Literature DB >> 25312997

Clinic type and patient characteristics affecting time to resolution after an abnormal cancer-screening exam.

Jessica L Krok-Schoen1, Michelle L Kurta2, Rory C Weier3, Greg S Young4, Autumn B Carey5, Cathy M Tatum1, Electra D Paskett6.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Research shows that multilevel factors influence healthcare delivery and patient outcomes. The study goal was to examine how clinic type [academic medical center (AMC) or federally qualified health center (FQHC)] and patient characteristics influence time to resolution (TTR) among individuals with an abnormal cancer-screening test enrolled in a patient navigation (PN) intervention.
METHODS: Data were obtained from the Ohio Patient Navigation Research Project, a group-randomized trial of 862 patients from 18 clinics in Columbus, Ohio. TTR of patient after an abnormal breast, cervical, or colorectal screening test and the clinics' patient and provider characteristics were obtained. Descriptive statistics and Cox shared frailty proportional hazards regression models of TTR were used.
RESULTS: The mean patient age was 44.8 years and 71% of patients were white. In models adjusted for study arm, FQHC patients had a 39% lower rate of resolution than AMC patients (P = 0.004). Patient factors of having a college education, private insurance, higher income, and being older were significantly associated with lower TTR. After adjustment for factors that substantially affected the effect of clinic type (patient insurance status, education level, and age), clinic type was not significantly associated with TTR.
CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that TTR among individuals participating in PN programs are influenced by multiple socioeconomic patient-level factors rather than clinic type. Consequently, PN interventions should be tailored to address socioeconomic status factors that influence TTR. IMPACT: These results provide clues regarding where to target PN interventions and the importance of recognizing predictors of TTR according to clinic type. ©2014 American Association for Cancer Research.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 25312997      PMCID: PMC4294950          DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-14-0692

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


  32 in total

Review 1.  Does the chronic care model serve also as a template for improving prevention?

Authors:  R E Glasgow; C T Orleans; E H Wagner
Journal:  Milbank Q       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 4.911

2.  The supply of mammography resources in West Virginia.

Authors:  D R Artz; M L Brown; M J Barrett
Journal:  W V Med J       Date:  1992-04

3.  Timeliness of follow-up after abnormal screening mammography.

Authors:  K Kerlikowske
Journal:  Breast Cancer Res Treat       Date:  1996       Impact factor: 4.872

4.  Inconsistencies between medical records and patient-reported recommendations for follow-up after abnormal Pap tests.

Authors:  Stacey Slone; Carol White; Brent Shelton; Emily Van Meter; Christopher DeSimone; Nancy Schoenberg; Mark Dignan
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2012-11-12       Impact factor: 2.681

5.  Disparities in adherence to recommended followup on screening mammography: interaction of sociodemographic factors.

Authors:  Jadwiga Jodi Strzelczyk; Mark B Dignan
Journal:  Ethn Dis       Date:  2002       Impact factor: 1.847

Review 6.  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

7.  Expanding access to cancer screening and clinical follow-up among the medically underserved.

Authors:  H P Freeman; B J Muth; J F Kerner
Journal:  Cancer Pract       Date:  1995 Jan-Feb

8.  The relation between health insurance coverage and clinical outcomes among women with breast cancer.

Authors:  J Z Ayanian; B A Kohler; T Abe; A M Epstein
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1993-07-29       Impact factor: 91.245

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

10.  What factors are associated with diagnostic follow-up after abnormal mammograms? Findings from a U.S. National Survey.

Authors:  K Robin Yabroff; Nancy Breen; Sally W Vernon; Helen I Meissner; Andrew N Freedman; Rachel Ballard-Barbash
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2004-05       Impact factor: 4.254

View more
  3 in total

1.  Delays in Follow-up Care for Abnormal Mammograms in Mobile Mammography Versus Fixed-Clinic Patients.

Authors:  Suzanne S Vang; Alexandra Dunn; Laurie R Margolies; Lina Jandorf
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2022-02-25       Impact factor: 6.473

2.  Effects of program scale-up on time to resolution for patients with abnormal screening mammography results.

Authors:  Simon Craddock Lee; Robin T Higashi; Joanne M Sanders; Hong Zhu; Stephen J Inrig; Caroline Mejias; Keith E Argenbright; Jasmin A Tiro
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2018-08-23       Impact factor: 2.506

3.  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

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.