ArticleJAMA network open2022
Evaluation of a National Quality Improvement Collaborative for Improving Cancer Screening.
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.
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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Effectiveness of quality improvement interventions in improving cardiovascular disease-related outcomes in primary and tertiary care: A systematic review and meta-analyses.BMC primary care · 2025Pooled it
- 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 · 2025Pooled it
- Limitations in US Cancer Screening Rate Data and Opportunities to Improve Precision Prevention.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- If We Build It, Why They Do Not Come? An American College of Surgeons National Quality Improvement Collaborative to Understand Barriers to Completion of Cancer Treatment.JCO oncology practice · 2025Article
- Initial and persistent changes in cancer screening in a US Midwestern community health center network following the onset of COVID-19.Preventive medicine reports · 2025Article
- Temporal trends in cross-country inequalities of early-onset pancreatic cancer: a comprehensive analysis for the global burden of disease study 2021.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Longitudinal Results From the Nationwide Just ASK Initiative to Promote Routine Smoking Assessment in American College of Surgeons-Accredited Cancer Programs.Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology · 2025Article
- Counselling to Screening: Honing an Institutional Cervical Cancer Screening Program.Asian Pacific journal of cancer prevention : APJCP · 2025Article
- Organized Colorectal Cancer Screening Programs in Switzerland - Quo Vadis?International journal of public health · 2025Article
- Cancer Survivorship Care in the United States at Facilities Accredited by the Commission on Cancer.JAMA network open · 2024Article
- Health-care organization characteristics in cancer care delivery: an integrated conceptual framework with content validation.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2024Article
- Quality improvement collaborative for improving patient care delivery in Argentine public health sector intensive care units.BMJ open quality · 2024Article
- Survival Among Patients With High-Risk Gastrointestinal Cancers During the COVID-19 Pandemic.JAMA network open · 2024Article
- Changes in Health Care Access and Preventive Health Screenings by Race and Ethnicity.JAMA health forum · 2024Article
- Current Practices, Perceived Barriers, and Promising Implementation Strategies for Improving Quality of Smoking Cessation Support in Accredited Cancer Programs of the American College of Surgeons.JCO oncology practice · 2024Article
- National Cancer Database Reports Ongoing Disruptions in Cancer Diagnoses in 2021.Annals of surgical oncology · 2024Article
- Alterations in Cancer Treatment During the First Year of the COVID-19 Pandemic in the US.JAMA network open · 2023Article
- Assessing patterns in cancer screening use by race and ethnicity during the coronavirus pandemic using electronic health record data.Cancer medicine · 2023Article
- A Collaborative Approach to Improving Breast Cancer Screening and Follow-Up Through Multicomponent Interventions and Process Improvements: The Links to Care Community Grants Project study protocol and baseline findings.Journal of primary care & community healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
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
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.