UCSF

Background

Delays to cancer diagnosis exist, resulting in worse survival outcomes for many cancers. Interventions targeting delays and barriers to cancer diagnosis and treatment have been investigated, but mostly in high-income countries. We conducted a systematic literature review to identify and characterize the interventions studied across cancers, within low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).

Methods

This systematic review forms part two of a wider study examining solutions to delays and barriers in cancer early diagnosis in LMICs. A comprehensive literature search was conducted on November 27, 2017, encompassing published studies from the preceding 15 years. We extracted study design, population, and intervention, and reported outcome measures from each study. Results were presented by target of interventions (general vs. health care professionals). A narrative synthesis was used to summarize intervention efficacy.

Results

Of 10,193 abstracts returned, 25 were included, consisting of studies across World Health Organization geographical regions, examining breast, cervix, childhood, prostate, head and neck, and gastric cancers. Altogether, 11 intervention studies targeted the general population, 12 targeted health care professionals, and 2 targeted both. The majority (17/25) of studies reported interventions focusing on patient and diagnosis-related barriers early in the cancer care pathway. Most studies reported knowledge score as primary outcome measure (17/25); few (6/25) reported on clinically relevant measures such as reducing disease stage at presentation or diagnostic time interval. Effectiveness of interventions was demonstrated for some cancers only.

Conclusion

More interventions reporting clinically relevant measures and using standardized methods and outcomes are required to improve our ability to effectively improve cancer early diagnosis in LMICs.

Implications for practice

Prior to this study, the extent of intervention literature in cancer early diagnosis in low- and middle-income countries had not been characterized. This study aimed to outline and characterize interventions across all cancer types and across all countries. This systematic review demonstrated that interventions have been investigated targeting both the general population and health care professionals. Furthermore, this review demonstrates that the majority of studies report knowledge as an outcome measure, rather than clinically significant measures that improve cancer-related outcomes, such as delay intervals or downstaging of disease. Future interventions should address clinically relevant measures to better assess efficacy of interventions.