27 Determinants of (non)attendance at the Dutch CSPs Methods Search strategy A comprehensive literature search was carried out which included all articles published before February 2018. We searched the following electronic databases: Academic Search Premier, Cochrane Library, Embase, EMCare, PubMed, PsycINFO, and Web of Science. The initial search was constructed in PubMed and included the following MESH terms: ‘screening’, ‘cancer’, ‘participation’ and ‘Netherlands’. The full search is listed in Appendix B. The search was then extended to cover the other databases. No limitation was set on year of publication or study design. Grey literature was obtained from databases on the websites of the organizations RIVM,5 Gezondheidsraad14 and Volksgezondheidenzorg,15 which are involved in cancer screening in the Netherlands. Reference lists of the included articles were reviewed for additional references. This review and its procedures were planned, conducted, and reported according to the PRISMA guidelines.16 In advance our review was registered and accepted in the Prospero register of the National institute for Health Research (CRD42018089444).17 Study selection Studies were included when they evaluated the outcome measurement “attendance/ participation”, and/or described the determinant measures “reasons for low and non-attendance” and were related to at least one of the current Dutch national CSPs. Studies were excluded when they were not in English or Dutch, or when they were nonoriginal articles. Table 2 summarizes the inclusion and exclusion criteria. After removing duplicates, titles and abstracts were checked for inclusion and exclusion criteria. The abstracts of the remaining articles were independently assessed for applicability by the first and second author. The agreement rate was 92%, calculated over the first 120 articles (110/120). An additional 10% was randomly checked by the second author. In case of discrepancy the full text of an article was checked. The final full text evaluation of all the remaining articles was carried out by both the first and second author. Disagreement on inclusion was resolved by discussion with the full research team. 2
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MTk4NDMw