting methods were applied and each study was assessed using Cochrane’s Risk of Bias tool. Pooled effect sizes were calculated for each intervention type and the risk of bias was tested as a moderator for sensitivity analysis. Results: The review identified 53 interventions from 30 published studies from which nine distinct intervention strategy types emerged. Sensitivity analysis showed that the risk of bias marginally moderated the overall effect size. Pooled risk ratios and confidence intervals for each intervention type revealed that telephone contact RR = 1.23, 95% CI (1.08–1.40), GP endorsement RR = 1.19, 95% CI (1.10–1.29), simplified test procedures RR = 1.17, 95% CI (1.09–1.25), and advance notifications RR = 1.09, 95% CI (1.07–1.11) were effective intervention strategies with small to moderate effect sizes. Studies with a high risk of bias were removed and pooled effects remained relatively unchanged. Conclusions: Interventions that combine program-level changes incorporating the issue of advance notification and alternative screening tools with the involvement of primary health professionals through endorsement letters and telephone contact should lead to increases in kit return in mail-out CRC screening programs. Systematic review registration: This review is registered with PROSPERO; registration number CRD42017064652

5 October 2018 in Psycho-Oncology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
FCFiona Crawford‐Williams
Fiona Crawford‐Williams
SMSonja March
Sonja March
BGBelinda Goodwin
Belinda Goodwin
NRNicholas Ralph
Nicholas Ralph
DGDaniel Galvão
Daniel Galvão
JDJeff Dunn
Jeff Dunn

6 November 2023 in Psycho-Oncology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
BGBelinda Goodwin
Belinda Goodwin
LALaura Anderson
Laura Anderson
KCKatelyn Collins
Katelyn Collins
SSSaira Sanjida
Saira Sanjida
MRMarcos Riba
Marcos Riba
LGLisa Grech
Lisa Grech

27 July 2018 in Psycho-Oncology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
BGBelinda Goodwin
Belinda Goodwin
SMSonja March
Sonja March
LZLeah Zajdlewicz
Leah Zajdlewicz
RORichard H. Osborne
Richard H. Osborne
JDJeff Dunn
Jeff Dunn
SCSuzanne K. Chambers
Suzanne K. Chambers

9 August 2021 in Current Oncology
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
ASAnna Stiller
Anna Stiller
BGBelinda Goodwin
Belinda Goodwin
FCFiona Crawford-Williams
Fiona Crawford-Williams
SMSonja March
Sonja March
MIMichael Ireland
Michael Ireland
SCSuzanne K. Chambers
Suzanne K. Chambers
Objective: As cancer survival rates continue to increase, so will the demand for care from family and friends, particularly in more isolated settings. This study aims to examine the needs of cancer caregivers in regional and remote Australia. Methods: A total of 239 informal (i.e., non-professional) cancer caregivers (e.g., family/friends) from regional and remote Queensland, Australia, completed the Comprehensive Needs Assessment Tool for Cancer Caregivers (CNAT-C). The frequencies of individuals reporting specific needs were calculated. Logistic regression analyses assessed the association between unmet needs and demographic characteristics and cancer type. Results: The most frequently endorsed needs were lodging near hospital (77%), information about the disease (74%), and tests and treatment (74%). The most frequent unmet needs were treatment near home (37%), help with economic burden (32%), and concerns about the person being cared for (32%). Younger and female caregivers were significantly more likely to report unmet needs overall (OR = 2.12; OR = 0.58), and unmet healthcare staff needs (OR = 0.35; OR = 1.99, respectively). Unmet family and social support needs were also significantly more likely among younger caregivers (OR = 0.35). Caregivers of breast cancer patients (OR = 0.43) and older caregivers (OR = 0.53) were significantly less likely to report unmet health and psychology needs. Proportions of participants reporting needs were largely similar across demographic groups and cancer type with some exceptions. Conclusions: Caregiver health, practical issues associated with travel, and emotional strain are all areas where regional and remote caregivers require more support. Caregivers’ age and gender, time since diagnosis and patient cancer type should be considered when determining the most appropriate supportive care.