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
Review
. 2014 Oct;23(10):1965-73.
doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-14-0454. Epub 2014 Jul 29.

Follow-up to abnormal cancer screening tests: considering the multilevel context of care

Affiliations
Review

Follow-up to abnormal cancer screening tests: considering the multilevel context of care

Jane M Zapka et al. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2014 Oct.

Abstract

The call for multilevel interventions to improve the quality of follow-up to abnormal cancer screening has been out for a decade, but published work emphasizes individual approaches, and conceptualizations differ regarding the definition of levels. To investigate the scope and methods being undertaken in this focused area of follow-up to abnormal tests (breast, colon, cervical), we reviewed recent literature and grants (2007-2012) funded by the National Cancer Institute. A structured search yielded 16 grants with varying definitions of "follow-up" (e.g., completion of recommended tests, time to diagnosis); most included minority racial/ethnic group participants. Ten grants concentrated on measurement/intervention development and 13 piloted or tested interventions (categories not mutually exclusive). All studies considered patient-level factors and effects. Although some directed interventions at provider levels, few measured group characteristics and effects of interventions on the providers or levels other than the patient. Multilevel interventions are being proposed, but clarity about endpoints, definition of levels, and measures is needed. The differences in the conceptualization of levels and factors that affect practice need empirical exploration, and we need to measure their salient characteristics to advance our understanding of how context affects cancer care delivery in a changing practice and policy environment.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Smith R, Cokkinides V, Brawley O. Cancer screening in the United States, 2008: a review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and cancer screening issues. CA Cancer J Clin. 2008;58:161–79. - PubMed
    1. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force . Guide to Clinical Preventive Services, 2008: Recommendations of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; Rockville, MD: Sep, 2008. AHRQ Publication No. 08- 05122.
    1. Nicholson FB, Barro JL, Atkin W, Lilford R, Patnick J, Williams CB, et al. Review article: population screening for colorectal cancer. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2005;22:1069–77. - PubMed
    1. O'Meara AT. Present standards for cervical cancer screening. Curr Opin Oncol. 2002;14:505–11. - PubMed
    1. Jemal A, Simard EP, Dorell C, Noone AM, Markowitz LE, Kohler B, et al. Annual Report to the Nation on the Status of Cancer, 1975-2009, Featuring the Burden and Trends in Human Papillomavirus (HPV)-Associated Cancers and HPV Vaccination Coverage Levels. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2013;105:175–201. - PMC - PubMed

Publication types