Literature DB >> 25073625

Follow-up to abnormal cancer screening tests: considering the multilevel context of care.

Jane M Zapka1, Heather M Edwards2, Veronica Chollette3, Stephen H Taplin3.   

Abstract

The call for multilevel interventions to improve the quality of follow-up to abnormal cancer screening has been out for a decade, but published work emphasizes individual approaches, and conceptualizations differ regarding the definition of levels. To investigate the scope and methods being undertaken in this focused area of follow-up to abnormal tests (breast, colon, cervical), we reviewed recent literature and grants (2007-2012) funded by the National Cancer Institute. A structured search yielded 16 grants with varying definitions of "follow-up" (e.g., completion of recommended tests, time to diagnosis); most included minority racial/ethnic group participants. Ten grants concentrated on measurement/intervention development and 13 piloted or tested interventions (categories not mutually exclusive). All studies considered patient-level factors and effects. Although some directed interventions at provider levels, few measured group characteristics and effects of interventions on the providers or levels other than the patient. Multilevel interventions are being proposed, but clarity about endpoints, definition of levels, and measures is needed. The differences in the conceptualization of levels and factors that affect practice need empirical exploration, and we need to measure their salient characteristics to advance our understanding of how context affects cancer care delivery in a changing practice and policy environment. ©2014 American Association for Cancer Research.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25073625      PMCID: PMC4191903          DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-14-0454

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev        ISSN: 1055-9965            Impact factor:   4.254


  71 in total

Review 1.  Towards better communication in cancer care: a framework for developing evidence-based interventions.

Authors:  Penelope E Schofield; Phyllis N Butow
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2004-10

2.  Variation in colorectal cancer screening steps in primary care: basis for practice improvement.

Authors:  Mona Sarfaty; Ronald E Myers; Daniel M Harris; Amanda E Borsky; Randa Sifri; James Cocroft; Brian Stello; Melanie Johnson
Journal:  Am J Med Qual       Date:  2012-01-20       Impact factor: 1.852

Review 3.  Toward improving the quality of cancer care: addressing the interfaces of primary and oncology-related subspecialty care.

Authors:  Stephen Hunt Taplin; Anne Brown Rodgers
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr       Date:  2010

Review 4.  Interfaces across the cancer continuum offer opportunities to improve the process of care.

Authors:  Stephen H Taplin; Steve Clauser; Anne B Rodgers; Erica Breslau; Daniel Rayson
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr       Date:  2010

5.  The future of health information technology in the patient-centered medical home.

Authors:  David W Bates; Asaf Bitton
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 6.301

6.  Sociodemographic factors associated with cervical cancer screening and follow-up of abnormal results.

Authors:  Laurie Elit; Monika Krzyzanowska; Refik Saskin; Lisa Barbera; Asma Razzaq; Aisha Lofters; Naira Yeritsyan; Arlene Bierman
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2012-01       Impact factor: 3.275

Review 7.  Is the promise of cancer-screening programs being compromised? Quality of follow-up care after abnormal screening results.

Authors:  K Robin Yabroff; Kathleen Shakira Washington; Amy Leader; Elizabeth Neilson; Jeanne Mandelblatt
Journal:  Med Care Res Rev       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 3.929

8.  Follow-up and timeliness after an abnormal cancer screening among underserved, urban women in a patient navigation program.

Authors:  Talar W Markossian; Julie S Darnell; Elizabeth A Calhoun
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2012-10       Impact factor: 4.254

9.  Timeliness of abnormal screening and diagnostic mammography follow-up at facilities serving vulnerable women.

Authors:  L Elizabeth Goldman; Rod Walker; Rebecca Hubbard; Karla Kerlikowske
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 2.983

Review 10.  Client-directed interventions to increase community demand for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening a systematic review.

Authors:  Roy C Baron; Barbara K Rimer; Rosalind A Breslow; Ralph J Coates; Jon Kerner; Stephanie Melillo; Nancy Habarta; Geetika P Kalra; Sajal Chattopadhyay; Katherine M Wilson; Nancy C Lee; Patricia Dolan Mullen; Steven S Coughlin; Peter A Briss
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2008-07       Impact factor: 5.043

View more
  15 in total

1.  Inadequate Utilization of Diagnostic Colonoscopy Following Abnormal FIT Results in an Integrated Safety-Net System.

Authors:  Rachel B Issaka; Maneesh H Singh; Sachiko M Oshima; Victoria J Laleau; Carly D Rachocki; Ellen H Chen; Lukejohn W Day; Urmimala Sarkar; Ma Somsouk
Journal:  Am J Gastroenterol       Date:  2016-12-13       Impact factor: 10.864

2.  Variation in Screening Abnormality Rates and Follow-Up of Breast, Cervical and Colorectal Cancer Screening within the PROSPR Consortium.

Authors:  Anna N A Tosteson; Elisabeth F Beaber; Jasmin Tiro; Jane Kim; Anne Marie McCarthy; Virginia P Quinn; V Paul Doria-Rose; Cosette M Wheeler; William E Barlow; Mackenzie Bronson; Michael Garcia; Douglas A Corley; Jennifer S Haas; Ethan A Halm; Aruna Kamineni; Carolyn M Rutter; Tor D Tosteson; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Donald L Weaver
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2016-04       Impact factor: 5.128

3.  Complicating "the good result": narratives of colorectal cancer screening when cancer is not found.

Authors:  Jean M Hunleth; Robert Gallo; Emily K Steinmetz; Aimee S James
Journal:  J Psychosoc Oncol       Date:  2019-02-04

4.  The importance of symbolic and engaged participation in evidence-based quality improvement in a complex integrated healthcare system: response to "The science of stakeholder engagement in research".

Authors:  Alison B Hamilton; Elizabeth M Yano
Journal:  Transl Behav Med       Date:  2017-09       Impact factor: 3.046

5.  Reasons for Lack of Diagnostic Colonoscopy After Positive Result on Fecal Immunochemical Test in a Safety-Net Health System.

Authors:  Jason Martin; Ethan A Halm; Jasmin A Tiro; Zahra Merchant; Bijal A Balasubramanian; Katharine McCallister; Joanne M Sanders; Chul Ahn; Wendy Pechero Bishop; Amit G Singal
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  2016-08-31       Impact factor: 4.965

6.  Medical advocacy among African-American women diagnosed with breast cancer: from recipient to resource.

Authors:  Yamile Molina; Ashley Scherman; Tara Hayes Constant; Bridgette Hempstead; Jacci Thompson-Dodd; Shayla Richardson; Shauna Rae Weatherby; Kerryn W Reding; Rachel M Ceballos
Journal:  Support Care Cancer       Date:  2016-02-19       Impact factor: 3.603

7.  Insurance-Based Differences in Time to Diagnostic Follow-up after Positive Screening Mammography.

Authors:  Danielle D Durham; Whitney R Robinson; Sheila S Lee; Stephanie B Wheeler; Katherine E Reeder-Hayes; J Michael Bowling; Andrew F Olshan; Louise M Henderson
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2016-11       Impact factor: 4.254

8.  Organizational predictors of colonoscopy follow-up for positive fecal occult blood test results: an observational study.

Authors:  Melissa R Partin; Diana J Burgess; James F Burgess; Amy Gravely; David Haggstrom; Sarah E Lillie; Sean Nugent; Adam A Powell; Aasma Shaukat; Louise C Walter; David B Nelson
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2014-12-03       Impact factor: 4.254

9.  Inadequate Systems to Support Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening in Primary Care Practice.

Authors:  Marilyn M Schapira; Brian L Sprague; Carrie N Klabunde; Anna N A Tosteson; Asaf Bitton; Jane S Chen; Elisabeth F Beaber; Tracy Onega; Charles D MacLean; Kimberly Harris; Kathleen Howe; Loretta Pearson; Sarah Feldman; Phyllis Brawarsky; Jennifer S Haas
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2016-06-01       Impact factor: 5.128

10.  Time to Colonoscopy after Positive Fecal Blood Test in Four U.S. Health Care Systems.

Authors:  Jessica Chubak; Michael P Garcia; Andrea N Burnett-Hartman; Yingye Zheng; Douglas A Corley; Ethan A Halm; Amit G Singal; Carrie N Klabunde; Chyke A Doubeni; Aruna Kamineni; Theodore R Levin; Joanne E Schottinger; Beverly B Green; Virginia P Quinn; Carolyn M Rutter
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2016-02       Impact factor: 4.254

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.