The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Cancer: improving early detection and prevention. A community practice randomised trial.
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVE: To test the impact of physician education and facilitator assisted office system interventions on cancer early detection and preventive services. DESIGN: A randomised trial of two interventions alone and in combination. SETTING AND SUBJECTS: Physicians in 98 ambulatory care practices in the United States. INTERVENTIONS: The education intervention consisted of a day long physician meeting directed at improving knowledge, attitudes, and skills relevant to cancer prevention and early detection. The office system intervention consisted of assistance from a project facilitator in establishing routines for providing needed services. These routines included division of responsibilities for providing services among physicians and their staff and the use of medical record flow sheets. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The proportions of patients provided the cancer prevention and early detection services indicated annually according to the US National Cancer Institute. RESULTS: Based on cross sectional patient surveys, the office system intervention was associated with an increase in mammography, the recommendation to do breast self examination, clinical breast examination, faecal occult blood testing, advice to quit smoking, and the recommendation to decrease dietary fat. Education was associated only with an increase in mammography. Record review for a patient cohort confirmed cross sectional survey findings regarding the office system for mammography and faecal occult blood testing. CONCLUSION: Community practices assisted by a facilitator in the development and implementation of an office system can substantially improve provision of cancer early detection and preventive services.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Davis, D., O'Brien, M. A. T., Freemantle, N., Wolf, F. M., Mazmanian, P., & Taylor-Vaisey, A. (1999) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.282.9.867 · Cited by 2,364
Forsetlund, L., Bjørndal, A., Rashidian, A., Jamtvedt, G., O'Brien, M. A., Wolf, F. M., Davis, D., Odgaard-Jensen, J., & Oxman, A. D. (2009) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd003030.pub2 · Cited by 1,849
Educational outreach visits: effects on professional practice and health care outcomes
O'Brien, M. A., Rogers, S., Jamtvedt, G., Oxman, A. D., Odgaard-Jensen, J., Kristoffersen, D. T., Forsetlund, L., Bainbridge, D., Freemantle, N., Davis, D., et al. (2007) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd000409.pub2 · Cited by 1,279
Getting evidence into practice: the role and function of facilitation
Harvey, G., Loftus‐Hills, A., Rycroft‐Malone, J., Titchen, A., Kitson, A., McCormack, B., & Seers, K. (2002) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1046/j.1365-2648.2002.02126.x · Cited by 730
Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Practice Facilitation Within Primary Care Settings
Baskerville, N. B., Liddy, C., & Hogg, W. (2012) · The Annals of Family Medicine · doi:10.1370/afm.1312 · Cited by 571
Metadata
- Authors
- Dietrich, A. J., O'Connor, G. T., Keller, A., Carney, P. A., Levy, D., & Whaley, F. S.
- Venue
- BMJ
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 1992-03-14
- Volume
- 304
- Issue
- 6828
- Pages
- 687-691
- ISSN
- 0007-1447 (ISSN-L)
- 0959-8138
- 1468-5833
- OpenAlex
- W1965252944
- Cited by
- 236
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 32.80
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Cancer: improving early detection and prevention. A community practice randomised trial. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1136/bmj.304.6828.687
- The paper
- Dietrich, A. J., O'Connor, G. T., Keller, A., Carney, P. A., Levy, D., & Whaley, F. S. (1992). Cancer: improving early detection and prevention. A community practice randomised trial. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.304.6828.687
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.