Implementation of Health IT for Cancer Screening in US Primary Care: Scoping Review
- PMID: 38687595
- PMCID: PMC11094604
- DOI: 10.2196/49002
Implementation of Health IT for Cancer Screening in US Primary Care: Scoping Review
Abstract
Background: A substantial percentage of the US population is not up to date on guideline-recommended cancer screenings. Identifying interventions that effectively improve screening rates would enhance the delivery of such screening. Interventions involving health IT (HIT) show promise, but much remains unknown about how HIT is optimized to support cancer screening in primary care.
Objective: This scoping review aims to identify (1) HIT-based interventions that effectively support guideline concordance in breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening provision and follow-up in the primary care setting and (2) barriers or facilitators to the implementation of effective HIT in this setting.
Methods: Following scoping review guidelines, we searched MEDLINE, CINAHL Plus, Web of Science, and IEEE Xplore databases for US-based studies from 2015 to 2021 that featured HIT targeting breast, colorectal, and cervical cancer screening in primary care. Studies were dual screened using a review criteria checklist. Data extraction was guided by the following implementation science frameworks: the Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance framework; the Expert Recommendations for Implementing Change taxonomy; and implementation strategy reporting domains. It was also guided by the Integrated Technology Implementation Model that incorporates theories of both implementation science and technology adoption. Reporting was guided by PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews).
Results: A total of 101 studies met the inclusion criteria. Most studies (85/101, 84.2%) involved electronic health record-based HIT interventions. The most common HIT function was clinical decision support, primarily used for panel management or at the point of care. Most studies related to HIT targeting colorectal cancer screening (83/101, 82.2%), followed by studies related to breast cancer screening (28/101, 27.7%), and cervical cancer screening (19/101, 18.8%). Improvements in cancer screening were associated with HIT-based interventions in most studies (36/54, 67% of colorectal cancer-relevant studies; 9/14, 64% of breast cancer-relevant studies; and 7/10, 70% of cervical cancer-relevant studies). Most studies (79/101, 78.2%) reported on the reach of certain interventions, while 17.8% (18/101) of the included studies reported on the adoption or maintenance. Reported barriers and facilitators to HIT adoption primarily related to inner context factors of primary care settings (eg, staffing and organizational policies that support or hinder HIT adoption). Implementation strategies for HIT adoption were reported in 23.8% (24/101) of the included studies.
Conclusions: There are substantial evidence gaps regarding the effectiveness of HIT-based interventions, especially those targeting guideline-concordant breast and colorectal cancer screening in primary care. Even less is known about how to enhance the adoption of technologies that have been proven effective in supporting breast, colorectal, or cervical cancer screening. Research is needed to ensure that the potential benefits of effective HIT-based interventions equitably reach diverse primary care populations.
Keywords: cancer prevention; health information technology; implementation; implementation strategies; scoping review.
©Constance Owens-Jasey, Jinying Chen, Ran Xu, Heather Angier, Amy G Huebschmann, Mayuko Ito Fukunaga, Krisda H Chaiyachati, Katharine A Rendle, Kim Robien, Lisa DiMartino, Daniel J Amante, Jamie M Faro, Maura M Kepper, Alex T Ramsey, Eric Bressman, Rachel Gold. Originally published in JMIR Cancer (https://cancer.jmir.org), 30.04.2024.
Conflict of interest statement
Conflicts of Interest: None declared.
Figures
Similar articles
-
Beyond the black stump: rapid reviews of health research issues affecting regional, rural and remote Australia.Med J Aust. 2020 Dec;213 Suppl 11:S3-S32.e1. doi: 10.5694/mja2.50881. Med J Aust. 2020. PMID: 33314144
-
Strategies used for childhood chronic functional constipation: the SUCCESS evidence synthesis.Health Technol Assess. 2024 Jan;28(5):1-266. doi: 10.3310/PLTR9622. Health Technol Assess. 2024. PMID: 38343084 Free PMC article.
-
Information and communication technology-based interventions for suicide prevention implemented in clinical settings: a scoping review.BMC Health Serv Res. 2023 Mar 23;23(1):281. doi: 10.1186/s12913-023-09254-5. BMC Health Serv Res. 2023. PMID: 36959599 Free PMC article.
-
Digital Health Policy and Programs for Hospital Care in Vietnam: Scoping Review.J Med Internet Res. 2022 Feb 9;24(2):e32392. doi: 10.2196/32392. J Med Internet Res. 2022. PMID: 35138264 Free PMC article.
-
Are we ready? assessing effectiveness and implementation of cancer control strategies in primary care: a comprehensive review of systematic reviews.Fam Pract. 2025 Feb 7;42(2):cmae078. doi: 10.1093/fampra/cmae078. Fam Pract. 2025. PMID: 39918006 Free PMC article. Review.
Cited by
-
The Effect of an EHR Order Set on Cancer Screening Order Rates in Community-Based Health Centers.Appl Clin Inform. 2025 May;16(3):496-506. doi: 10.1055/a-2524-5076. Epub 2025 Jun 4. Appl Clin Inform. 2025. PMID: 40467470 Free PMC article.
-
Risk factors, prevention and screening of colorectal cancer: A rising problem.World J Gastroenterol. 2025 Feb 7;31(5):98629. doi: 10.3748/wjg.v31.i5.98629. World J Gastroenterol. 2025. PMID: 39926213 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Primary Care Provider Preferences Regarding Artificial Intelligence in Point-of-Care Cancer Screening.MDM Policy Pract. 2025 Apr 4;10(1):23814683251329007. doi: 10.1177/23814683251329007. eCollection 2025 Jan-Jun. MDM Policy Pract. 2025. PMID: 40191273 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Smith RA, Andrews KS, Brooks D, Fedewa SA, Manassaram-Baptiste D, Saslow D, Brawley OW, Wender RC. Cancer screening in the United States, 2017: a review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and current issues in cancer screening. CA Cancer J Clin. 2017 Mar 07;67(2):100–21. doi: 10.3322/caac.21392. - DOI - PubMed
-
- Siu AL, U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Screening for breast cancer: U.S. preventive services task force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2016 Feb 16;164(4):279–96. doi: 10.7326/M15-2886. https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/abs/10.7326/M15-2886?url_ver=Z39.88-2003... 2480757 - DOI - DOI - PubMed
-
- US Preventive Services Task Force. Curry SJ, Krist AH, Owens DK, Barry MJ, Caughey AB, Davidson KW, Doubeni CA, Epling Jr JW, Kemper AR, Kubik M, Landefeld CS, Mangione CM, Phipps MG, Silverstein M, Simon MA, Tseng CW, Wong JB. Screening for cervical cancer: US preventive services task force recommendation statement. JAMA. 2018 Aug 21;320(7):674–86. doi: 10.1001/jama.2018.10897.2697704 - DOI - PubMed
-
- US Preventive Services Task Force. Davidson K, Barry MJ, Mangione CM, Cabana M, Caughey AB, Davis EM, Donahue KE, Doubeni CA, Krist AH, Kubik M, Li L, Ogedegbe G, Owens DK, Pbert L, Silverstein M, Stevermer J, Tseng CW, Wong JB. Screening for colorectal cancer: US preventive services task force recommendation statement. JAMA. 2021 May 18;325(19):1965–77. doi: 10.1001/jama.2021.6238.2779985 - DOI - PubMed
-
- Martires KJ, Kurlander DE, Minwell GJ, Dahms EB, Bordeaux JS. Patterns of cancer screening in primary care from 2005 to 2010. Cancer. 2014 Jan 15;120(2):253–61. doi: 10.1002/cncr.28403. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/cncr.28403 - DOI - DOI - PubMed
Publication types
Grants and funding
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Miscellaneous