Observational studyJournal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education2020
Implementation of a Low-Cost Quality Improvement Intervention Increases Adherence to Cancer Screening Guidelines and Reduces Healthcare Costs at a University Medical Center.
Observational study in Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Trainee Awareness of US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) Colorectal Cancer Screening Guidelines.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2026Article
- Improving colorectal cancer screening through Cologuard education: a quality improvement initiative in an urban primary care clinic.BMJ open quality · 2025Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Adherence to US Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF) cancer screening guidelines remains considerably lower than the recommendation of the Healthy People 2020 initiative. Patient populations recommended for screening are not screened at an appropriate rate, and populations not recommended for screening are inappropriately screened. Closer adherence to guidelines should improve outcomes and reduce costs, estimated to reach $158 billion/year by 2020. We evaluated whether a use of low-cost educational health maintenance (HM) card by medical residents at a university hospital could impact education and adherence to updated cancer screening guidelines. We also analyzed savings to the healthcare system. Adherence to cervical, breast, and colorectal cancer screening guidelines, defined as percentage that was screened (or not screened) in accordance with the USPSTF guidelines, in clinic visits from December 2012 (n = 336) was compared to those from December 2013 (n = 306) after a quality improvement intervention. Post-intervention, adherence to screening guidelines increased by 40.8% (p < 0.01) for cervical, 33.2% (p < 0.01) for breast, and 20.5% (p < 0.01) for colorectal cancer in average-risk patients. Inappropriate screening was reduced by 26.8% (p < 0.01) for cervical and 32.8% (p < 0.01) for breast cancer. A non-significant 1.1% decrease (p = 0.829) was observed for colorectal cancer. The annual potential savings from avoiding inappropriate screenings were $998,316 (95% CI; $644,484-$1,352,148). We showed a significant absolute increase in USPSTF knowledge of 28.3% irrespective of the house staff level that remained high at 2 years from the educational intervention. The low-cost HM card increased appropriate knowledgeable cancer screening adherence while reducing unnecessary testing and producing substantial savings to the healthcare system.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31093906What 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.