Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36527147›Full record

ArticleImplementation science communications2022

Improving the efficiency of integrated cancer screening delivery across multiple cancers: case studies from Idaho, Rhode Island, and Nebraska.

Florence K L Tangka, Sujha Subramanian, Sonja Hoover, Charlene Cariou, Becky Creighton, Libby Hobbs, Amanda Marzano, Andrea Marcotte, Deirdre Denning Norton, Patricia Kelly-Flis and 4 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Implementation science communications, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing papers in PubMed
0.3field-weighted citation impact, top 39% 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

4 citing papers in PubMed, 4 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. The Effectiveness ofCancers · 2025
    Article
  4. 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

14 authors at 6 institutions in 1 country.

Florence K L TangkaCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Highway, NE, Mailstop S107-4, Atlanta, GA, 30341-3717, USA.
Sujha SubramanianRTI International, 307 Waverley Oaks Road, Suite 101, Waltham, MA, 02452-8413, USA. ssubramanian@rti.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2415-9721
Sonja HooverRTI International, 307 Waverley Oaks Road, Suite 101, Waltham, MA, 02452-8413, USA.
Charlene CariouSouthwest District Health, 13307 Miami Lane, Caldwell, ID, 83607, USA.
Becky CreightonIdaho Comprehensive Cancer Control Program, Division of Public Health, Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, 450 W State Street, Boise, ID, 83702, USA.
Libby HobbsBureau of Community and Environmental Health, Division of Public Health, Idaho Department of Health and Welfare, 450 W State Street, Boise, ID, 83702, USA.
Amanda MarzanoWellOne Primary Medical and Dental Care, 35 Village Plaza Way, North Scituate, RI, 02857, USA.
Andrea MarcotteWellOne Primary Medical and Dental Care, 35 Village Plaza Way, North Scituate, RI, 02857, USA.
Deirdre Denning NortonWellOne Primary Medical and Dental Care, 35 Village Plaza Way, North Scituate, RI, 02857, USA.
Patricia Kelly-FlisWellOne Primary Medical and Dental Care, 35 Village Plaza Way, North Scituate, RI, 02857, USA.
Melissa LeypoldtWomen's and Men's Health Programs, Lifespan Health Unit, Public Health, Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services, 301 Centennial Mall S, Lincoln, NE, 68508, USA.
Teri LarkinsCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Highway, NE, Mailstop S107-4, Atlanta, GA, 30341-3717, USA.
Michelle PooleCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Highway, NE, Mailstop S107-4, Atlanta, GA, 30341-3717, USA.
Jennifer BoehmCenters for Disease Control and Prevention, 4770 Buford Highway, NE, Mailstop S107-4, Atlanta, GA, 30341-3717, USA.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention · USVillage Veterinary Medical Center · USIdaho Department of Health and Welfare · USRTI International · USBrown and Caldwell (United States) · USNebraska Department of Health and Human Services · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThree current and former awardees of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's Colorectal Cancer Control Program launched integrated cancer screening strategies to better coordinate multiple cancer screenings (e.g., breast, cervical, colorectal). By integrating the strategies, efficiencies of administration and provision of screenings can be increased and costs can be reduced. This paper shares findings from these strategies and describes their effects.

methodsThe Idaho Department of Health and Welfare developed a Baseline Assessment Checklist for six health systems to assess the current state of policies regarding cancer screening. We analyzed the checklist and reported the percentage of checklist components completed. In Rhode Island, we collaborated with a nurse-patient navigator, who promoted cancer screening, to collect details on patient navigation activities and program costs. We then described the program and reported total costs and cost per activity. In Nebraska, we described the experience of the state in administering an integrated contracts payment model across colorectal, breast, and cervical cancer screening and reported cost per person screened. Across all awardees, we interviewed key stakeholders.

resultsIn Idaho, results from the checklist offered guidance on areas for enhancement before integrated cancer screening strategies, but identified challenges, including lack of capacity, limited staff availability, and staff turnover. In Rhode Island, 76.1% of 1023 patient navigation activities were for colorectal cancer screening only, with a much smaller proportion devoted to breast and cervical cancer screening. Although the patient navigator found the discussions around multiple cancer screening efficient, patients were not always willing to discuss all cancer screenings. Nebraska changed its payment system from fee-for-service to fixed cost subawards with its local health departments, which integrated cancer screening funding. Screening uptake improved for breast and cervical cancer but was mixed for colorectal cancer screening.

conclusionsThe results from the case studies show that there are barriers and facilitators to integrating approaches to increasing cancer screening among primary care facilities. However, more research could further elucidate the viability and practicality of integrated cancer screening programs.

Indexed as

Breast cancer screeningCervical cancer screeningColorectal cancer screeningIdahoIntegrated cancer screeningNebraskaPatient navigator/navigationRhode Island

Identifiers

PMID36527147
PMCPMC9756516
OpenAlexW4311632547

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.