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.
-
[Methods to increase participation in cancer screening programmes].Epidemiol Prev. 2012 Jan;36(1 Suppl 1):1-104. Epidemiol Prev. 2012. PMID: 22418841 Review. Italian.
-
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.
Cited by
-
Inequities in the Impacts of Hurricanes and Other Extreme Weather Events for Cancer Survivors.Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2024 Jun 3;33(6):771-778. doi: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-23-1029. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2024. PMID: 38385842 Review.
-
A Multilevel Primary Care Intervention to Improve Follow-Up of Overdue Abnormal Cancer Screening Test Results: A Cluster Randomized Clinical Trial.JAMA. 2023 Oct 10;330(14):1348-1358. doi: 10.1001/jama.2023.18755. JAMA. 2023. PMID: 37815566 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
-
Factors associated with receiving results and attending colposcopy in patients with positive HPV screens in Mexico City.Prev Med Rep. 2023 Jul 24;35:102347. doi: 10.1016/j.pmedr.2023.102347. eCollection 2023 Oct. Prev Med Rep. 2023. PMID: 37593354 Free PMC article.
-
Failure to follow up abnormal test results associated with cervical cancer in primary and ambulatory care: a systematic review.BMC Cancer. 2023 Jul 12;23(1):653. doi: 10.1186/s12885-023-11082-z. BMC Cancer. 2023. PMID: 37438686 Free PMC article.
-
Implementation of an mHealth intervention to increase adherence to triage among HPV positive women with HPV-self-collection (ATICA study): post-implementation evaluation from the women's perspective.BMC Womens Health. 2023 Jun 23;23(1):332. doi: 10.1186/s12905-023-02475-0. BMC Womens Health. 2023. PMID: 37353835 Free PMC article. Clinical Trial.
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
