Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36383381›Full record

ArticleJAMA network open2022

Evaluation of a National Quality Improvement Collaborative for Improving Cancer Screening.

Rachel Hae-Soo Joung, Timothy W Mullett, Scott H Kurtzman, Sarah Shafir, James B Harris, Katharine A Yao, Karl Y Bilimoria, William G Cance, Heidi Nelson, Return-to-Screening Quality Improvement Collaborative

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in JAMA network open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Knowledge translation strategies to enhance lung cancer screening programme implementation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2025
    Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Counselling to Screening: Honing an Institutional Cervical Cancer Screening Program.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2025
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. 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

10 authors.

Rachel Hae-Soo JoungNorthwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Department of Surgery, Chicago, Illinois.
Timothy W MullettAmerican College of Surgeons Cancer Programs, Chicago, Illinois.
Scott H KurtzmanNational Accreditation Program for Breast Centers, Chicago, Illinois.
Sarah ShafirAmerican Cancer Society, Atlanta, Georgia.
James B HarrisAmerican College of Surgeons Cancer Programs, Chicago, Illinois.
Katharine A YaoNational Accreditation Program for Breast Centers, Chicago, Illinois.
Karl Y BilimoriaNorthwestern University Feinberg School of Medicine, Department of Surgery, Chicago, Illinois.
William G CanceAmerican Cancer Society, Atlanta, Georgia.
Heidi NelsonAmerican College of Surgeons Cancer Programs, Chicago, Illinois.
Return-to-Screening Quality Improvement Collaborative

Funding

COllaborative Northwestern Surgical Oncology Research Training (CONSORT)T32CA247801 · NCI · NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY AT CHICAGO · PI ACKERMANN, RONALD T., KHAN, SEEMA AHSAN · 2020 to 2024
$1.3M
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Importance: Cancer screening deficits during the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic were found to persist into 2021. Cancer-related deaths over the next decade are projected to increase if these deficits are not addressed. Objective: To assess whether participation in a nationwide quality improvement (QI) collaborative, Return-to-Screening, was associated with restoration of cancer screening. Design, Setting, and Participants: Accredited cancer programs electively enrolled in this QI study. Project-specific targets were established on the basis of differences in mean monthly screening test volumes (MTVs) between representative prepandemic (September 2019 and January 2020) and pandemic (September 2020 and January 2021) periods to restore prepandemic volumes and achieve a minimum of 10% increase in MTV. Local QI teams implemented evidence-based screening interventions from June to November 2021 (intervention period), iteratively adjusting interventions according to their MTVs and target. Interrupted time series analyses was used to identify the intervention effect. Data analysis was performed from January to April 2022. Exposures: Collaborative QI support included provision of a Return-to-Screening plan-do-study-act protocol, evidence-based screening interventions, QI education, programmatic coordination, and calculation of screening deficits and targets. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the proportion of QI projects reaching target MTV and counterfactual differences in the aggregate number of screening tests across time periods. Results: Of 859 cancer screening QI projects (452 for breast cancer, 134 for colorectal cancer, 244 for lung cancer, and 29 for cervical cancer) conducted by 786 accredited cancer programs, 676 projects (79%) reached their target MTV. There were no hospital characteristics associated with increased likelihood of reaching target MTV except for disease site (lung vs breast, odds ratio, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.7 to 4.7). During the preintervention period (April to May 2021), there was a decrease in the mean MTV (slope, -13.1 tests per month; 95% CI, -23.1 to -3.2 tests per month). Interventions were associated with a significant immediate (slope, 101.0 tests per month; 95% CI, 49.1 to 153.0 tests per month) and sustained (slope, 36.3 tests per month; 95% CI, 5.3 to 67.3 tests per month) increase in MTVs relative to the preintervention trends. Additional screening tests were performed during the intervention period compared with the prepandemic period (170 748 tests), the pandemic period (210 450 tests), and the preintervention period (722 427 tests). Conclusions and Relevance: In this QI study, participation in a national Return-to-Screening collaborative with a multifaceted QI intervention was associated with improvements in cancer screening. Future collaborative QI endeavors leveraging accreditation infrastructure may help address other gaps in cancer care.

Indexed as

COVID-19NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerHumansMass ScreeningPandemicsQuality Improvement

Identifiers

PMID36383381
PMCPMC9669819

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.