ArticleBMJ quality improvement reports2017
Measuring and improving cervical, breast, and colorectal cancer screening rates in a multi-site urban practice in Toronto, Canada.
Article in BMJ quality improvement reports, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.
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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessing delivery of and attitudes toward a randomized intervention to increase mammography uptake among childhood cancer survivors: A report from the Childhood Cancer Survivor Study.Journal of psychosocial oncology · 2026Trial
- The potential benefits of "community champions" in the healthcare system.Healthcare management forum · 2023Article
- Snakes and ladders: A qualitative study understanding the active ingredients of social interaction around the use of audit and feedback.Translational behavioral medicine · 2023Article
- Health and healthcare equity within the Canadian cancer care sector: a rapid scoping review.International journal for equity in health · 2023Article
- Breast cancer screening pathways in Ghana: applying an exploratory single case study methodology with cross-case analysis.Heliyon · 2022Article
- Multi-component interventions and change in screening rates in primary care clinics in the Colorectal Cancer Control Program.Preventive medicine reports · 2022Article
- Improving Cervical Cancer Screening Rates at an Urban Federally Qualified Health Center Family Medicine Residency Clinic.The Permanente journal · 2022Article
- Unpacking the intention to action gap: a qualitative study understanding how physicians engage with audit and feedback.Implementation science : IS · 2021Article
- Experiential QI Activity for Residents to Improve Women's Preventive Services.PRiMER (Leawood, Kan.) · 2021Article
- A "Tea and Cookies" Approach: Co-designing Cancer Screening Interventions with Patients Living with Low Income.Journal of general internal medicine · 2020Article
- Ten tips for advancing a culture of improvement in primary care.BMJ quality & safety · 2019Article
- Cancer screening rates among transgender adults: Cross-sectional analysis of primary care data.Canadian family physician Medecin de famille canadien · 2019Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Our Family Health Team is located in Toronto, Canada and provides care to over 35 000 patients. Like many practices in Canada, we took an opportunistic approach to cervical, breast, and colorectal cancer screening. We wanted to shift to a proactive, population-based approach but were unable to systematically identify patients overdue for screening or calculate baseline screening rates. Our initiative had two goals: (1) to develop a method for systematically identifying patients eligible for screening and whether they were overdue and (2) to increase screening rates for cervical, breast, and colorectal cancer. Using external government data in combination with our practice's electronic medical record, we developed a process to identify patients eligible and overdue for cancer screening. After generating baseline data, we implemented an evidence-based, multifaceted intervention to improve cancer screening rates. We sent a personalized reminder letter to overdue patients, provided physicians with practice-level audit and feedback, and improved our electronic reminder function by updating charts with accurate data on the Fecal Occult Blood Test (FOBT). Following our initial intervention, we sought to maintain and further improve our screening rates by experimenting with alternative recall methods and collecting patient feedback. Screening rates significantly improved for all three cancers. Between March 2014 and December 2016, the cervical cancer screening rate increased from 60% to 71% (p<0.05), the breast cancer screening rate increased from 56% to 65% (p<0.05), and the overall colorectal screening rate increased from 59% to 70% (p<0.05). The increase in colorectal screening rates was largely due to an increase in FOBT screening from 18% to 25%, while colonoscopy screening remained relatively unchanged, shifting from 45% to 46%. We also found that patients living in low income neighbourhoods were less likely to be screened. Following our intervention, this equity gap narrowed modestly for breast and colorectal cancer but did not change for cervical cancer screening. Our future improvement efforts will be focused on reducing the gap in screening between patients living in low-income and high-income neighbourhoods while maintaining overall gains.
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.