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
. 2020 Nov 25;20(1):1778.
doi: 10.1186/s12889-020-09842-8.

Development and first application of an audit system for screening programs based on the PRECEDE-PROCEED model: an experience with breast cancer screening in the region of Lombardy (Italy)

Danilo Cereda  1 , Antonio Federici  2 , Angela Guarino  3 , Grazia Serantoni  4 ; Gruppo PRECEDE-PROCEED; Liliana Coppola  5 , Patrizia Lemma  6 , Paolo Giorgi Rossi  7
Collaborators, Affiliations

Development and first application of an audit system for screening programs based on the PRECEDE-PROCEED model: an experience with breast cancer screening in the region of Lombardy (Italy)

Danilo Cereda et al. BMC Public Health. .

Abstract

Background: High participation and performance are necessary conditions for the effectiveness of breast cancer screening programs. Here we describe the process to define and test a planning software application and an audit cycle based on the PRECEDE-PROCEED model applied to improving breast cancer screening. We developed a planning software application following the phases of the PRECEDE-PROCEED model. The application was co-designed by local cancer screening program coordinators. An audit model was also developed. The revised application and the audit model were tested by all the coordinators of 15 breast cancer screening programs in the region of Lombardy in a 3-day workshop. The project plans produced using the application were compared with those produced in the previous year for clarity and completeness.

Results: The 9 phases of the PRECEDE-PROCEED model were adapted to screening as follows: 1) identification of program goals (i.e., participation, sensitivity, false positive); 2) epidemiological issues; 3) best practices analysis; 4) evidence-based actions to be implemented in the screening center and the relationships with partners and stakeholders; 5) priority setting and identification of solutions for each issue; 6) definition of indicators; 7) monitoring; 8) evaluation; 9) impact assessment. The application automatically generated reports for each phase. During the audit cycle, the regional health authority negotiated the targets to be reached with local authorities and collected the improvement plans generated by the application. The plans produced after the application was adopted were more standardized and had clearer indicators for monitoring and evaluation compared to those produced in the previous year.

Conclusions: The software application helps standardize criteria for planning interventions to improve screening programs and facilitates the implementation of the audit cycle.

Keywords: Breast cancer; Health intervention planning; Mass screening; PRECEDE-PROCEED model, audit.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no competing interests. None of the authors have any competing interests.

References

    1. Ministero della Salute Direzione Generale della Prevenzione . Raccomandazioni per la pianificazione e l’esecuzione degli screening di popolazione per la prevenzione del cancro della mammella, del cancro della cervice uterina e del cancro del colon retto. 2006.
    1. Osservatorio NAzionale Screening. Rapporto dell’Osservatorio nazionale screening 2016 [Internet]. 2017 [cited 2019 Apr 3]. Available from: http://www.osservatorionazionalescreening.it/content/lo-screening-mammog....
    1. Smith-Bindman R, Chu PW, Miglioretti DL, Sickles EA, Blanks R, Ballard-Barbash R, Bobo JK, Lee NC, Wallis MG, Patnick J, Kerlikowske K. Comparison of screening mammography in the United States and the United Kingdom. JAMA. 2003;290(16):2129–2137. doi: 10.1001/jama.290.16.2129. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Palència L, Espelt A, Rodríguez-Sanz M, Puigpinós R, Pons-Vigués M, Pasarín MI, et al. Socio-economic inequalities in breast and cervical cancer screening practices in Europe: influence of the type of screening program. Int J Epidemiol. 2010;39(3):757–765. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyq003. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Giorgi Rossi P, Chini F, Barca A, Baiocchi D, Federici A, Farchi S, Borgia P. Efficacy of disease management profiles: the mammographic screening program of Lazio. Tumori. 2008;94:297–303. doi: 10.1177/030089160809400302. - DOI - PubMed