Literature DB >> 11606071

Strategies for the implementation of cervical and breast cancer screening of women by primary care physicians.

R Kupets1, A Covens.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: While effective screening tests for the prevention and early detection of cervical and breast cancers exist, poor screening rates are evident. The aim of this paper was to determine the most effective strategies for the implementation of breast and cervical cancer screening delivered to women.
METHODS: An in-depth search of the literature using Medline and the Cochrane Library was carried out between the years 1966 and 2000. Randomized controlled studies addressing the delivery of both breast and cervical screening were retained for the purposes of this review. Absolute difference (AD) in screening was defined as screening rates in the intervention arm--screening rates in the control arm. Number needed to intervene (NNI) is a new term developed for the purpose of this paper and refers to the number of physicians or physician-patient pairs that must be exposed to the intervention before one screening test is performed. NNI is defined as 1/AD.
RESULTS: Strategies for the implementation of screening tests are divided into three categories: physician-only based, physician and patient based, and patient-only based.
CONCLUSIONS: Physician-based strategies, especially manual and computer-generated reminders, appear to be the most effective approach in the implementation of breast and cervical cancer delivery to women. Absolute gains in screening rates were as high as 40% with an NNI of 2.5 physicians; therefore, approximately 3 physicians need to be exposed to a reminder notice before 1 physician actually orders the screening tests. Copyright 2001 Academic Press.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11606071     DOI: 10.1006/gyno.2001.6387

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Gynecol Oncol        ISSN: 0090-8258            Impact factor:   5.482


  7 in total

1.  The relationship of health numeracy to cancer screening.

Authors:  Marilyn M Schapira; Joan Neuner; Kathlyn E Fletcher; Mary Ann Gilligan; Elisabeth Hayes; Purushottam Laud
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2011-03       Impact factor: 2.037

2.  Access to chronic disease care in general practice: the acceptability of implementing systematic waiting-room screening using computer-based patient-reported risk status.

Authors:  Christine L Paul; Mariko Carey; Sze Lin Yoong; Catherine D'Este; Meredith Makeham; Frans Henskens
Journal:  Br J Gen Pract       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 5.386

Review 3.  Improving clinical practice using clinical decision support systems: a systematic review of trials to identify features critical to success.

Authors:  Kensaku Kawamoto; Caitlin A Houlihan; E Andrew Balas; David F Lobach
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2005-03-14

4.  Cancer screening in Native Americans from the Northern Plains.

Authors:  Nancy Pandhi; B Ashleigh Guadagnolo; Shalini Kanekar; Daniel G Petereit; Maureen A Smith
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 5.043

Review 5.  The role of primary care in early detection and follow-up of cancer.

Authors:  Jon D Emery; Katie Shaw; Briony Williams; Danielle Mazza; Julia Fallon-Ferguson; Megan Varlow; Lyndal J Trevena
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2013-11-19       Impact factor: 66.675

6.  Cancer screening and Haitian immigrants: the primary care provider factor.

Authors:  Francesca Gany; Chau Trinh-Shevrin; Abraham Aragones
Journal:  J Immigr Minor Health       Date:  2008-06

Review 7.  Achieving change in primary care--effectiveness of strategies for improving implementation of complex interventions: systematic review of reviews.

Authors:  Rosa Lau; Fiona Stevenson; Bie Nio Ong; Krysia Dziedzic; Shaun Treweek; Sandra Eldridge; Hazel Everitt; Anne Kennedy; Nadeem Qureshi; Anne Rogers; Richard Peacock; Elizabeth Murray
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2015-12-23       Impact factor: 2.692

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.