Literature DB >> 15316915

A perspective from countries using organized screening programs.

Anne Miles1, Jill Cockburn, Robert A Smith, Jane Wardle.   

Abstract

Cancer screening may be offered to a population opportunistically, as part of an organized program, or as some combination of the preceding two options. Organized screening is distinguished from opportunistic screening primarily on the basis of how invitations to screening are extended. In organized screening, invitations are issued from centralized population registers. In opportunistic screening, however, due to the lack of central registers, invitations to screening depend on the individual's decision or on encounters with health care providers. The current article outlines key differences between organized and opportunistic screening. In the current study, literature searches were performed using PubMed and MEDLINE. Additional data were assembled from interviews with health officials in the five countries investigated and from the authors' personal files. Opportunistic screening was found to be distinguishable from organized screening on the basis of whether screening invitations were issued from centralized population registers. Organized screening programs also assumed centralized responsibility for other key elements of screening, such as eligibility requirements, quality assurance, follow-up, and evaluation. Organized programs focused on reducing mortality and morbidity at the level of the population rather than at the level of the individual. Thus, programs did not necessarily offer the most sensitive screening test for a particular cancer, and tests sometimes were offered at suboptimal intervals with respect to individual-level protection. Nonetheless, organized systems paid greater attention to the quality of screening, as measured by factors such as cancer detection rates, tumor characteristics, and false-positive biopsy rates. As a result, participants in organized screening programs received greater protection from the harmful effects associated with screening. In addition, organized programs worked more systematically toward providing value for money in an inevitably resource-limited environment. Although organized and opportunistic models of screening can yield similar uptake rates, organized programs exhibited greater potential ability to reduce cancer incidence and mortality, because of the higher levels of population coverage and centralized commitment to quality and monitoring; were more likely to be cost-effective; and offered greater protection against the harmful effects associated with poor quality or overly frequent screening.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15316915     DOI: 10.1002/cncr.20505

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


  55 in total

1.  Analysis of ABC (D) stratification for screening patients with gastric cancer.

Authors:  Tomohiro Kudo; Satoru Kakizaki; Naondo Sohara; Yasuhiro Onozato; Shinichi Okamura; Yoshikatsu Inui; Masatomo Mori
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2011-11-21       Impact factor: 5.742

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.  Increasing screening mammography among immigrant and minority women in Canada: a review of past interventions.

Authors:  Nour Schoueri-Mychasiw; Sharon Campbell; Verna Mai
Journal:  J Immigr Minor Health       Date:  2013-02

4.  Validation of the pepsinogen test method for gastric cancer screening using a follow-up study.

Authors:  Shigeto Mizuno; Masao Kobayashi; Shohken Tomita; Ikuya Miki; Atsuhiro Masuda; Mitsuko Onoyama; Yasuki Habu; Hideto Inokuchi; Yoshiyuki Watanabe
Journal:  Gastric Cancer       Date:  2009-11-05       Impact factor: 7.370

5.  Effectiveness of gastric cancer screening programs in South Korea: organized vs opportunistic models.

Authors:  Beom Jin Kim; Chae Heo; Byoung Kwon Kim; Jae Yeol Kim; Jae Gyu Kim
Journal:  World J Gastroenterol       Date:  2013-02-07       Impact factor: 5.742

6.  Multilevel factors affecting quality: examples from the cancer care continuum.

Authors:  Jane Zapka; Stephen H Taplin; Patricia Ganz; Eva Grunfeld; Katherine Sterba
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr       Date:  2012-05

7.  Race/Ethnicity and Adoption of a Population Health Management Approach to Colorectal Cancer Screening in a Community-Based Healthcare System.

Authors:  Shivan J Mehta; Christopher D Jensen; Virginia P Quinn; Joanne E Schottinger; Ann G Zauber; Reinier Meester; Adeyinka O Laiyemo; Stacey Fedewa; Michael Goodman; Robert H Fletcher; Theodore R Levin; Douglas A Corley; Chyke A Doubeni
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2016-07-13       Impact factor: 5.128

8.  The impact of PSA testing frequency on prostate cancer incidence and treatment in older men.

Authors:  Y-H Shao; P C Albertsen; W Shih; C B Roberts; G L Lu-Yao
Journal:  Prostate Cancer Prostatic Dis       Date:  2011-06-28       Impact factor: 5.554

9.  Age differences in mammography screening reconsidered: life course trajectories in 13 European countries.

Authors:  Sarah Missinne; Piet Bracke
Journal:  Eur J Public Health       Date:  2014-07-04       Impact factor: 3.367

10.  Implementing the CDC's Colorectal Cancer Screening Demonstration Program: wisdom from the field.

Authors:  Elizabeth A Rohan; Jennifer E Boehm; Amy DeGroff; Rebecca Glover-Kudon; Judith Preissle
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2013-08-01       Impact factor: 6.860

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.