PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Peter A Briss

Publications and source records attributed to Peter A Briss.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed2005

Systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations II: pilot study of a new system.

BACKGROUND: Systems that are used by different organisations to grade the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations vary. They have different strengths and weaknesses. The GRADE Working Group has developed an approach that addresses key shortcomings in these systems. The aim of this study was to pilot test and further develop the GRADE approach to grading evidence and recommendations. METHODS: A GRADE evidence profile consists of two tables: a quality assessment and a summary of findings. Twelve evidence profiles were used in this pilot study. Each evidence profile was made based on information available in a systematic review. Seventeen people were given instructions and independently graded the level of evidence and strength of recommendation for each of the 12 evidence profiles. For each example judgements were collected, summarised and discussed in the group with the aim of improving the proposed grading system. Kappas were calculated as a measure of chance-corrected agreement for the quality of evidence for each outcome for each of the twelve evidence profiles. The seventeen judges were also asked about the ease of understanding and the sensibility of the approach. All of the judgements were recorded and disagreements discussed. RESULTS: There was a varied amount of agreement on the quality of evidence for the outcomes relating to each of the twelve questions (kappa coefficients for agreement beyond chance ranged from 0 to 0.82). However, there was fair agreement about the relative importance of each outcome. There was poor agreement about the balance of benefits and harms and recommendations. Most of the disagreements were easily resolved through discussion. In general we found the GRADE approach to be clear, understandable and sensible. Some modifications were made in the approach and it was agreed that more information was needed in the evidence profiles. CONCLUSION: Judgements about evidence and recommendations are complex. Some subjectivity, especially regarding recommendations, is unavoidable. We believe our system for guiding these complex judgements appropriately balances the need for simplicity with the need for full and transparent consideration of all important issues.

Comprehension↗
PubMed2004

Promoting cancer screening: Learning from experience.

This article provides an overview of behavioral and social science cancer screening intervention research and introduces the scope of topics addressed in this supplement to Cancer. The authors identify and address issues to consider before conducting interventions to promote the uptake of screening tests, such as the benefits and harms associated with screening. Trends in the use of cancer screening tests are discussed in the context of their efficacy and adoption over time. Both the development and breadth of social and behavioral intervention research intended to increase the use of effective tests are reviewed as background for the articles that follow. The application of the lessons from this extensive knowledge base not only should accelerate the uptake of the effective cancer screening tests currently available, but also can guide future directions for research.

Breast Neoplasms↗
PubMed2004

The future of research that promotes cancer screening.

The authors draw on the lessons highlighted in preceding articles in the current supplement to provide recommendations for cancer screening intervention research and to highlight some of the many questions that will require further investigation.

Biomedical Research↗
PubMed2004

Examining the cost-effectiveness of cancer screening promotion.

Cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) can help to quantify the contribution of the promotion of a screening program to increased participation in screening. The cost-effectiveness (C/E) of screening promotion depends in large part on the endpoints of interest. At the most fundamental level, the C/E of a strategy for promoting screening would focus on the attendance rate, or cost per person screened, and the C/E would be influenced by the costs of promotion, as well as by the size and responsiveness of the target population. In addition, the costs of screening promotion (measured as the cost per additional participant in screening) can be included in a CEA estimate of the screening technology. In this case, depending on the efficacy of the screening test and the costs and influence of the promotion, the C/E of screening may improve or become poorer. In the current study, the authors reviewed the literature on the C/E of cancer screening promotion. The following lessons were learned regarding the C/E of screening and its promotion: 1) high-quality information on the C/E of screening is increasingly available; 2) cost-effective promotion of screening is dependent on cost-effective screening strategies; 3) quality-of-life effects may be important in assessing the overall C/E of screening programs; 4) research efforts aimed at identifying cost-effective approaches to screening promotion are useful but sparse; 5) C/E studies should be better incorporated into well designed effectiveness research efforts; 6) variations in C/E according to intervention characteristics, population characteristics, and context should be evaluated in greater depth; 7) the long-term effects of screening promotion are critical to assessing C/E; 8) the effects of promotion on costs of screening must be better understood; and 9) CEA must be interpreted in light of other information. The authors showed that CEA can be a valuable tool for understanding the merits of health promotion interventions and that CEA is particularly valuable in identifying screening strategies that might be promoted most cost-effectively.

Cost-Benefit Analysis↗
PubMed2004

Informed decision making: what is its role in cancer screening?

Interest in informed decision making (IDM) has grown in recent years. Greater patient involvement in decision making is consistent with recommendations to improve health care quality. This report provides an overview of IDM; clarifies the differences between IDM, shared decision making (SDM), and informed consent; and reviews the evidence to date about IDM for cancer screening. The authors also make recommendations for research. We define IDM as occurring when an individual understands the disease or condition being addressed and comprehends what the clinical service involves, including its benefits, risks, limitations, alternatives, and uncertainties; has considered his or her preferences and makes a decision consistent with them; and believes he or she has participated in decision making at the level desired. IDM interventions are used to facilitate informed decisions. The authors reviewed the evidence to date for IDM and cancer screening based primarily on published meta-analyses and a recent report for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Guide to Community Preventive Services. IDM and SDM interventions, such as decision aids, result in improved knowledge, beliefs, risk perceptions, and combinations of these. Little or no evidence exists, however, regarding whether these interventions result in 1) participation in decision making at a level consistent with patient preferences or 2) effects on patient satisfaction with the decision-making process. These variables generally either were not assessed or were not reported in the articles reviewed. Results of interventions on uptake of screening were variable. After exposure to IDM/SDM interventions, most studies showed small decreases in prostate cancer screening, whereas four studies on breast and colorectal cancer screening showed small increases. Few data are available by which to evaluate current practices in cancer screening IDM. Patient participation in IDM should be facilitated for those who prefer it. More research is needed to assess the benefits of IDM/SDM interventions and to tailor interventions to individuals who are most likely to desire and benefit from them. There are many system barriers to IDM/SDM and few tools. More work is needed in this area as well. In addition, research is needed to learn how to incorporate IDM into ongoing clinical practice and to determine whether there are unintended negative consequences of IDM.

Community Health Services↗
PubMed2004

Some methodologic lessons learned from cancer screening research.

Credible and useful methodologic evaluations are essential for increasing the uptake of effective cancer screening tests. In the current article, the authors discuss selected issues that are related to conducting behavior change interventions in cancer screening research and that may assist researchers in better designing future evaluations to increase the credibility and usefulness of such interventions. Selection and measurement of the primary outcome variable (i.e., cancer screening behavior) are discussed in detail. The report also addresses other aspects of study design and execution, including alternatives to the randomized controlled trial, indicators of study quality, and external validity. The authors conclude that the uptake of screening should be the main outcome when evaluating cancer screening strategies; that researchers should agree on definitions and measures of cancer screening behaviors and assess the reliability and validity of these definitions and measures in different populations and settings; and that the development of methods for increasing the external validity of randomized designs and reducing bias in nonrandomized studies is needed.

Biomedical Research↗
PubMed2004

Grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations.

Users of clinical practice guidelines and other recommendations need to know how much confidence they can place in the recommendations. Systematic and explicit methods of making judgments can reduce errors and improve communication. We have developed a system for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations that can be applied across a wide range of interventions and contexts. In this article we present a summary of our approach from the perspective of a guideline user. Judgments about the strength of a recommendation require consideration of the balance between benefits and harms, the quality of the evidence, translation of the evidence into specific circumstances, and the certainty of the baseline risk. It is also important to consider costs (resource utilisation) before making a recommendation. Inconsistencies among systems for grading the quality of evidence and the strength of recommendations reduce their potential to facilitate critical appraisal and improve communication of these judgments. Our system for guiding these complex judgments balances the need for simplicity with the need for full and transparent consideration of all important issues.

Cost-Benefit Analysis↗
PubMed2004

Interventions to prevent skin cancer by reducing exposure to ultraviolet radiation: a systematic review.

The relationship between skin cancer and ultraviolet radiation is well established. Behaviors such as seeking shade, avoiding sun exposure during peak hours of radiation, wearing protective clothing, or some combination of these behaviors can provide protection. Sunscreen use alone is not considered an adequate protection against ultraviolet radiation. This report presents the results of systematic reviews of effectiveness, applicability, other harms or benefits, economic evaluations, and barriers to use of selected interventions to prevent skin cancer by reducing exposure to ultraviolet radiation. The Task Force on Community Preventive Services found that education and policy approaches to increasing sun-protective behaviors were effective when implemented in primary schools and in recreational or tourism settings, but found insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness when implemented in other settings, such as child care centers, secondary schools and colleges, and occupational settings. They also found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of interventions oriented to healthcare settings and providers, media campaigns alone, interventions oriented to parents or caregivers of children, and community-wide multicomponent interventions. The report also provides suggestions for areas for future research.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2004

Developing and using the Guide to Community Preventive Services: lessons learned about evidence-based public health.

The Guide to Community Preventive Services (Community Guide) is being developed under the leadership of the independent, nonfederal Task Force on Community Preventive Services. The Task Force makes recommendations for the use of public health programs and policies based on scientific evidence about what practices have worked to improve health. The Community Guide thoroughly searches scientific literature for topic-relevant studies, evaluates their quality according to established criteria, and makes recommendations based on the overall strength of the body of evidence and the size and variability of reported effects. In addition, the Community Guide identifies promising interventions that have not been adequately researched, thus helping to inform the public health research agenda. The continuously updated and expanded body of recommendations and research agenda formulated by this rigorous process have been published on the Internet and in various publications since 1999 and constitute a highly valued and objective evidence-based resource for guiding current and future public health activities. More remains to be learned, however, on how best to disseminate Community Guide findings to key target audiences and encourage their use to inform practice, policy, and additional research.

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S.↗
PubMed2003

Nonadherence to breast and cervical cancer screening: what are the linkages to chronic disease risk?

BACKGROUND: Several preventive practices that reduce chronic disease risk have been associated with breast and cervical cancer screening, including maintenance of normal weight and avoidance of cigarette smoking. A history of certain chronic illnesses such as diabetes and cardiovascular disease has also been related to cancer screening. Nevertheless, studies that have attempted to identify women who are less likely to have had a recent breast or cervical cancer screening test have infrequently examined the associations of breast and cervical cancer screening with multiple health factors that influence chronic disease risk. METHODS: To clarify relationships between cancer screening and health behaviors and other factors that influence chronic disease risk, we examined the self-reported breast and cervical cancer screening practices of women in the United States by using data from the 1999 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System. The women were described according to their recent use of mammography and the Papanicolaou test, physician visits within the past year, health insurance coverage, and preventive practices that reduce chronic disease risk. RESULTS: Overall, 74.5% (95% CI, 73.9%-75.1%) of the women in this sample aged 40 years or older (n = 56,528) had received a mammogram within the past 2 years. The percentage of women who had been screened for breast cancer, however, varied widely by factors associated with reducing the risk of chronic disease (e.g., cholesterol check in the past 2 years, blood pressure check in the past 2 years, normal weight, avoidance of cigarette smoking) and having access to health care (e.g., health insurance coverage, recent physician visit). Similarly, 84.4% (95% CI, 83.9%-84.9%) of all women aged 18 years or older who had not undergone a hysterectomy (n = 69,113) had received a Papanicolaou test in the past 3 years, and factors associated with reduced chronic disease risk and health care access were related to having had a recent Papanicolaou test. CONCLUSION: The results of this study suggest that underscreened women who are at risk for breast and cervical cancer are likely to benefit from programs that identify and address coexisting prevention needs. The identification of coexisting prevention needs might assist in developing interventions that address multiple risks for chronic disease among women and might subsequently help improve the efficiency and effectiveness of prevention programs.

Adolescent↗
PubMed2003

A comparison of review methods in tobacco prevention and control guidelines.

OBJECTIVES: To compare methods and conclusions of selected guidelines evaluating youth tobacco interventions. METHODS: Eight reviews were compared regarding (a) search and assessment of evidence, (b) translation into recommendations, and (c) conclusions regarding tobacco cessation among youth. RESULTS: Narrative and systematic review methods were employed. Five systematic reviews adopted different (a) criteria for study inclusion, (b) methods estimating summary outcome measurements, and (c) standards for concluding on the evidence of effectiveness. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence reviews provide useful summaries, conclusions, and recommendations. Youth Tobacco Cessation: A Guide for Making Informed Decisions provides an inital systematic review of the evidence on effectiveness of youth tobacco use.

Adolescent↗