CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 163Global Cancer Incidence and ScreeningWomen's cancer prevention and managementColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection

Intervention to Increase Recommendation and Delivery of Screening for Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancers by Healthcare Providers

Baron, Roy C., Melillo, Stephanie, Rimer, Barbara K., Coates, Ralph J., Kerner, Jon, Habarta, Nancy, Chattopadhyay, Sajal, Sabatino, Susan A. +2 more·2010·American Journal of Preventive Medicine
DOI 10.1016/j.amepre.2009.09.031
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Most major medical organizations recommend routine screening for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers. Screening can lead to early detection of these cancers, resulting in reduced mortality. Yet, not all people who should be screened are screened regularly or, in some cases, ever. This report presents results of systematic reviews of effectiveness, applicability, economic efficiency, barriers to implementation, and other harms or benefits of provider reminder/recall interventions to increase screening for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers. These interventions involve using systems to inform healthcare providers when individual clients are due (reminder) or overdue (recall) for specific cancer screening tests. Evidence in this review of studies published from 1986 through 2004 indicates that reminder/recall systems can effectively increase screening with mammography, Pap, fecal occult blood tests, and flexible sigmoidoscopy. Additional research is needed to determine if provider reminder/recall systems are effective in increasing colorectal cancer screening by colonoscopy. Specific areas for further research are also suggested.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.amepre.2009.09.031

Cites

94 of 94 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Distinctions between strategies used to support implementation and strategies used to integrate screening EBIs into practice are important when selecting and reporting strategies because the evidence base and underlying theory differ for these two types.

    “We contend that these distinctions are important when selecting and reporting strategies for use in research and practice because the evidence base and, to a large extent, the underlying theory, differ for strategies used to support implementation (e.g., [6, 7]) as compared to strategies used to integrate screening EBIs into practice (e.g., [8, 9]).”

    From Beyond “implementation strategies”: classifying the full range of strategies used in implementation science and practice (2017) · cites this paper as [8]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Baron, R. C., Melillo, S., Rimer, B. K., Coates, R. J., Kerner, J., Habarta, N., Chattopadhyay, S., Sabatino, S. A., Elder, R., & Leeks, K. J.
Affiliations
  • Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (US)
  • University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
Corresponding author
Elder, Randy
ORCID
Venue
American Journal of Preventive Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-01
Volume
38
Issue
1
Pages
110-117
ISSN
0749-3797 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.amepre.2009.09.031
OpenAlex
W2088144950
Cited by
163
References
94
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 15 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 15 · 2012: 14
FWCI
0.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
  • American Journal of Preventive Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education
  • National Cancer Institute
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Women's cancer prevention and management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Colorectal Cancer Screening and Detection
Keywords
cancer screening, recall system, breast cancer screening, cervical cancer screening, colorectal cancer screening, mammography, Pap smear, fecal occult blood test, flexible sigmoidoscopy, colonoscopy, screening uptake, implementation barriers, economic efficiency
MeSH terms
Aged, Breast Neoplasms, Uterine Cervical Neoplasms, Female, Health Personnel, Humans, Male, Mass Screening, Middle Aged, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Colorectal Neoplasms, Reminder Systems

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review