Cited by 145Global Cancer Incidence and ScreeningWomen's cancer prevention and managementColorectal Cancer Screening and Detection

Factors in Quality Care--The Case of Follow-Up to Abnormal Cancer Screening Tests--Problems in the Steps and Interfaces of Care

Open access
Zapka, J., Taplin, S. H., Anhang Price, R., Cranos, C., Yabroff, R.·2010·JNCI Monographs

Abstract

To achieve the benefit of cancer screening, appropriate follow-up of abnormal screening test results must occur. Such follow-up requires traversing the transition between screening detection and diagnosis, including several steps and interfaces in care. This article reviews factors and interventions associated with follow-up of abnormal tests for cervical, breast and colorectal cancers. We synthesized 12 reviews of descriptive and intervention studies published between 1980 and 2008. There was wide variability in definition of follow-up, setting, study population, and reported prevalence rates. Correlates of follow-up included patient characteristics (eg, knowledge and age), social support, provider characteristics, practice (eg, having reminders systems), community and professional norms (eg, quality measures), and policy (eg, federal programs). Effective interventions included patient education and support; delivery systems design changes, such as navigation; and information system changes, most notably patient tracking and physician reminders. Few studies focused explicitly on interfaces and steps of care, such as communication between primary care and specialists, or simultaneously targeted the multilevel factors that affect care. Future practice and research priorities should include development of clear operational definitions of the steps and interfaces related to patients, providers, and organizations; reflect evolving guidelines and new technologies; determine priorities for intervention testing; and improve measures and apply appropriate study designs.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/jncimonographs/lgq009

Cites

6 of 6 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • A sample size of 30 participants, each reviewing 35 test results, was required to achieve 80% power to detect a statistically significant difference in cognitive workload and performance.

    “On the basis of the anticipated rate of appropriately identified abnormal test results in the literature12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21 and the anticipated magnitude of the association of the enhanced EHR, we required a sample size of 30 participants, each reviewing 35 test results, to achieve 80% power to detect a statistically significant difference in cognitive workload and performance.”
  • Even in the EHR environment, with alerts and reminders in place, physicians continue to often inappropriately manage abnormal test results.

    “Even in the EHR environment, with alerts and reminders in place, physicians continue to often inappropriately manage abnormal test results.12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Zapka, J., Taplin, S. H., Anhang Price, R., Cranos, C., & Yabroff, R.
Affiliations
National Institutes of Health (US)
Venue
JNCI Monographs
Published
2010-04-01
Volume
2010
Issue
40
Pages
58-71
ISSN
  • 1052-6773 (ISSN-L)
  • 1745-6614
OpenAlex
W2172038788
Cited by
145
References
6
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 12
FWCI
1.15
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • JNCI Monographs (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
U.S. Public Health Service (12610-86626)
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
cervical cancer screening, breast cancer screening, colorectal cancer screening, care transitions, patient navigation, patient tracking, physician reminders, patient education, social support, quality metrics, multilevel interventions
MeSH terms
Breast Neoplasms, Uterine Cervical Neoplasms, Continuity of Patient Care, Delivery of Health Care, Female, Health Policy, Health Priorities, Humans, Male, Mammography, Mass Screening, Occult Blood, Patient Care Management, Primary Health Care, Quality Assurance, Health Care, Referral and Consultation, Social Support, Vaginal Smears, Colorectal Neoplasms, Endoscopy, Gastrointestinal, Reminder Systems, Practice Guidelines as Topic, Early Detection of Cancer, Delayed Diagnosis

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