Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34937796›Full record

ArticleFamily medicine and community health2021

Implementation of cancer screening in rural primary care practices after joining an accountable care organisation: a multiple case study.

Heather Nelson-Brantley, Edward F Ellerbeck, Stacy McCrea-Robertson, Jennifer Brull, Jennifer Bacani McKenney, K Allen Greiner, Christie Befort

Open access · diamondAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Family medicine and community health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
0.9field-weighted citation impact, top 20% 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

6 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. 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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Heather Nelson-BrantleySchool of Nursing, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas, USA hnelson-brantley@kumc.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-2088-7801
Edward F EllerbeckUniversity of Kansas Cancer Center, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-7774-2729
Stacy McCrea-RobertsonPopulation Health, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas, USA.
Jennifer BrullFamily Medicine, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas, USA.
Jennifer Bacani McKenneyFamily Medicine, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas, USA.
K Allen GreinerUniversity of Kansas Cancer Center, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas, USA.
Christie BefortUniversity of Kansas Cancer Center, University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City, Kansas, USA.
The University of Kansas Cancer Center · USUniversity of Kansas Medical Center · US

Funding

Transgenic & Gene-Targeting Shared ResourceP30CA168524 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS MEDICAL CENTER · PI ROY A. JENSEN · 2012 to 2026
$40.1M
NCI NIH HHS P30 CA168524
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo describe common strategies and practice-specific barriers, adaptations and determinants of cancer screening implementation in eight rural primary care practices in the Midwestern United States after joining an accountable care organisation (ACO).

designThis study used a multiple case study design. Purposive sampling was used to identify a diverse group of practices within the ACO. Data were collected from focus group interviews and workflow mapping. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was used to guide data collection and analysis. Data were cross-analysed by clinic and CFIR domains to identify common themes and practice-specific determinants of cancer screening implementation.

settingThe study included eight rural primary care practices, defined as Rural-Urban Continuum Codes 5-9, in one ACO in the Midwestern United States.

participantsProviders, staff and administrators who worked in the primary care practices participated in focus groups. 28 individuals participated including 10 physicians; one doctor of osteopathic medicine; three advanced practice registered nurses; eight registered nurses, quality assurance and licensed practical nurses; one medical assistant; one care coordination manager; and four administrators.

resultsWith integration into the ACO, practices adopted four new strategies to support cancer screening: care gap lists, huddle sheets, screening via annual wellness visits and information spread. Cross-case analysis revealed that all practices used both visit-based and population-based cancer screening strategies, although workflows varied widely across practices. Each of the four strategies was adapted for fit to the local context of the practice. Participants shared that joining the ACO provided a strong external incentive for increasing cancer screening rates. Two predominant determinants of cancer screening success at the clinic level were use of the electronic health record (EHR) and fully engaging nurses in the screening process.

conclusionsJoining an ACO can be a positive driver for increasing cancer screening practices in rural primary care practices. Characteristics of the practice can impact the success of ACO-related cancer screening efforts; engaging nurses to the fullest extent of their education and training and integrating cancer screening into the EHR can optimise the cancer screening workflow.

Indexed as

Accountable Care OrganizationsNeoplasmsAdministrative PersonnelEarly Detection of CancerHumansPrimary Health CareRural Populationearly detection of cancerelectronic health recordsfamily practicenursesrural health services

Identifiers

PMID34937796
PMCPMC8710423
OpenAlexW4200463933

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.