Factors in Quality Care--The Case of Follow-Up to Abnormal Cancer Screening Tests--Problems in the Steps and Interfaces of Care
Open accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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.”
From Association of the Usability of Electronic Health Records With Cognitive Workload and Performance Levels Among Physicians (2019) · cites this paper as [14]
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”
From Association of the Usability of Electronic Health Records With Cognitive Workload and Performance Levels Among Physicians (2019) · cites this paper as [14]
Cites
Jemal, A., Siegel, R., Ward, E., Murray, T., Xu, J., & Thun, M. J. (2007) · CA: A Cancer Journal for Clinicians · doi:10.3322/canjclin.57.1.43 · Cited by 7,439 · see citing works
The effect of patient race and socio-economic status on physicians' perceptions of patients
van Ryn, M., & Burke, J. (2000) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/s0277-9536(99)00338-x · Cited by 1,509 · see citing works
Barr, V., Robinson, S., Marin-Link, B., Underhill, L., Dotts, A., Ravensdale, D., & Salivaras, S. (2003) · Healthcare Quarterly · doi:10.12927/hcq.2003.16763 · Cited by 686 · see citing works
Singh, H., Thomas, E. J., Mani, S., Sittig, D., Arora, H., Espadas, D., Khan, M. M., & Petersen, L. A. (2009) · Archives of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/archinternmed.2009.263 · Cited by 212 · cited 2× · see citing works
“(61) when they found that even when health-care providers received and read abnormal results in an integrated medical record system, timely follow-up did not always occur.”
BackgroundYabroff, K. R., Washington, K. S., Leader, A., Neilson, E., & Mandelblatt, J. (2003) · Medical Care Research and Review · doi:10.1177/1077558703254698 · Cited by 137 · see citing works
Self-citationGeographic variation and effect of area-level poverty rate on colorectal cancer screening
Lian, M., Schootman, M., & Yun, S. (2008) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/1471-2458-8-358 · Cited by 70 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A qualitative exploration of cervical and breast cancer stigma in Karnataka, India
Nyblade, L., Stockton, M., Travasso, S., & Krishnan, S. (2017) · BMC Women's Health · doi:10.1186/s12905-017-0407-x · Cited by 175 · see citing works
Mazur, L. M., Mosaly, P. R., Moore, C., & Marks, L. (2019) · JAMA Network Open · doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2019.1709 · Cited by 127 · see citing works
“Perceived and Physiological Workload No statistically significant difference was noted in perceived workload between the baseline EHR and enhanced EHR groups (mean [SD] NASA-TLX score, 53 [14] vs 49 [16]; composite score, 4 [95% CI, –5 to 13]; P = .”
BackgroundPrevalence of major risk factors and use of screening tests for cancer in the United States
Fedewa, S. A., Sauer, A. G., Siegel, R. L., & Jemal, A. (2015) · Cancer Epidemiology, Biomarkers & Prevention · doi:10.1158/1055-9965.epi-15-0134 · Cited by 77 · see citing works
Ferrer, R. A., Green, P. A., & Barrett, L. F. (2015) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691615576755 · Cited by 58 · see citing works
- Authors
- Zapka, J., Taplin, S. H., Anhang Price, R., Cranos, C., & Yabroff, R.
- Affiliations
- National Institutes of Health (US)
- Venue
- JNCI Monographs
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2010-04-01
- Volume
- 2010
- Issue
- 40
- Pages
- 58-71
- ISSN
- 1052-6773 (ISSN-L)
- 1745-6614
- PMC
- PMC3731434
- 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
- green
- europepmc.org
- 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