Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2008 Apr;5(2):A45.
Epub 2008 Mar 15.

Implementing case management in New York State's partnerships for publicly funded breast cancer screening

Affiliations

Implementing case management in New York State's partnerships for publicly funded breast cancer screening

Patricia P Lillquist. Prev Chronic Dis. 2008 Apr.

Abstract

Introduction: This research aimed to explore differences in the implementation of case management among local breast cancer screening partnerships in New York State after changes in federal public policy in 1998 and to achieve a better understanding of case management in a new and distinct practice setting. Capacity and willingness to implement change were theorized to explain local differences in implementation. Local breast cancer screening programs that received federal funding through the New York State Department of Health were invited to participate in the study.

Methods: A mail survey was administered to the directors of New York's 53 local breast cancer screening partnerships in 2003. The survey included questions about willingness and capacity to implement case management and a scale to assess case management program philosophy. Factor analysis and correlations were used to compare willingness and capacity with differences in implementation.

Results: Two common factors--task focus and self-identity focus--were identified as factors that differentiated case management programs. Task-focus partnerships undertook a broader range of tasks but were less likely to report autonomy in making program changes. Self-identity partnerships were less likely to report difficulties with other agencies and scored highly on innovation, involvement in work, and interest in client service. Having a nurse as the case manager, being aware of the standards of case management, and providing health education were associated with both task focus and self-identity focus.

Conclusion: The study identified distinct styles of implementation. These styles have implications for the breadth of services provided, such as whether client-level services only are offered. Interagency coordination was facilitated in partnerships with comprehensive case management.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

"This flowchart has three main headings at the top: Independent Variables (left), Intervening Variables (center) and Dependent Variables (right). The three independent variables are shown top to bottom: Federal-Level Inducements and Constraints (top), State-Level Inducements and Constraints (middle), and Local-Level Inducements and Constraints. Double-headed arrows indicate the interrelationships of these three variables. The six intervening variables are shown top to bottom: Feedback (top), State Capacity and State Decisional Outcome (enclosed together in a box, with an arrow pointing from the box to the next variable), State Implementation, and Local Capacity and Local Decisional Outcome (enclosed together in a box). The box containing Local Capacity and Local Decisional Outcome is further enclosed in a circle, and an arrow points from the box to the sole dependent variable, Local Implementation, which is also enclosed in the circle. Single-headed arrows lead from Feedback to Federal-Level Inducements and Constraints and to State-Level Inducements and Constraints. Another two-headed arrow links Feedback, Local Implementation, and Local-Level Inducements and Constraints.
Figure 1
Conceptual model for study on case management among 53 partnerships providing breast cancer screening services in New York. The study focuses on the relationship between willingness (local decisional outcome) and capacity (local capacity) to implement case management and actual local implementation.

Similar articles

References

    1. Weiss M. Case management as a tool for clinical integration. Adv Pract Nurs Q. 1998;4(1):9–15. - PubMed
    1. Holloway F, Carson J. Case management: an update. Int J Soc Psychiatry. 2001;47(3):21–31. - PubMed
    1. Frankel AJ, Heft-LaPorte H. Tracking case management accountability: a systems approach. J Case Manag. 1998;7(3):105–111. - PubMed
    1. Standards of practice for case management. Little Rock (AR): Case Management Society of America; 2002.
    1. Case Management Standards Work Group. NASW Standards for Social Work Case Management. Washington (DC): National Association of Social Workers; [Accessed September 22, 2000]. http://www.socialworkers.org/practice/standards/ sw_case_mgmt.asp.

MeSH terms