Literature DB >> 15316907

Some methodologic lessons learned from cancer screening research.

Sally W Vernon1, Peter A Briss, Jasmin A Tiro, Richard B Warnecke.   

Abstract

Credible and useful methodologic evaluations are essential for increasing the uptake of effective cancer screening tests. In the current article, the authors discuss selected issues that are related to conducting behavior change interventions in cancer screening research and that may assist researchers in better designing future evaluations to increase the credibility and usefulness of such interventions. Selection and measurement of the primary outcome variable (i.e., cancer screening behavior) are discussed in detail. The report also addresses other aspects of study design and execution, including alternatives to the randomized controlled trial, indicators of study quality, and external validity. The authors conclude that the uptake of screening should be the main outcome when evaluating cancer screening strategies; that researchers should agree on definitions and measures of cancer screening behaviors and assess the reliability and validity of these definitions and measures in different populations and settings; and that the development of methods for increasing the external validity of randomized designs and reducing bias in nonrandomized studies is needed.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15316907     DOI: 10.1002/cncr.20513

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer        ISSN: 0008-543X            Impact factor:   6.860


  34 in total

1.  Patient Barriers to Mammography Identified During a Reminder Program.

Authors:  Adrianne C Feldstein; Nancy Perrin; A Gabriela Rosales; Jennifer Schneider; Mary M Rix; Russell E Glasgow
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2011-01-28       Impact factor: 2.681

Review 2.  Interventions to improve follow-up of abnormal findings in cancer screening.

Authors:  Roshan Bastani; K Robin Yabroff; Ronald E Myers; Beth Glenn
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2004-09-01       Impact factor: 6.860

Review 3.  Screening participation for people at increased risk of colorectal cancer due to family history: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Authors:  Driss Ait Ouakrim; Trevor Lockett; Alex Boussioutas; John L Hopper; Mark A Jenkins
Journal:  Fam Cancer       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 2.375

4.  Mediating factors in the relationship between income and mammography use in low-income insured women.

Authors:  Alice N Park; Diana S M Buist; Jasmin A Tiro; Stephen H Taplin
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 2.681

5.  Racial/ethnic and socioeconomic disparities in mortality among women diagnosed with cervical cancer in New York City, 1995-2006.

Authors:  Anne Marie McCarthy; Tamara Dumanovsky; Kala Visvanathan; Amy R Kahn; Maria J Schymura
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2010-06-03       Impact factor: 2.506

6.  Multilevel interventions: study design and analysis issues.

Authors:  Paul D Cleary; Cary P Gross; Alan M Zaslavsky; Stephen H Taplin
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr       Date:  2012-05

Review 7.  Utilization of hepatocellular carcinoma surveillance among American patients: a systematic review.

Authors:  Amit G Singal; Adam Yopp; Celette S Skinner; Milton Packer; William M Lee; Jasmin A Tiro
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2012-01-04       Impact factor: 5.128

8.  Self-report versus medical records for assessing cancer-preventive services delivery.

Authors:  Jeanne M Ferrante; Pamela Ohman-Strickland; Karissa A Hahn; Shawna V Hudson; Eric K Shaw; Jesse C Crosson; Benjamin F Crabtree
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2008-11       Impact factor: 4.254

9.  Constructing a theoretically based set of measures for liver cancer control research studies.

Authors:  Annette E Maxwell; Roshan Bastani; Moon S Chen; Tung T Nguyen; Susan L Stewart; Vicky M Taylor
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2009-10-31       Impact factor: 4.018

10.  Does patient health and hysterectomy status influence cervical cancer screening in older women?

Authors:  Helen I Meissner; Jasmin A Tiro; David Haggstrom; Grace Lu-Yao; Nancy Breen
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2008-09-11       Impact factor: 5.128

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.