Factors in quality care--the case of follow-up to abnormal cancer screening tests--problems in the steps and interfaces of care
- PMID: 20386054
- PMCID: PMC3731434
- DOI: 10.1093/jncimonographs/lgq009
Factors in quality care--the case of follow-up to abnormal cancer screening tests--problems in the steps and interfaces of care
Abstract
To achieve the benefit of cancer screening, appropriate follow-up of abnormal screening test results must occur. Such follow-up requires traversing the transition between screening detection and diagnosis, including several steps and interfaces in care. This article reviews factors and interventions associated with follow-up of abnormal tests for cervical, breast and colorectal cancers. We synthesized 12 reviews of descriptive and intervention studies published between 1980 and 2008. There was wide variability in definition of follow-up, setting, study population, and reported prevalence rates. Correlates of follow-up included patient characteristics (eg, knowledge and age), social support, provider characteristics, practice (eg, having reminders systems), community and professional norms (eg, quality measures), and policy (eg, federal programs). Effective interventions included patient education and support; delivery systems design changes, such as navigation; and information system changes, most notably patient tracking and physician reminders. Few studies focused explicitly on interfaces and steps of care, such as communication between primary care and specialists, or simultaneously targeted the multilevel factors that affect care. Future practice and research priorities should include development of clear operational definitions of the steps and interfaces related to patients, providers, and organizations; reflect evolving guidelines and new technologies; determine priorities for intervention testing; and improve measures and apply appropriate study designs.
Figures
Similar articles
-
Organizational factors and the cancer screening process.J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2010;2010(40):38-57. doi: 10.1093/jncimonographs/lgq008. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2010. PMID: 20386053 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Attitudes of Colorado health professionals toward breast and cervical cancer screening in Hispanic women.J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1995;(18):95-100. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 1995. PMID: 8562228
-
Intraclass correlation estimates for cancer screening outcomes: estimates and applications in the design of group-randomized cancer screening studies.J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2010;2010(40):97-103. doi: 10.1093/jncimonographs/lgq011. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr. 2010. PMID: 20386058 Free PMC article.
-
Variation in Screening Abnormality Rates and Follow-Up of Breast, Cervical and Colorectal Cancer Screening within the PROSPR Consortium.J Gen Intern Med. 2016 Apr;31(4):372-9. doi: 10.1007/s11606-015-3552-7. J Gen Intern Med. 2016. PMID: 26658934 Free PMC article.
-
Effectiveness of interventions to increase screening for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers: nine updated systematic reviews for the guide to community preventive services.Am J Prev Med. 2012 Jul;43(1):97-118. doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2012.04.009. Am J Prev Med. 2012. PMID: 22704754 Review.
Cited by
-
Clinical decision support with automated text processing for cervical cancer screening.J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2012 Sep-Oct;19(5):833-9. doi: 10.1136/amiajnl-2012-000820. Epub 2012 Apr 29. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2012. PMID: 22542812 Free PMC article.
-
Resilient actions in the diagnostic process and system performance.BMJ Qual Saf. 2013 Dec;22(12):1006-13. doi: 10.1136/bmjqs-2012-001661. Epub 2013 Jun 27. BMJ Qual Saf. 2013. PMID: 23813210 Free PMC article.
-
Patient navigation and time to diagnostic resolution: results for a cluster randomized trial evaluating the efficacy of patient navigation among patients with breast cancer screening abnormalities, Tampa, FL.PLoS One. 2013 Sep 16;8(9):e74542. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0074542. eCollection 2013. PLoS One. 2013. PMID: 24066145 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
Follow-up to abnormal cancer screening tests: considering the multilevel context of care.Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2014 Oct;23(10):1965-73. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-14-0454. Epub 2014 Jul 29. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2014. PMID: 25073625 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Teams and teamwork during a cancer diagnosis: interdependency within and between teams.J Oncol Pract. 2015 May;11(3):231-8. doi: 10.1200/JOP.2014.003376. Epub 2015 Apr 14. J Oncol Pract. 2015. PMID: 25873059 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Smith RA, Cokkinides V, Brawley OW. Cancer screening in the United States, 2008: a review of current American cancer society guidelines and cancer screening issues. CA Cancer J Clin. 2008;58(3):161–179. - PubMed
-
- Guide to Clinical Preventive Services, 2008. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; AHRQ Publication 08-05122. http://www.ahrq.gov/clinic/pocketgd.htm. Accessed May 16, 2009.
-
- Nicholson FB, Barro JL, Atkin W, et al. Review article: population screening for colorectal cancer. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2005;22(11–12):1069–1077. - PubMed
-
- O'Meara AT. Present standards for cervical cancer screening. Curr Opin Oncol. 2002;14(5):505–511. - PubMed
-
- Baron RC, Rimer BK, Breslow RA, et al. Client-directed interventions to increase community demand for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening a systematic review. Am J Prev Med. 2008;35(1) suppl:S34–S55. - PubMed