Follow-up to abnormal cancer screening tests: Considering the multilevel context of care

Cancer Epidemiology Biomarkers and Prevention

Volumn 23, Issue 10, 2014, Pages 1965-1973

  Zapka, Jane M ^a   Edwards, Heather M ^b   Chollette, Veronica ^c   Taplin, Stephen H ^c  

^a MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA   (United States)

^b FREDERICK NATIONAL LABORATORY FOR CANCER RESEARCH   (United States)

^c NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BREAST CANCER; CANCER SCREENING; COLON CANCER; COLONOSCOPY; DIGITAL MAMMOGRAPHY; ETHNICITY; FOLLOW UP; HUMAN; HUMAN PAPILLOMAVIRUS DNA TEST; MAMMOGRAPHY; MEDICAL AUDIT; NUCLEAR MAGNETIC RESONANCE IMAGING; OCCULT BLOOD; PAPANICOLAOU TEST; RACE DIFFERENCE; SIGMOIDOSCOPY; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC); UTERINE CERVIX CANCER; EARLY DIAGNOSIS; FEMALE; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; MALE; PATIENT CARE; PROCEDURES;

CONTINUITY OF PATIENT CARE; DELIVERY OF HEALTH CARE; EARLY DETECTION OF CANCER; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE;

EID: 84907549877     PISSN: 10559965     EISSN: 15387755     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1158/1055-9965.EPI-14-0454     Document Type: Article

References (85)

1. Smith R, Cokkinides V, Brawley O. Cancer screening in the United States, 2008: a review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and cancer screening issues. CA Cancer J Clin 2008;58:161-79.
2. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Guide to Clinical Preventive Services, 2008: Recommendations of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. AHRQ Publication No. 08-05122, September 2008. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD.
3. Nicholson FB, Barro JL, Atkin W, Lilford R, Patnick J, Williams CB, et al. Review article: population screening for colorectal cancer. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 2005;22:1069-77.
4. O'Meara AT. Present standards for cervical cancer screening. Curr Opin Oncol 2002;14:505-11.
5. Jemal A, Simard EP, Dorell C, Noone AM, Markowitz LE, Kohler B, et al. Annual report to the nation on the status of cancer, 1975-2009, featuring the burden and trends in human papillomavirus (HPV)-associated cancers and HPV vaccination coverage levels. J Natl Cancer Inst 2013;105:175-201.
6. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Cancer screening-United States, 2010. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep 2012;61:41-5.
7. Siegel R, DeSantis C, Virgo K, Stein K, Mariotto A, Smith T, et al. Cancer treatment and survivorship statistics, 2012. CA Cancer J Clin 2012;62:220-41.
8. National Cancer Institute. Cancer Trends Progress Report-2011/ 2012 Update; 2012 [cited 2013 Jan 31]. Available from: http://progressreport.cancer.gov.
9. Abotchie PN, Vernon SW, Du XL. Gender differences in colorectal cancer incidence in the United States, 1975-2006. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 2012;21:393-400.
10. Fair AM, Wujcik D, Lin JM, Zheng W, Egan KM, Grau AM, et al. Psychosocial determinants of mammography follow-up after receipt of abnormal mammography results in medically underserved women. J Health Care Poor Underserved 2010;21:71-94.
11. Fiscella K, Humiston S, Hendren S, Winters P, Jean-Pierre P, Idris A, et al. Eliminating disparities in cancer screening and follow-up of abnormal results: what will it take? J Health Care Poor Underserved 2011;22:83-100.
12. Goldman LE, Walker R, Hubbard R, Kerlikowske K. Timeliness of abnormal screening and diagnostic mammography follow-up at facilities serving vulnerable women. Med Care 2013;51:307-14.
13. Perez-Stable EJ, Afable-Munsuz A, Kaplan CP, Pace L, Samayoa C, Somkin C, et al. Factors Influencing time to diagnosis after abnormal mammography results in diverse women. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 2013;2:159-166.
14. Schoenberg N, Baltisberger J, Bardach S, Dignan M. Perspectives on Pap test follow-up care among rural Appalachian women. Women Health 2010;50:580-97.
15. Yabroff KR, Washington KS, Leader A, Neilson E, Mandelblatt J. Is the promise of cancer-screening programs being compromised? Quality of follow-up care after abnormal screening results. Med Care Res Rev 2003;60:294-331.
16. Lester H, Wilson S. Is default from colposcopy a problem, and if so what can we do? A systematic review of the literature. Br J Gen Pract 1999;49:223-9.
17. Marcus AC, Kaplan CP, Crane LA, Berek JS, Bernstein G, Gunning JE, et al. Reducing loss-to-follow-up among women with abnormal Pap smears. Results from a randomized trial testing an intensive follow-up protocol and economic incentives. Med Care 1998;36:397-410.
18. Wells KJ, Battaglia TA, Dudley DJ, Garcia R, Greene A, Calhoun E, et al. Patient navigation: state of the art or is it science? Cancer 2008; 113:1999-2010.
19. Schofield PE, Butow PN. Towards better communication in cancer care: a framework for developing evidence-based interventions. Patient Educ Couns 2004;55:32-9.
20. Elit L, Krzyzanowska M, Saskin R, Barbera L, Razzaq A, Lofters A, et al. Sociodemographic factors associated with cervical cancer screening and follow-up of abnormal results. Can FamPhysician 2012;58:e22-31.
21. Etzioni DA, Yano EM, Rubenstein LV, Lee ML, Ko CY, Brook RH, et al. Measuring the quality of colorectal cancer screening: the importance of follow-up. Dis Colon Rectum 2006;49:1002-10.
22. Zapka J, Taplin SH, Anhang Price R, Cranos C, Yabroff R. Factors in quality care-the case of follow-up to abnormal cancer screening tests-problems in the steps and interfaces of care. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2010;40:58-71.
23. Taplin SH, Yabroff KR, Zapka J. A multilevel research perspective on cancer care delivery: the example of follow-up to an abnormal mammogram. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2012;21:1709-15.
24. Mandelblatt JS, Yabroff KR, Kerner JF. Equitable access to cancer services: a review of barriers to quality care. Cancer 1999;86: 2378-90.
25. Bastani R, Yabroff KR, Myers RE, Glenn B. Interventions to improve follow-up of abnormal findings in cancer screening. Cancer 2004;101: 1188-200.
26. Taplin S, Anhang Price R, Edwards H, Foster M, Breslau E, Chollette V, et al. Understanding and influencing multilevel factors across the cancer care continuum. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2012;44:2-10.
27. Baron RC, Rimer BK, Coates RJ, Kerner J, Kalra GP, Melillo S, et al. Client-directed interventions to increase community access to breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening a systematic review. Am J Prev Med 2008;35:S56-66.
28. Baron RC, Rimer BK, Breslow RA, Coates RJ, Kerner J, Melillo S, et al. Client-directed interventions to increase community demand for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening a systematic review. Am J Prev Med 2008;35:S34-55.
29. Sabatino SA, Coates RJ, Uhler RJ, Breen N, Tangka F, Shaw KM. Disparities inmammography use amongUSwomenaged 40-64 years, by race, ethnicity, income, and health insurance status, 1993 and 2005. Med Care 2008;46:692-700.
30. Sabatino SA, Lawrence B, Elder R, Mercer SL, Wilson KM, DeVinney B, et al. Effectiveness of interventions to increase screening for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers: nine updated systematic reviews for the guide to community preventive services. Am J Prev Med 2012;43:97-118.
31. Anhang Price R, Zapka J, Edwards H, TaplinSH. Organizational factors and the cancer screening process. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2010;40:38-57.
32. Zapka J, Taplin S, Solberg L, Manos M. A framework for improving the quality of cancer care: the case of breast and cervical cancer screening. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2003;12:4-13.
33. Battaglia TA, Santana MC, Bak S, Gokhale M, Lash TL, Ash AS, et al. Predictors of timely follow-up after abnormal cancer screening among women seeking care at urban community health centers. Cancer 2010;116:913-21.
34. Raich PC, Whitley EM, Thorland W, Valverde P, Fairclough D, Program DPNR. Patient navigation improves cancer diagnostic resolution: an individually randomized clinical trial in an underserved population. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2012;21:1629-38.
35. Maxwell AE, Jo AM, Crespi CM, Sudan M, Bastani R. Peer navigation improves diagnostic follow-up after breast cancer screening among Korean American women: results of a randomized trial. Cancer Causes Control 2010;21:1931-40.
36. National Research Council. Building a Better Delivery System: A New Engineering/Health Care Partnership. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2005.
37. Ferlie EB, Shortell SM. Improving the quality of health care in the United Kingdom and the United States: a framework for change. Milbank Q 2001;79:281-315.
38. Zapka J, Taplin S, Ganz P, Grunfeld E, Sterba K. Multilevel factors affecting quality: examples from the cancer care continuum. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2012;44:11-19.
39. National Institutes of Health. Types of grant programs; 2012 [cited 2013 Mar 27]. Available from: http://grants.nih.gov/grants/funding/ funding-program.htm.
40. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 2009;339:b2535.
41. Institutes of Medicine. Finding what works in health care: standards for systematic reviews. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2011.
42. Taplin SH, Clauser S, Rodgers AB, Breslau E, Rayson D. Interfaces across the cancer continuum offer opportunities to improve the process of care. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2010;40:104-110.
43. Greenwald P, Cullen JW, McKenna JW, Hiatt RA, Rimer BK. Cancer prevention and control: from research through applications; A new strategy for cancer control research. J Natl Cancer Inst 1987;79: 389-400.
44. Hiatt RA, Rimer BK. Anew strategy for cancer control research. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 1999;8:957-64.
45. Shadish WR, Cook TD, Campbell DT. Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin; 2002.
46. United States Department of Health and Human Services. Healthy people; 2012 [cited 2013 Mar 11]. Available from: http://www.healthypeople. gov. Accessed March 11, 2013.
47. ACSCAN (American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network). 2009. Cancer disparities: a chartbook. Washington, DC: American Cancer Society Cancer Action Network.
48. Halpern MT, Ward EM, Pavluck AL, Schrag NM, Bian J, Chen AY. Association of insurance status and ethnicity with cancer stage at diagnosis for 12 cancer sites: a retrospective analysis. Lancet Oncol 2008;9:222-31.
49. Grunfeld E, Earle C. The interface between primary and oncology specialty care: treatment through survivorship. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2010;40:25-30.
50. Han PKJ, Rayson D. The interface between primary and oncology specialty care at the end of life. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2010; 40:31-7.
51. Nekhlyudov L, Latosinsky S. The interface between primary oncology specialty care: from symptomsto diagnosis. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2010;40:11-7.
52. Sussman J, Baldwin LM. The interface between primary and oncology specialty care: from diagnosis through primary treatment. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2010;40:18-24.
53. Taplin SH, Rodgers AB. Toward improving the quality of cancer care: addressing the interfaces of primary and oncology-related subspecialty care. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2010;40:3-10.
54. Clauser S, Taplin S, Foster M, Fagan P, Kaluzny A. multilevel intervention research: lessons learned and pathways forward. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2012;44:127-133.
55. Weiner B, Lewis M, Clauser S, Stitzenberg K. In search of synergy: strategies for combining interventions at multiple levels. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2012;44:34-41.
56. Weingart SN, Saadeh MG, Simchowitz B, Gandhi TK, Nekhlyudov L, Studdert DM, et al. Process of care failures in breast cancer diagnosis. J Gen Intern Med 2009;24:702-9.
57. Cleary P, Gross C, Zaslavsky A, Taplin S. Multilevel interventions: study design and analysis issues. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2012; 44:49-55.
58. Stange K, Breslau E, Dietrich A, Glasgow R. State-of-the-art and future directions in multilevel interventions across the cancer control continuum. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2012;44:20-31.
59. Paskett ED, Katz ML, Post DM, Pennell ML, Young GS, Seiber EE, et al. The Ohio Patient Navigation Research Program: does the American Cancer Society patient navigation model improve time to resolution in patients with abnormal screening tests? Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2012:1620-8.
60. Sarfaty M, Myers RE, Harris DM, Borsky AE, Sifri R, Cocroft J, et al. Variation in colorectal cancer screening steps in primary care: basis for practice improvement. Am J Med Qual 2012;27:458-66.
61. National Cancer Institute. Grid Enabled Measures Database. n.d. [cited 2013 Feb 12]. Available from: https://www.gem-beta.org/Public/ Home.aspx.
62. Markossian TW, Darnell JS, Calhoun EA. Follow-up and timeliness after an abnormal cancer screening among underserved, urban women in a patient navigation program. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2012:1691-700.
63. Freund KM, Battaglia TA, Calhoun E, Darnell JS, Dudley DJ, Fiscella K, et al. Impact of patient navigation on timely cancer care: the patient navigation research program. J Natl Cancer Inst 2014;106: dju115.
64. Lobb R, Allen JD, Emmons KM, Ayanian JZ. Timely care after an abnormal mammogram among low-income women in a public breast cancer screening program. Arch Intern Med 2010;170: 521-8.
65. Koh HK, Brach C, Harris LM, Parchman ML. A proposed 'health literate care model' would constitute a systems approach to improving patients' engagement in care. Health Aff (Millwood) 2013: 357-367.
66. Havyer RD, Wingo MT, Comfere NI, Nelson DR, Halvorsen AJ, McDonald FS, et al.Teamwork assessment in internalmedicine: a systematic review of validity evidence and outcomes. J Gen Intern Med 2014;29:894-910.
67. Glasgow RE, Marcus AC, Bull SS, Wilson KM. Disseminating effective cancer screening interventions. Cancer 2004;101:1239-50.
68. Yano E, Green L, Glanz K, Ayanian J, Mittman B, Chollette V, et al. Implementation and spread of interventions into the multilevel context of routine practice and policy: implications for the cancer care continuum. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2012;44:86-99.
69. National Cancer Institute. Process of Care Research Branch (PCRB); 2012 [cited 2013 Feb 12]. Available from: http://cancercontrol.cancer. gov/brp/pcrb.
70. Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens (PROSPR); 2011 [cited 2013 Jun 5]. Available from: http://appliedresearch.cancer.gov/networks/prospr.
71. Goodwin JS, Singh A, Reddy N, Riall TS, Kuo YF. Overuse of screening colonoscopy in the Medicare population. Arch Intern Med 2011; 171:1335-43.
72. Schenck AP, Peacock SC, KlabundeCN, Lapin P, Coan JF, Brown ML. Trends in colorectal cancer test use in the medicare population, 1998-2005. Am J Prev Med 2009;37:1-7.
73. Yabroff KR. Interventions to improve cancer screening: commentary from a health services research perspective. Am J Prev Med 2008;35: S6-9.
74. Public Law 111-148: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.
75. Fennell ML, Prabhu Das I, Clauser S, Petrelli N, Salner A. The organization of multidisciplinary care teams: modeling internal and external influences on cancer care quality. J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2010; 40:72-80.
76. Nutting PA, Crabtree BF, Miller WL, Stange KC, Stewart E, Jaen C. Transforming physician practices to patient-centered medical homes: lessons from the national demonstration project. Health Aff (Millwood) 2011;30:439-45.
77. Bernabeo E, Holmboe ES. Patients, providers, and systems need to acquire a specific set of competencies to achieve truly patient-centered care. Health Aff (Millwood) 2013;32:250-8.
78. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. HITECH Act. n.d. [cited 2013 March 27]. Available from: http://www.healthit.gov/policyresearchers-implementers/hitech-act-0.
79. Bates DW, Bitton A. The future of health information technology in the patient-centered medical home. Health Aff (Millwood) 2010;29: 614-21.
80. Hesse BW, Hanna C, Massett HA, Hesse NK. Outside the box: will information technology be a viable intervention to improve the quality of cancer care? J Natl Cancer Inst Monogr 2010;40:81-89.
81. Singh H, Wilson L, Petersen LA, Sawhney MK, Reis B, Espadas D, et al. Improving follow-up of abnormal cancer screens using electronic health records: trust but verify test result communication. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak 2009:9:49.
82. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. Stage 1 vs. Stage 2 comparison table for eligible professionals; 2012 [cited 2013 Mra 11]. Available from: https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/ Legislation/EHRIncentivePrograms/Downloads/Stage1vsStage2-CompTablesforEP.pdf.
83. Dupuis EA, White HF, Newman D, Sobieraj JE, Gokhale M, Freund KM. Tracking abnormal cervical cancer screening: evaluation of an EMRbased intervention. J Gen Intern Med 2010;25:575-580.
84. Kern LM, Malhotra S, Barron Y, Quaresimo J, Dhopeshwarkar R, Pichardo M, et al. Accuracy of electronically reported "meaningful use" clinical quality measures: a cross-sectional study. Ann Intern Med 2013;158:77-8.
85. Singh H, Spitzmueller C, Petersen NJ, Sawhney MK, Sittig DF. Information overload and missed test results in electronic health recordbased settings. JAMA Intern Med 2013;173:702-4.