Cited by 81Health Policy Implementation ScienceGlobal Cancer Incidence and ScreeningBehavioral Health and Interventions

A Systematic Review of Studies Evaluating Diffusion and Dissemination of Selected Cancer Control Interventions.

Ellis, Peter, Robinson, Paula, Ciliska, Donna, Armour, Tanya, Brouwers, Melissa, O'Brien, Mary Ann, Sussman, Jonathan, Raina, Parminder·2005·Health Psychology

Abstract

With this review, the authors sought to determine what strategies have been evaluated (including the outcomes assessed) to disseminate cancer control interventions that promote the uptake of behavior change. Five topic areas along the cancer care continuum (smoking cessation, healthy diet, mammography, cervical cancer screening, and control of cancer pain) were selected to be representative. A systematic review was conducted of primary studies evaluating dissemination of a cancer control intervention. Thirty-one studies were identified that evaluated dissemination strategies in the 5 topic areas. No strong evidence currently exists to recommend any one dissemination strategy as effective in promoting the uptake of cancer control interventions. The authors conclude that there is a strong need for more research into dissemination of cancer control interventions. Future research should consider methodological issues such as the most appropriate study design and outcomes to be evaluated.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0278-6133.24.5.488

Cites

89 of 89 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?

  • Dissemination of empirically-validated psychological interventions for cancer patients is challenging, and many patients who could benefit do not receive it.

    “Despite substantial evidence for the effectiveness of psychological interventions in reducing distress among cancer patients, dissemination of empirically-validated interventions is challenging, and many patients who could benefit from this intervention do not receive it (Ellis et al., 2005; Jacobsen, 2009; Kerner et al., 2005; Stanton, 2006).”

    From An online stress management workbook for breast cancer (2014) · cites this paper as Ellis et al., 2005

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ellis, P., Robinson, P., Ciliska, D., Armour, T., Brouwers, M., O'Brien, M. A., Sussman, J., & Raina, P.
Affiliations
  • Cancer Care Ontario (CA)
  • McMaster University (CA)
Venue
Health Psychology
Published
2005
Volume
24
Issue
5
Pages
488-500
ISSN
  • 0278-6133 (ISSN-L)
  • 1930-7810
OpenAlex
W2084407534
Cited by
81
References
89
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 1 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 9
FWCI
1.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Health Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
Keywords
cancer control interventions, dissemination strategy, diffusion of innovations, smoking cessation, healthy eating, mammography, cervical cancer screening, cancer pain management, behavior change, cancer care continuum
MeSH terms
Diffusion of Innovation, Evaluation Studies as Topic, Health Promotion, Health Services Research, Humans, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Life Style, Neoplasms, Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care, Information Dissemination

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