Literature DB >> 32467346

Methodologic Considerations in Calculating and Analyzing Proportion of Time Covered as a Measure of Longitudinal Cancer Screening Adherence.

Jessica Chubak1,2, Melissa L Anderson3, Andrea J Cook3,4, Caitlin C Murphy5, Michael L Jackson3, Beverly B Green3,6.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Proportion of time covered (PTC, or "covered time") is a longitudinal measure of adherence to preventive health services, the use of which has increased in recent years. This measure is helpful for evaluating the success of delivering screening interventions over time. However, there are challenges and nuances in computing and interpreting PTC.
METHODS: In this manuscript, we describe some desired properties of PTC measures, challenges in achieving those, and potential solutions using hypothetical examples.
RESULTS: We propose a modified PTC measure (mPTC) to complement the standard, existing PTC measure. The mPTC measure focuses on screening completion rather than initiation when a screening modality requires more than one step; is affected less by loss to follow-up, death, or cancer during covered time than the standard PTC measure; and is not sensitive to screening episode results. We propose weighting strategies to ensure that the average PTC and mPTC are more heavily influenced by individuals who were observed for longer and are thus more informative. We further describe how PTC and mPTC measures can incorporate test indication to focus specifically on screening.
CONCLUSIONS: We recommend that studies of covered time present ample descriptive information, calculate both PTC and mPTC, describe how symptoms and indication are handled, and present multiple complementary measures, such as the proportion never screened and the proportion in need of screening. IMPACT: Common approaches, terminology, and reporting practices for covered time measures have the potential to improve the study of longitudinal cancer screening adherence. ©2020 American Association for Cancer Research.

Entities:  

Year:  2020        PMID: 32467346      PMCID: PMC7415680          DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-20-0388

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


  10 in total

1.  Electronic medical records and prevention quality: the prevention index.

Authors:  Thomas M Vogt; Adrianne C Feldstein; Mikel Aickin; Weiming R Hu; Aileen R Uchida
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 5.043

Review 2.  Methods for evaluation of medication adherence and persistence using automated databases.

Authors:  Susan E Andrade; Kristijan H Kahler; Feride Frech; K Arnold Chan
Journal:  Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 2.890

3.  Analysis of case-control studies of the efficacy of screening for cancer: How should we deal with tests done in persons with symptoms?

Authors:  N S Weiss
Journal:  Am J Epidemiol       Date:  1998-06-15       Impact factor: 4.897

4.  A centralized mailed program with stepped increases of support increases time in compliance with colorectal cancer screening guidelines over 5 years: A randomized trial.

Authors:  Beverly B Green; Melissa L Anderson; Andrea J Cook; Jessica Chubak; Sharon Fuller; Richard T Meenan; Sally W Vernon
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2017-07-28       Impact factor: 6.860

5.  Hepatocellular Carcinoma Surveillance Among Cirrhotic Patients With Commercial Health Insurance.

Authors:  David S Goldberg; Adriana Valderrama; Rajesh Kamalakar; Sujit S Sansgiry; Svetlana Babajanyan; James D Lewis
Journal:  J Clin Gastroenterol       Date:  2016-03       Impact factor: 3.062

6.  Screening for Colorectal Cancer: US Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement.

Authors:  Kirsten Bibbins-Domingo; David C Grossman; Susan J Curry; Karina W Davidson; John W Epling; Francisco A R García; Matthew W Gillman; Diane M Harper; Alex R Kemper; Alex H Krist; Ann E Kurth; C Seth Landefeld; Carol M Mangione; Douglas K Owens; William R Phillips; Maureen G Phipps; Michael P Pignone; Albert L Siu
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2016-06-21       Impact factor: 56.272

7.  The Prevention Index: using technology to improve quality assessment.

Authors:  Thomas M Vogt; Mikel Aickin; Faruque Ahmed; Mark Schmidt
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 3.402

8.  Defining and measuring adherence to cancer screening.

Authors:  Jessica Chubak; Rebecca Hubbard
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  2016-03-04       Impact factor: 2.136

9.  Adherence to colorectal cancer screening measured as the proportion of time covered.

Authors:  Caitlin C Murphy; Bianca M Sigel; Edward Yang; Celette Sugg Skinner; Ethan A Halm; Samir Gupta; Joanne M Sanders; Katharine McCallister; Amit G Singal
Journal:  Gastrointest Endosc       Date:  2018-02-23       Impact factor: 9.427

10.  Consequences of Increasing Time to Colonoscopy Examination After Positive Result From Fecal Colorectal Cancer Screening Test.

Authors:  Reinier G S Meester; Ann G Zauber; Chyke A Doubeni; Christopher D Jensen; Virginia P Quinn; Mark Helfand; Jason A Dominitz; Theodore R Levin; Douglas A Corley; Iris Lansdorp-Vogelaar
Journal:  Clin Gastroenterol Hepatol       Date:  2016-05-19       Impact factor: 11.382

  10 in total
  2 in total

1.  A stepped randomized trial to promote colorectal cancer screening in a nationwide sample of U.S. Veterans.

Authors:  Sally W Vernon; Deborah J Del Junco; Sharon P Coan; Caitlin C Murphy; Scott T Walters; Robert H Friedman; Lori A Bastian; Deborah A Fisher; David R Lairson; Ronald E Myers
Journal:  Contemp Clin Trials       Date:  2021-04-03       Impact factor: 2.261

2.  A Centralized Program with Stepped Support Increases Adherence to Colorectal Cancer Screening Over 9 Years: a Randomized Trial.

Authors:  Beverly B Green; Melissa L Anderson; Andrea J Cook; Jessica Chubak; Sharon Fuller; Richard T Meenan; Sally W Vernon
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2021-05-28       Impact factor: 6.473

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.