ArticleCancer causes & control : CCC2015
Identifying promising practices for evaluation: the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program.
Article in Cancer causes & control : CCC, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Developing and validating key performance indicators for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening programs: a literature review and Delphi survey.Frontiers in public health · 2025Pooled it
- Article
- Cancer Prevention: Obstacles, Challenges and the Road Ahead.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2016Review
- Preventing premature deaths from breast and cervical cancer among underserved women in the United States: insights gained from a national cancer screening program.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2015Article
- Forward. The reach and health impacts of the national breast and cervical cancer early detection program.Cancer causes & control : CCC · 2015Article
- Using Evidence-Based Interventions to Improve Cancer Screening in the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program.Journal of public health management and practice : JPHMPArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe Centers for Disease Control and Prevention conducted a systematic screening and assessment process to identify promising practices implemented by grantees of the National Breast and Cervical Cancer Early Detection Program and its partners that were appropriate for rigorous evaluation.
methodsThe systematic screening and assessment (SSA) process was conducted from September 2010 through March 2012 and included five steps: (1) nominations of promising practices; (2) a first rating by subject matter experts; (3) field-based evaluability assessments; (4) a second rating by experts; and (5) use of results. Nominations were sought in three program areas including health education and promotion, quality assurance and quality improvement, and case management/patient navigation.
resultsA total of 98 practices were nominated of which 54 % were eligible for the first review by the experts. Fifteen practices were selected for evaluability assessment with ten forwarded for the second review by the experts. Three practices were ultimately recommended for rigorous evaluation, and one evaluation was conducted. Most nominated practices were based on evidence-based strategies rather than representing new, innovative activities. Issues were identified through the process including inconsistent implementation and lack of implementation fidelity.
conclusionWhile the SSA was successful in identifying several programs for evaluation, the process also revealed important shortcomings in program implementation. Training and technical assistance could help address these issues and support improved programming.
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.