Literature DB >> 25957378

Unifying screening processes within the PROSPR consortium: a conceptual model for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening.

Elisabeth F Beaber1, Jane J Kim2, Marilyn M Schapira2, Anna N A Tosteson2, Ann G Zauber2, Ann M Geiger2, Aruna Kamineni2, Donald L Weaver2, Jasmin A Tiro2.   

Abstract

General frameworks of the cancer screening process are available, but none directly compare the process in detail across different organ sites. This limits the ability of medical and public health professionals to develop and evaluate coordinated screening programs that apply resources and population management strategies available for one cancer site to other sites. We present a trans-organ conceptual model that incorporates a single screening episode for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers into a unified framework based on clinical guidelines and protocols; the model concepts could be expanded to other organ sites. The model covers four types of care in the screening process: risk assessment, detection, diagnosis, and treatment. Interfaces between different provider teams (eg, primary care and specialty care), including communication and transfer of responsibility, may occur when transitioning between types of care. Our model highlights across each organ site similarities and differences in steps, interfaces, and transitions in the screening process and documents the conclusion of a screening episode. This model was developed within the National Cancer Institute-funded consortium Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens (PROSPR). PROSPR aims to optimize the screening process for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer and includes seven research centers and a statistical coordinating center. Given current health care reform initiatives in the United States, this conceptual model can facilitate the development of comprehensive quality metrics for cancer screening and promote trans-organ comparative cancer screening research. PROSPR findings will support the design of interventions that improve screening outcomes across multiple cancer sites.
© The Author 2015. Published by Oxford University Press. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 25957378      PMCID: PMC4838064          DOI: 10.1093/jnci/djv120

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst        ISSN: 0027-8874            Impact factor:   13.506


  51 in total

1.  American Cancer Society guidelines for breast screening with MRI as an adjunct to mammography.

Authors:  Debbie Saslow; Carla Boetes; Wylie Burke; Steven Harms; Martin O Leach; Constance D Lehman; Elizabeth Morris; Etta Pisano; Mitchell Schnall; Stephen Sener; Robert A Smith; Ellen Warner; Martin Yaffe; Kimberly S Andrews; Christy A Russell
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2007 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 508.702

2.  A conceptual model of the effects of health care organizations on the quality of medical care.

Authors:  B E Landon; I B Wilson; P D Cleary
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1998-05-06       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 3.  Colorectal cancer screening: health impact and cost effectiveness.

Authors:  Michael V Maciosek; Leif I Solberg; Ashley B Coffield; Nichol M Edwards; Michael J Goodman
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 5.043

4.  The Common Data Elements for cancer research: remarks on functions and structure.

Authors:  P M Nadkarni; C A Brandt
Journal:  Methods Inf Med       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 2.176

5.  Reason for late-stage breast cancer: absence of screening or detection, or breakdown in follow-up?

Authors:  Stephen H Taplin; Laura Ichikawa; Marianne Ulcickas Yood; M Michele Manos; Ann M Geiger; Sheila Weinmann; Joyce Gilbert; Judy Mouchawar; Wendy A Leyden; Robin Altaras; Robert K Beverly; Deborah Casso; Emily Oakes Westbrook; Kimberly Bischoff; Jane G Zapka; William E Barlow
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2004-10-20       Impact factor: 13.506

6.  Cervical cancer in women with comprehensive health care access: attributable factors in the screening process.

Authors:  Wendy A Leyden; M Michele Manos; Ann M Geiger; Sheila Weinmann; Judy Mouchawar; Kimberly Bischoff; Marianne Ulcickas Yood; Joyce Gilbert; Stephen H Taplin
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2005-05-04       Impact factor: 13.506

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

Review 8.  A framework for improving the quality of cancer care: the case of breast and cervical cancer screening.

Authors:  Jane G Zapka; Stephen H Taplin; Leif I Solberg; M Michele Manos
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2003-01       Impact factor: 4.254

Review 9.  Screening for colorectal cancer in adults at average risk: a summary of the evidence for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Authors:  Michael Pignone; Melissa Rich; Steven M Teutsch; Alfred O Berg; Kathleen N Lohr
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2002-07-16       Impact factor: 25.391

10.  The development of common data elements for a multi-institute prostate cancer tissue bank: the Cooperative Prostate Cancer Tissue Resource (CPCTR) experience.

Authors:  Ashokkumar A Patel; André Kajdacsy-Balla; Jules J Berman; Maarten Bosland; Milton W Datta; Rajiv Dhir; John Gilbertson; Jonathan Melamed; Jan Orenstein; Kuei-Fang Tai; Michael J Becich
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2005-08-21       Impact factor: 4.430

View more
  50 in total

1.  Alignment of breast cancer screening guidelines, accountability metrics, and practice patterns.

Authors:  Tracy Onega; Jennifer S Haas; Asaf Bitton; Charles Brackett; Julie Weiss; Martha Goodrich; Kimberly Harris; Steve Pyle; Anna N A Tosteson
Journal:  Am J Manag Care       Date:  2017-01       Impact factor: 2.229

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.  Evaluating Lung Cancer Screening Across Diverse Healthcare Systems: A Process Model from the Lung PROSPR Consortium.

Authors:  Chyke A Doubeni; Debra P Ritzwoller; Katharine A Rendle; Andrea N Burnett-Hartman; Christine Neslund-Dudas; Robert T Greenlee; Stacey Honda; Jennifer Elston Lafata; Pamela M Marcus; Mary E Cooley; Anil Vachani; Rafael Meza; Caryn Oshiro; Michael J Simoff; Mitchell D Schnall; Elisabeth F Beaber; V Paul Doria-Rose
Journal:  Cancer Prev Res (Phila)       Date:  2019-12-23

4.  Association Between Primary Care Visits and Colorectal Cancer Screening Outcomes in the Era of Population Health Outreach.

Authors:  Ethan A Halm; Elisabeth F Beaber; Dale McLerran; Jessica Chubak; Douglas A Corley; Carolyn M Rutter; Chyke A Doubeni; Jennifer S Haas; Bijal A Balasubramanian
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2016-06-08       Impact factor: 5.128

5.  Multilevel Predictors of Continued Adherence to Breast Cancer Screening Among Women Ages 50-74 Years in a Screening Population.

Authors:  Elisabeth F Beaber; Brian L Sprague; Anna N A Tosteson; Jennifer S Haas; Tracy Onega; Marilyn M Schapira; Anne Marie McCarthy; Christopher I Li; Sally D Herschorn; Constance D Lehman; Karen J Wernli; William E Barlow
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2018-11-27       Impact factor: 2.681

6.  Multi-level Influences on Breast Cancer Screening in Primary Care.

Authors:  Tracy Onega; Tor D Tosteson; Julie Weiss; Jennifer S Haas; Martha Goodrich; Roberta DiFlorio; Charles Brackett; Cheryl Clark; Kimberly Harris; Anna N A Tosteson
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2018-08-03       Impact factor: 5.128

7.  A conceptual framework and metrics for evaluating multicomponent interventions to increase colorectal cancer screening within an organized screening program.

Authors:  Sujha Subramanian; Sonja Hoover; Florence K L Tangka; Amy DeGroff; Cynthia S Soloe; Laura C Arena; Dara F Schlueter; Djenaba A Joseph; Faye L Wong
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2018-10-25       Impact factor: 6.860

8.  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

9.  Adherence to Multiple Cancer Screening Tests among Women Living in Appalachia Ohio.

Authors:  Mira L Katz; Paul L Reiter; Gregory S Young; Michael L Pennell; Cathy M Tatum; Electra D Paskett
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2015-08-17       Impact factor: 4.254

10.  Rationale and design of the HOME trial: A pragmatic randomized controlled trial of home-based human papillomavirus (HPV) self-sampling for increasing cervical cancer screening uptake and effectiveness in a U.S. healthcare system.

Authors:  Rachel L Winer; Jasmin A Tiro; Diana L Miglioretti; Chris Thayer; Tara Beatty; John Lin; Hongyuan Gao; Kilian Kimbel; Diana S M Buist
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2017-11-04       Impact factor: 2.226

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.