ReviewJournal of community health2011
Organizational change: a way to increase colon, breast and cervical cancer screening in primary care practices.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Interactive preventive health record to enhance delivery of recommended care: a randomized trial.Annals of family medicineTrial
- Case-based training of evidence-based clinical practice in primary care and decreased mortality in patients with coronary heart disease.Annals of family medicineTrial
- Using a Frontline Staff Intervention to Improve Cervical Cancer Screening in a Large Academic Internal Medicine Clinic.Journal of general internal medicine · 2021Article
- Engagement of General Practice in an Australian Organised Bowel Cancer Screening Program: A Cross-Sectional Survey of Knowledge and Practice.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2020Article
- 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 · 2020Review
- Observational
- Colorectal cancer, screening and primary care: A mini literature review.World journal of gastroenterology · 2017Review
- Using Social Media to Characterize Public Sentiment Toward Medical Interventions Commonly Used for Cancer Screening: An Observational Study.Journal of medical Internet research · 2017Observational
- General practitioners' perceptions of population based bowel screening and their influence on practice: a qualitative study.BMC family practice · 2017Article
- Cancer Screening Rates in a Student-Run Free Clinic.Ochsner journal · 2016Article
- Unifying screening processes within the PROSPR consortium: a conceptual model for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2015Article
- Challenges and Opportunities to Improve Cervical Cancer Screening Rates in US Health Centers through Patient-Centered Medical Home Transformation.Advances in preventive medicine · 2015Article
- 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 · 2014Article
- The role of primary care in early detection and follow-up of cancer.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2014Review
- Cancer screening at a federally qualified health center: a qualitative study on organizational challenges in the era of the patient-centered medical home.Journal of immigrant and minority health · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.