Disparities in Timeliness of Endometrial Cancer Care

Author:

Najor Anna,Melson Valerie,Lyu Junrui,Fadadu Priyal,Bakkum-Gamez Jamie,Sherman Mark,Kaunitz Andrew,Connor Avonne,Destephano Christopher

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: We use the person-centered Pathway to Treatment framework to assess the scope of evidence on disparities in endometrial cancer stage at diagnosis. This report is intended to facilitate interventions, research, and advocacy that reduce disparities. DATA SOURCES: We completed a structured search of electronic databases: PubMed, EMBASE, Scopus, ClinicalTrials.gov, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases. Included studies were published between January 2000 and 2023 and addressed marginalized population(s) in the United States with the ability to develop endometrial cancer and addressed variable(s) outlined in the Pathway to Treatment. METHODS OF STUDY SELECTION: Our database search strategy was designed for sensitivity to identify studies on disparate prolongation of the Pathway to Treatment for endometrial cancer, tallying 2,171. Inclusion criteria were broad, yet only 24 studies addressed this issue. All articles were independently screened by two reviewers. TABULATION, INTEGRATION, AND RESULTS: Twenty-four studies were included: 10 on symptom appraisal, five on help seeking, five on diagnosis, and 10 on pretreatment intervals. Quality rankings were heterogeneous, between 3 and 9 (median 7.2) per the Newcastle–Ottawa Scale. We identified three qualitative, two participatory, and two intervention studies. Studies on help seeking predominantly investigate patient-driven delays. When disease factors were controlled for, delays of the pretreatment interval were independently associated with racism toward Black and Hispanic people, less education, lower socioeconomic status, and nonprivate insurance. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence gaps on disparities in timeliness of endometrial cancer care reveal emphasis of patient-driven help-seeking delays, reliance on health care–derived databases, underutilization of participatory methods, and a paucity of intervention studies. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Given that PROSPERO was not accepting systematic scoping review protocols at the time this study began, this study protocol was shared a priori through Open Science Framework on January 13, 2021 (doi: 10.17605/OSF.IO/V2ZXY), and through peer review publication on April 13, 2021 (doi: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01649-x).

Publisher

Ovid Technologies (Wolters Kluwer Health)

Subject

Obstetrics and Gynecology

Cited by 3 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3