A RetroSearch Logo

Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Search Query:

Showing content from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25073625/ below:

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

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

Affiliations

Item in Clipboard

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.

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

Item in Clipboard

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.

©2014 American Association for Cancer Research.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles Cited by 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

RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue

Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo

HTML: 3.2 | Encoding: UTF-8 | Version: 0.7.3