Literature DB >> 10419910

Implementation of on-site screening sigmoidoscopy positively influences utilization by primary care providers.

P C Schroy1, T Heeren, C M Bliss, J Pincus, S Wilson, M Prout.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND & AIMS: Sigmoidoscopy is an effective screening strategy for colorectal cancer that is not widely used by primary care providers. The aim of this study was to assess the impact of "academic detailing" in the form of an outreach educational seminar combined with implementation of on-site sigmoidoscopy services performed by university-based gastroenterologists on provider compliance.
METHODS: A controlled trial was initiated at 9 urban neighborhood health centers, including 4 intervention and 5 comparison sites. Baseline data on provider attitudes and practice patterns were collected using a validated questionnaire. Outcome measures included a year 1 follow-up survey of provider attitudes and quarterly review of screening sigmoidoscopy referrals using appointment logs to assess utilization.
RESULTS: Overall self-reported compliance rates for screening sigmoidoscopy increased by 36% (baseline, 24%; year 1, 60%) for the intervention group vs. only 7% (baseline, 19%; year 1, 26%) for the comparison group (P = 0. 001). When stratified by site, compliance rates increased at each intervention site (range, 7%-92%) but at only 2 control sites. Use of screening sigmoidoscopy was also significantly greater at the intervention sites (47% vs. 4%; P </= 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS: An outreach educational seminar combined with implementation of on-site sigmoidoscopy services is an effective strategy for enhancing provider utilization of screening sigmoidoscopy.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10419910     DOI: 10.1053/gast.1999.0029900304

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gastroenterology        ISSN: 0016-5085            Impact factor:   22.682


  8 in total

Review 1.  Interventions to promote colorectal cancer screening: an integrative review.

Authors:  Susan M Rawl; Usha Menon; Allison Burness; Erica S Breslau
Journal:  Nurs Outlook       Date:  2012-01-18       Impact factor: 3.250

2.  Distinguishing factors for asymptomatic colonoscopy screening.

Authors:  Corey H Basch; Charles E Basch; Randi L Wolf; Patricia Zybert
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2012-06       Impact factor: 2.037

3.  Telephone outreach to increase colorectal cancer screening in an urban minority population.

Authors:  Charles E Basch; Randi L Wolf; Corey H Brouse; Celia Shmukler; Alfred Neugut; Lawrence T DeCarlo; Steven Shea
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2006-10-31       Impact factor: 9.308

4.  Flexible sigmoidoscopy and the changing distribution of colorectal cancer: implications for screening.

Authors:  K McCallion; R M Mitchell; R H Wilson; F Kee; R G Watson; J S Collins; K R Gardiner
Journal:  Gut       Date:  2001-04       Impact factor: 23.059

5.  Collaborative colorectal cancer screening: a successful quality improvement initiative.

Authors:  Joyce Stroud; Chris Felton; Barbara Spreadbury
Journal:  Proc (Bayl Univ Med Cent)       Date:  2003-07

6.  Differences in endoscopic classification of early colorectal carcinoma between China and Japan: a comparative study.

Authors:  Ren-Min Zhu; Fang-Yu Wang; Ichiro Hirata; Ken-Ichi Katsu; Shu-Dong Xiao; Zhong-Lin Yu; Zhi-Hong Zhang; Zhao-Min Xu
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 5.742

7.  Workplace colorectal cancer-screening awareness programs: an adjunct to primary care practice?

Authors:  Akshay Bagai; Karen Parsons; Brenda Malone; Julian Fantino; Lawrence Paszat; Linda Rabeneck
Journal:  J Community Health       Date:  2007-06

8.  A tool for evaluating the potential for cost-effective outcomes measurement.

Authors:  Melinda M Somasekhar; Alfred Bove; Chris Rausch; James Degnan; Cathy T King; Arnold Meyer
Journal:  Int J Gen Med       Date:  2012-04-18
  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.