Evaluating an ‘incident control’ approach to non-communicable disease

This article evaluates the application of ‘incident control’ methodology usually applied in communicable disease control to an ‘incident’ of unexplained deaths, specifically to resolve a significant difference in 1-year survival after a lung cancer diagnosis observed between two Clinical Commissioni...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Public health (London) 2021-08, Vol.197, p.1-5
Hauptverfasser: Horsley, S.M., Morling, J.R., Khaw, F.M., Day, M.
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 5
container_issue
container_start_page 1
container_title Public health (London)
container_volume 197
creator Horsley, S.M.
Morling, J.R.
Khaw, F.M.
Day, M.
description This article evaluates the application of ‘incident control’ methodology usually applied in communicable disease control to an ‘incident’ of unexplained deaths, specifically to resolve a significant difference in 1-year survival after a lung cancer diagnosis observed between two Clinical Commissioning Groups and the England national average, 2011–14. The purpose of the evaluation was to assess whether a formalised incident control approach is feasible and effective in improving outcomes for non-communicable diseases. Descriptive, qualitative, process evaluation. There were two components to the evaluation: a document review against identified phases of a non-communicable disease incident control framework and a qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews with stakeholders who had been involved in implementation. The findings indicate feasibility of the incident control model, with some limitations. Identified strengths of the model included the articulation of a clear case and incident definition. The structure and stepped phased approach facilitated partner engagement, robust data analysis, action planning and communication strategies. Delays in data publication and the lack of comparable data across different non-communicable diseases present challenges in timely response and prioritisation of ‘incidents’. The evaluation indicates value in applying defined incident control methodology to management of non-communicable diseases, especially where there is identification of a potential outlier or a measurable variation, i.e. there is a definable ‘incident’ and ‘case’.
doi_str_mv 10.1016/j.puhe.2021.04.031
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2550266480</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0033350621001773</els_id><sourcerecordid>2584775895</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c428t-d885c99785bb7a2ed61d0fe20139349e2579ee1c11d2464cdf648928b0055573</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kM1O3DAUhS1UBMPPC3RRReqGTcL1bxKpmwoBRUJiw95y7DvFo8Se2glSdzxG-3o8CR4N7aKLrs7mO0dHHyEfKTQUqLrcNNvlCRsGjDYgGuD0gKyoaFUtFVUfyAqA85pLUMfkJOcNALCWyyNyzAUTspewInfXz2ZczOzD98qE6vXllw_WOwxzZWOYUxxfX35XZrtN0dinao5ViKG2cZqW4K0ZRqycz2gynpHDtRkznr_nKXm8uX68-lbfP9zeXX29r61g3Vy7rpO279tODkNrGDpFHayRAeU9Fz0y2faI1FLqmFDCurUSXc-6AUBK2fJTcrGfLY9-LJhnPflscRxNwLhkzaQEpkoHCvr5H3QTlxTKuUJ1om1l18tCsT1lU8w54Vpvk59M-qkp6J1nvdE7z3rnWYPQxXMpfXqfXoYJ3d_KH7EF-LIHsKh49ph0th6DRecT2lm76P-3_wY1v47Q</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2584775895</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Evaluating an ‘incident control’ approach to non-communicable disease</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete</source><source>Applied Social Sciences Index &amp; Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><creator>Horsley, S.M. ; Morling, J.R. ; Khaw, F.M. ; Day, M.</creator><creatorcontrib>Horsley, S.M. ; Morling, J.R. ; Khaw, F.M. ; Day, M.</creatorcontrib><description>This article evaluates the application of ‘incident control’ methodology usually applied in communicable disease control to an ‘incident’ of unexplained deaths, specifically to resolve a significant difference in 1-year survival after a lung cancer diagnosis observed between two Clinical Commissioning Groups and the England national average, 2011–14. The purpose of the evaluation was to assess whether a formalised incident control approach is feasible and effective in improving outcomes for non-communicable diseases. Descriptive, qualitative, process evaluation. There were two components to the evaluation: a document review against identified phases of a non-communicable disease incident control framework and a qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews with stakeholders who had been involved in implementation. The findings indicate feasibility of the incident control model, with some limitations. Identified strengths of the model included the articulation of a clear case and incident definition. The structure and stepped phased approach facilitated partner engagement, robust data analysis, action planning and communication strategies. Delays in data publication and the lack of comparable data across different non-communicable diseases present challenges in timely response and prioritisation of ‘incidents’. The evaluation indicates value in applying defined incident control methodology to management of non-communicable diseases, especially where there is identification of a potential outlier or a measurable variation, i.e. there is a definable ‘incident’ and ‘case’.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0033-3506</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1476-5616</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1016/j.puhe.2021.04.031</identifier><identifier>PMID: 34245950</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Netherlands: Elsevier Ltd</publisher><subject>Action planning ; Averages ; Commissioning ; Communication strategies ; Control methods ; Data analysis ; Disease ; Disease control ; England - epidemiology ; Evaluation ; Feasibility ; Humans ; Incident control ; Inequalities ; Infectious diseases ; Lung cancer ; Medical diagnosis ; Non-communicable diseases ; Noncommunicable Diseases - epidemiology ; Noncommunicable Diseases - prevention &amp; control ; Outliers (statistics) ; Prioritizing ; Qualitative analysis ; Qualitative research ; Survival</subject><ispartof>Public health (London), 2021-08, Vol.197, p.1-5</ispartof><rights>2021 The Royal Society for Public Health</rights><rights>Copyright © 2021 The Royal Society for Public Health. All rights reserved.</rights><rights>Copyright Elsevier Science Ltd. Aug 2021</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c428t-d885c99785bb7a2ed61d0fe20139349e2579ee1c11d2464cdf648928b0055573</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c428t-d885c99785bb7a2ed61d0fe20139349e2579ee1c11d2464cdf648928b0055573</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2021.04.031$$EHTML$$P50$$Gelsevier$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,3550,27924,27925,30999,45995</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34245950$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Horsley, S.M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Morling, J.R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Khaw, F.M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Day, M.</creatorcontrib><title>Evaluating an ‘incident control’ approach to non-communicable disease</title><title>Public health (London)</title><addtitle>Public Health</addtitle><description>This article evaluates the application of ‘incident control’ methodology usually applied in communicable disease control to an ‘incident’ of unexplained deaths, specifically to resolve a significant difference in 1-year survival after a lung cancer diagnosis observed between two Clinical Commissioning Groups and the England national average, 2011–14. The purpose of the evaluation was to assess whether a formalised incident control approach is feasible and effective in improving outcomes for non-communicable diseases. Descriptive, qualitative, process evaluation. There were two components to the evaluation: a document review against identified phases of a non-communicable disease incident control framework and a qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews with stakeholders who had been involved in implementation. The findings indicate feasibility of the incident control model, with some limitations. Identified strengths of the model included the articulation of a clear case and incident definition. The structure and stepped phased approach facilitated partner engagement, robust data analysis, action planning and communication strategies. Delays in data publication and the lack of comparable data across different non-communicable diseases present challenges in timely response and prioritisation of ‘incidents’. The evaluation indicates value in applying defined incident control methodology to management of non-communicable diseases, especially where there is identification of a potential outlier or a measurable variation, i.e. there is a definable ‘incident’ and ‘case’.</description><subject>Action planning</subject><subject>Averages</subject><subject>Commissioning</subject><subject>Communication strategies</subject><subject>Control methods</subject><subject>Data analysis</subject><subject>Disease</subject><subject>Disease control</subject><subject>England - epidemiology</subject><subject>Evaluation</subject><subject>Feasibility</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Incident control</subject><subject>Inequalities</subject><subject>Infectious diseases</subject><subject>Lung cancer</subject><subject>Medical diagnosis</subject><subject>Non-communicable diseases</subject><subject>Noncommunicable Diseases - epidemiology</subject><subject>Noncommunicable Diseases - prevention &amp; control</subject><subject>Outliers (statistics)</subject><subject>Prioritizing</subject><subject>Qualitative analysis</subject><subject>Qualitative research</subject><subject>Survival</subject><issn>0033-3506</issn><issn>1476-5616</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2021</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kM1O3DAUhS1UBMPPC3RRReqGTcL1bxKpmwoBRUJiw95y7DvFo8Se2glSdzxG-3o8CR4N7aKLrs7mO0dHHyEfKTQUqLrcNNvlCRsGjDYgGuD0gKyoaFUtFVUfyAqA85pLUMfkJOcNALCWyyNyzAUTspewInfXz2ZczOzD98qE6vXllw_WOwxzZWOYUxxfX35XZrtN0dinao5ViKG2cZqW4K0ZRqycz2gynpHDtRkznr_nKXm8uX68-lbfP9zeXX29r61g3Vy7rpO279tODkNrGDpFHayRAeU9Fz0y2faI1FLqmFDCurUSXc-6AUBK2fJTcrGfLY9-LJhnPflscRxNwLhkzaQEpkoHCvr5H3QTlxTKuUJ1om1l18tCsT1lU8w54Vpvk59M-qkp6J1nvdE7z3rnWYPQxXMpfXqfXoYJ3d_KH7EF-LIHsKh49ph0th6DRecT2lm76P-3_wY1v47Q</recordid><startdate>202108</startdate><enddate>202108</enddate><creator>Horsley, S.M.</creator><creator>Morling, J.R.</creator><creator>Khaw, F.M.</creator><creator>Day, M.</creator><general>Elsevier Ltd</general><general>Elsevier Science Ltd</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><scope>7QL</scope><scope>7T2</scope><scope>7U9</scope><scope>ASE</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>FPQ</scope><scope>H94</scope><scope>K6X</scope><scope>M7N</scope><scope>NAPCQ</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>202108</creationdate><title>Evaluating an ‘incident control’ approach to non-communicable disease</title><author>Horsley, S.M. ; Morling, J.R. ; Khaw, F.M. ; Day, M.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c428t-d885c99785bb7a2ed61d0fe20139349e2579ee1c11d2464cdf648928b0055573</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2021</creationdate><topic>Action planning</topic><topic>Averages</topic><topic>Commissioning</topic><topic>Communication strategies</topic><topic>Control methods</topic><topic>Data analysis</topic><topic>Disease</topic><topic>Disease control</topic><topic>England - epidemiology</topic><topic>Evaluation</topic><topic>Feasibility</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Incident control</topic><topic>Inequalities</topic><topic>Infectious diseases</topic><topic>Lung cancer</topic><topic>Medical diagnosis</topic><topic>Non-communicable diseases</topic><topic>Noncommunicable Diseases - epidemiology</topic><topic>Noncommunicable Diseases - prevention &amp; control</topic><topic>Outliers (statistics)</topic><topic>Prioritizing</topic><topic>Qualitative analysis</topic><topic>Qualitative research</topic><topic>Survival</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Horsley, S.M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Morling, J.R.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Khaw, F.M.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Day, M.</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index &amp; Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>Bacteriology Abstracts (Microbiology B)</collection><collection>Health and Safety Science Abstracts (Full archive)</collection><collection>Virology and AIDS Abstracts</collection><collection>British Nursing Index</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>British Nursing Index (BNI) (1985 to Present)</collection><collection>AIDS and Cancer Research Abstracts</collection><collection>British Nursing Index</collection><collection>Algology Mycology and Protozoology Abstracts (Microbiology C)</collection><collection>Nursing &amp; Allied Health Premium</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Public health (London)</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Horsley, S.M.</au><au>Morling, J.R.</au><au>Khaw, F.M.</au><au>Day, M.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Evaluating an ‘incident control’ approach to non-communicable disease</atitle><jtitle>Public health (London)</jtitle><addtitle>Public Health</addtitle><date>2021-08</date><risdate>2021</risdate><volume>197</volume><spage>1</spage><epage>5</epage><pages>1-5</pages><issn>0033-3506</issn><eissn>1476-5616</eissn><abstract>This article evaluates the application of ‘incident control’ methodology usually applied in communicable disease control to an ‘incident’ of unexplained deaths, specifically to resolve a significant difference in 1-year survival after a lung cancer diagnosis observed between two Clinical Commissioning Groups and the England national average, 2011–14. The purpose of the evaluation was to assess whether a formalised incident control approach is feasible and effective in improving outcomes for non-communicable diseases. Descriptive, qualitative, process evaluation. There were two components to the evaluation: a document review against identified phases of a non-communicable disease incident control framework and a qualitative analysis of semi-structured interviews with stakeholders who had been involved in implementation. The findings indicate feasibility of the incident control model, with some limitations. Identified strengths of the model included the articulation of a clear case and incident definition. The structure and stepped phased approach facilitated partner engagement, robust data analysis, action planning and communication strategies. Delays in data publication and the lack of comparable data across different non-communicable diseases present challenges in timely response and prioritisation of ‘incidents’. The evaluation indicates value in applying defined incident control methodology to management of non-communicable diseases, especially where there is identification of a potential outlier or a measurable variation, i.e. there is a definable ‘incident’ and ‘case’.</abstract><cop>Netherlands</cop><pub>Elsevier Ltd</pub><pmid>34245950</pmid><doi>10.1016/j.puhe.2021.04.031</doi><tpages>5</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0033-3506
ispartof Public health (London), 2021-08, Vol.197, p.1-5
issn 0033-3506
1476-5616
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_2550266480
source MEDLINE; Elsevier ScienceDirect Journals Complete; Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)
subjects Action planning
Averages
Commissioning
Communication strategies
Control methods
Data analysis
Disease
Disease control
England - epidemiology
Evaluation
Feasibility
Humans
Incident control
Inequalities
Infectious diseases
Lung cancer
Medical diagnosis
Non-communicable diseases
Noncommunicable Diseases - epidemiology
Noncommunicable Diseases - prevention & control
Outliers (statistics)
Prioritizing
Qualitative analysis
Qualitative research
Survival
title Evaluating an ‘incident control’ approach to non-communicable disease
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-26T22%3A25%3A30IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Evaluating%20an%20%E2%80%98incident%20control%E2%80%99%20approach%20to%20non-communicable%20disease&rft.jtitle=Public%20health%20(London)&rft.au=Horsley,%20S.M.&rft.date=2021-08&rft.volume=197&rft.spage=1&rft.epage=5&rft.pages=1-5&rft.issn=0033-3506&rft.eissn=1476-5616&rft_id=info:doi/10.1016/j.puhe.2021.04.031&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E2584775895%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2584775895&rft_id=info:pmid/34245950&rft_els_id=S0033350621001773&rfr_iscdi=true