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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Public health (London) 2021-08, Vol.197, p.1-5 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
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 & 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 & 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 & 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 & 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 & 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 & 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 |