Evidence map›Paper›PMID 20835777›Full record

ReviewJournal of community health2011

Organizational change: a way to increase colon, breast and cervical cancer screening in primary care practices.

Ana Maria Arroyave, Eribeth K Penaranda, Carmen L Lewis

Abstract readReview
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of community health, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 24% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Implementation Science Training and Resources for Nurses and Nurse Scientists.Journal of nursing scholarship : an official publication of Sigma Theta Tau International Honor Society of Nursing · 2020
    Review
  7. Observational
  8. Review
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. The colorectal cancer screening process in community settings: a conceptual model for the population-based research optimizing screening through personalized regimens consortium.Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention : a publication of the American Association for Cancer Research, cosponsored by the American Society of Preventive Oncology · 2014
    Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Ana Maria ArroyaveDepartment of Medical Education, Department of Family and Community Medicine, Paul L. Foster School of Medicine, Texas Tech University Health Science Center, 5001 El Paso Drive, El Paso, TX 79905, USA. ana.arroyave@ttuhsc.edu
Eribeth K Penaranda
Carmen L Lewis
Texas Tech University · USUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill · US

Funding

Colon Cancer Screening Decisions in Late LifeK07CA104128 · NCI · UNIV OF NORTH CAROLINA CHAPEL HILL · PI LEWIS, CARMEN LYNN · 2005 to 2009
$718k
NCI NIH HHS 5K07CA104128NCI NIH HHS K07 CA104128
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

unlabelledScreening tests for colon, cervical and breast cancer remain underutilized despite their proven effectiveness in reducing morbidity and mortality. Stone et al. concluded that cancer screening is most likely to improve when a health organization supports performance through organizational changes (OC) in staffing and clinical procedures. OC interventions include the use of separate clinics devoted to prevention, use of a planned care visit, designation of non-physician staff for specific prevention activities and continuous quality improvement interventions.

objectivesTo identify specific elements of OC interventions that increases the selected cancer screening rates. To determine to which extent practices bought into the interventions.

methodsEleven randomized controlled trials from January 1990 to June 2010 that instituted OC to increase cancer screening completion were included. Qualitative data was analyzed by using a framework to facilitate abstraction of information. For quantitative data, an outcome of measure was determined by the change in the proportion of eligible individuals receiving cancer screening services between intervention and control practices. The health prevention clinic intervention demonstrated a large increase (47%) in the proportion of completed fecal occult blood test; having a non-physician staff demonstrated an increase in mammography (18.4%); and clinical breast examination (13.7%); the planned care visit for prevention intervention increased mammography (8.8%); continuous quality improvement interventions showed mixed results, from an increase in performance of mammography 19%, clinical breast examination (13%); Pap smear (15%) and fecal occult blood test (13%), to none or negative change in the proportion of cancer screening rates.

conclusionsTo increase cancer screening completion goals, OC interventions should be implemented tailored to the primary care practice style. Interventions that circumvent the physicians were more effective. We could not conclude whether or not continuous quality techniques were effective. Further research is needed to evaluate cost-effectiveness of these interventions.

Indexed as

Breast NeoplasmsColonic NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansOrganizational InnovationPrimary Health CareRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicUterine Cervical Neoplasms

Identifiers

PMID20835777
OpenAlexW1977116918

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.