Breast and cervical cancer screening interventions: an assessment of the literature

An extensive body of intervention research to promote breast and cervical cancer screening has accumulated over the last three decades, but its coverage and comprehensiveness have not been assessed. We evaluated published reports of these interventions and propose a framework of critical elements fo...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention biomarkers & prevention, 1998-10, Vol.7 (10), p.951-961
Hauptverfasser: Meissner, H I, Breen, N, Coyne, C, Legler, J M, Green, D T, Edwards, B K
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 961
container_issue 10
container_start_page 951
container_title Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention
container_volume 7
creator Meissner, H I
Breen, N
Coyne, C
Legler, J M
Green, D T
Edwards, B K
description An extensive body of intervention research to promote breast and cervical cancer screening has accumulated over the last three decades, but its coverage and comprehensiveness have not been assessed. We evaluated published reports of these interventions and propose a framework of critical elements for authors and researchers to use when contributing to this literature. We identified all articles describing breast and cervical cancer screening interventions published between January 1960 and May 1997 in the United States and abstracted specified critical elements in the broad areas of: (a) needs assessment; (b) intervention study design; and (c) analysis methods and study outcomes from each article using a template developed for that purpose. Fifty-eight studies met our criteria for inclusion. Thirty-eight focused exclusively on breast cancer screening, 7 promoted cervical cancer screening, and 13 were designed to promote screening for both cancers. The amount of detail reported varied among the 58 studies. All studies reported the outcome measures used to assess the effectiveness of the intervention, yet only 40% of the studies reported the investigators' original hypotheses or research questions. Needs assessment data were reported in 84% of the studies. Data sources ranged from national surveys to local intervention baseline surveys. Population characteristics reported also varied, with most studies reporting age and race of the study population (78 and 71%, respectively), and fewer studies reporting income and education (53 and 38%, respectively). As the field of behavioral intervention research progressed, we found that more recent studies included and reported many of the parameters we had identified as critical. If this trend continues, it will enhance the reproducibility of studies, enable comparisons between interventions, and provide a reference point for measuring progress in this area. To facilitate this trend toward uniform reporting, we propose an evaluative framework of critical elements for authors to use when developing and reporting their research. The comprehensive assessment of literature that this article provides should be useful background to investigators planning and reporting cancer control interventions, to funding agencies choosing and guiding quality research, and to publishers to help them enhance the quality and utility of their publications.
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_70017576</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>70017576</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-h238t-5cc6ecf24ba0a0b77691db2731aee66b2174a58f2da3c9b88c7197cd13afe8e53</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNotkE1LxDAURYso4zj6E4SsdFVImknSuNPBLxhwoa7Da_o6jbTpmKSK_97AzOpd3jncxT0plkzwulRKiNOcqRCl1lKcFxcxflFKlRZiUSy00lKuq2Xx_hAQYiLgW2Ix_DgLA7HgcybRBkTv_I44nzJDn9zk412WCcSIMY75RaaOpB7J4LIDaQ54WZx1MES8Ot5V8fn0-LF5Kbdvz6-b-23ZV7xOpbBWou2qdQMUaKOU1KxtKsUZIErZVEytQdRd1QK3uqlrq5hWtmUcOqxR8FVxc-jdh-l7xpjM6KLFYQCP0xyNopQpoWQWr4_i3IzYmn1wI4Q_c1wh89sD792u_3UBzWGBgBEh2N4ow6jRgvF_mTlpKg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>70017576</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Breast and cervical cancer screening interventions: an assessment of the literature</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>American Association for Cancer Research</source><source>EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals</source><creator>Meissner, H I ; Breen, N ; Coyne, C ; Legler, J M ; Green, D T ; Edwards, B K</creator><creatorcontrib>Meissner, H I ; Breen, N ; Coyne, C ; Legler, J M ; Green, D T ; Edwards, B K</creatorcontrib><description>An extensive body of intervention research to promote breast and cervical cancer screening has accumulated over the last three decades, but its coverage and comprehensiveness have not been assessed. We evaluated published reports of these interventions and propose a framework of critical elements for authors and researchers to use when contributing to this literature. We identified all articles describing breast and cervical cancer screening interventions published between January 1960 and May 1997 in the United States and abstracted specified critical elements in the broad areas of: (a) needs assessment; (b) intervention study design; and (c) analysis methods and study outcomes from each article using a template developed for that purpose. Fifty-eight studies met our criteria for inclusion. Thirty-eight focused exclusively on breast cancer screening, 7 promoted cervical cancer screening, and 13 were designed to promote screening for both cancers. The amount of detail reported varied among the 58 studies. All studies reported the outcome measures used to assess the effectiveness of the intervention, yet only 40% of the studies reported the investigators' original hypotheses or research questions. Needs assessment data were reported in 84% of the studies. Data sources ranged from national surveys to local intervention baseline surveys. Population characteristics reported also varied, with most studies reporting age and race of the study population (78 and 71%, respectively), and fewer studies reporting income and education (53 and 38%, respectively). As the field of behavioral intervention research progressed, we found that more recent studies included and reported many of the parameters we had identified as critical. If this trend continues, it will enhance the reproducibility of studies, enable comparisons between interventions, and provide a reference point for measuring progress in this area. To facilitate this trend toward uniform reporting, we propose an evaluative framework of critical elements for authors to use when developing and reporting their research. The comprehensive assessment of literature that this article provides should be useful background to investigators planning and reporting cancer control interventions, to funding agencies choosing and guiding quality research, and to publishers to help them enhance the quality and utility of their publications.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1055-9965</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1538-7755</identifier><identifier>PMID: 9796642</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: American Association for Cancer Research</publisher><subject>Breast Neoplasms - diagnosis ; Data Interpretation, Statistical ; Female ; Humans ; Mass Screening - methods ; Mass Screening - standards ; Needs Assessment ; Reproducibility of Results ; Research Design ; United States ; Uterine Cervical Neoplasms - diagnosis</subject><ispartof>Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers &amp; prevention, 1998-10, Vol.7 (10), p.951-961</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9796642$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Meissner, H I</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Breen, N</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Coyne, C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Legler, J M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Green, D T</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Edwards, B K</creatorcontrib><title>Breast and cervical cancer screening interventions: an assessment of the literature</title><title>Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers &amp; prevention</title><addtitle>Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev</addtitle><description>An extensive body of intervention research to promote breast and cervical cancer screening has accumulated over the last three decades, but its coverage and comprehensiveness have not been assessed. We evaluated published reports of these interventions and propose a framework of critical elements for authors and researchers to use when contributing to this literature. We identified all articles describing breast and cervical cancer screening interventions published between January 1960 and May 1997 in the United States and abstracted specified critical elements in the broad areas of: (a) needs assessment; (b) intervention study design; and (c) analysis methods and study outcomes from each article using a template developed for that purpose. Fifty-eight studies met our criteria for inclusion. Thirty-eight focused exclusively on breast cancer screening, 7 promoted cervical cancer screening, and 13 were designed to promote screening for both cancers. The amount of detail reported varied among the 58 studies. All studies reported the outcome measures used to assess the effectiveness of the intervention, yet only 40% of the studies reported the investigators' original hypotheses or research questions. Needs assessment data were reported in 84% of the studies. Data sources ranged from national surveys to local intervention baseline surveys. Population characteristics reported also varied, with most studies reporting age and race of the study population (78 and 71%, respectively), and fewer studies reporting income and education (53 and 38%, respectively). As the field of behavioral intervention research progressed, we found that more recent studies included and reported many of the parameters we had identified as critical. If this trend continues, it will enhance the reproducibility of studies, enable comparisons between interventions, and provide a reference point for measuring progress in this area. To facilitate this trend toward uniform reporting, we propose an evaluative framework of critical elements for authors to use when developing and reporting their research. The comprehensive assessment of literature that this article provides should be useful background to investigators planning and reporting cancer control interventions, to funding agencies choosing and guiding quality research, and to publishers to help them enhance the quality and utility of their publications.</description><subject>Breast Neoplasms - diagnosis</subject><subject>Data Interpretation, Statistical</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Mass Screening - methods</subject><subject>Mass Screening - standards</subject><subject>Needs Assessment</subject><subject>Reproducibility of Results</subject><subject>Research Design</subject><subject>United States</subject><subject>Uterine Cervical Neoplasms - diagnosis</subject><issn>1055-9965</issn><issn>1538-7755</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1998</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNotkE1LxDAURYso4zj6E4SsdFVImknSuNPBLxhwoa7Da_o6jbTpmKSK_97AzOpd3jncxT0plkzwulRKiNOcqRCl1lKcFxcxflFKlRZiUSy00lKuq2Xx_hAQYiLgW2Ix_DgLA7HgcybRBkTv_I44nzJDn9zk412WCcSIMY75RaaOpB7J4LIDaQ54WZx1MES8Ot5V8fn0-LF5Kbdvz6-b-23ZV7xOpbBWou2qdQMUaKOU1KxtKsUZIErZVEytQdRd1QK3uqlrq5hWtmUcOqxR8FVxc-jdh-l7xpjM6KLFYQCP0xyNopQpoWQWr4_i3IzYmn1wI4Q_c1wh89sD792u_3UBzWGBgBEh2N4ow6jRgvF_mTlpKg</recordid><startdate>19981001</startdate><enddate>19981001</enddate><creator>Meissner, H I</creator><creator>Breen, N</creator><creator>Coyne, C</creator><creator>Legler, J M</creator><creator>Green, D T</creator><creator>Edwards, B K</creator><general>American Association for Cancer Research</general><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>19981001</creationdate><title>Breast and cervical cancer screening interventions: an assessment of the literature</title><author>Meissner, H I ; Breen, N ; Coyne, C ; Legler, J M ; Green, D T ; Edwards, B K</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-h238t-5cc6ecf24ba0a0b77691db2731aee66b2174a58f2da3c9b88c7197cd13afe8e53</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1998</creationdate><topic>Breast Neoplasms - diagnosis</topic><topic>Data Interpretation, Statistical</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Mass Screening - methods</topic><topic>Mass Screening - standards</topic><topic>Needs Assessment</topic><topic>Reproducibility of Results</topic><topic>Research Design</topic><topic>United States</topic><topic>Uterine Cervical Neoplasms - diagnosis</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Meissner, H I</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Breen, N</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Coyne, C</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Legler, J M</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Green, D T</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Edwards, B K</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers &amp; prevention</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Meissner, H I</au><au>Breen, N</au><au>Coyne, C</au><au>Legler, J M</au><au>Green, D T</au><au>Edwards, B K</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Breast and cervical cancer screening interventions: an assessment of the literature</atitle><jtitle>Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers &amp; prevention</jtitle><addtitle>Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev</addtitle><date>1998-10-01</date><risdate>1998</risdate><volume>7</volume><issue>10</issue><spage>951</spage><epage>961</epage><pages>951-961</pages><issn>1055-9965</issn><eissn>1538-7755</eissn><abstract>An extensive body of intervention research to promote breast and cervical cancer screening has accumulated over the last three decades, but its coverage and comprehensiveness have not been assessed. We evaluated published reports of these interventions and propose a framework of critical elements for authors and researchers to use when contributing to this literature. We identified all articles describing breast and cervical cancer screening interventions published between January 1960 and May 1997 in the United States and abstracted specified critical elements in the broad areas of: (a) needs assessment; (b) intervention study design; and (c) analysis methods and study outcomes from each article using a template developed for that purpose. Fifty-eight studies met our criteria for inclusion. Thirty-eight focused exclusively on breast cancer screening, 7 promoted cervical cancer screening, and 13 were designed to promote screening for both cancers. The amount of detail reported varied among the 58 studies. All studies reported the outcome measures used to assess the effectiveness of the intervention, yet only 40% of the studies reported the investigators' original hypotheses or research questions. Needs assessment data were reported in 84% of the studies. Data sources ranged from national surveys to local intervention baseline surveys. Population characteristics reported also varied, with most studies reporting age and race of the study population (78 and 71%, respectively), and fewer studies reporting income and education (53 and 38%, respectively). As the field of behavioral intervention research progressed, we found that more recent studies included and reported many of the parameters we had identified as critical. If this trend continues, it will enhance the reproducibility of studies, enable comparisons between interventions, and provide a reference point for measuring progress in this area. To facilitate this trend toward uniform reporting, we propose an evaluative framework of critical elements for authors to use when developing and reporting their research. The comprehensive assessment of literature that this article provides should be useful background to investigators planning and reporting cancer control interventions, to funding agencies choosing and guiding quality research, and to publishers to help them enhance the quality and utility of their publications.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>American Association for Cancer Research</pub><pmid>9796642</pmid><tpages>11</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1055-9965
ispartof Cancer epidemiology, biomarkers & prevention, 1998-10, Vol.7 (10), p.951-961
issn 1055-9965
1538-7755
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_70017576
source MEDLINE; American Association for Cancer Research; EZB-FREE-00999 freely available EZB journals
subjects Breast Neoplasms - diagnosis
Data Interpretation, Statistical
Female
Humans
Mass Screening - methods
Mass Screening - standards
Needs Assessment
Reproducibility of Results
Research Design
United States
Uterine Cervical Neoplasms - diagnosis
title Breast and cervical cancer screening interventions: an assessment of the literature
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-01T22%3A40%3A25IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Breast%20and%20cervical%20cancer%20screening%20interventions:%20an%20assessment%20of%20the%20literature&rft.jtitle=Cancer%20epidemiology,%20biomarkers%20&%20prevention&rft.au=Meissner,%20H%20I&rft.date=1998-10-01&rft.volume=7&rft.issue=10&rft.spage=951&rft.epage=961&rft.pages=951-961&rft.issn=1055-9965&rft.eissn=1538-7755&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E70017576%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=70017576&rft_id=info:pmid/9796642&rfr_iscdi=true