Three Strategies to Promote Cancer Screening: How Feasible Is Wide-Scale Implementation?

Many studies have tested the efficacy of intervention strategies for improving physicians' performance of cancer screening tests. Less attention has been paid to the feasibility of strategy implementation. Three important dimensions of feasibility are acceptability to the targeted audience, log...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Medical care 1990-11, Vol.28 (11), p.1005-1012
Hauptverfasser: Bird, Joyce Adair, McPhee, Stephen J., Jenkins, Christopher, Fordham, Don
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 1012
container_issue 11
container_start_page 1005
container_title Medical care
container_volume 28
creator Bird, Joyce Adair
McPhee, Stephen J.
Jenkins, Christopher
Fordham, Don
description Many studies have tested the efficacy of intervention strategies for improving physicians' performance of cancer screening tests. Less attention has been paid to the feasibility of strategy implementation. Three important dimensions of feasibility are acceptability to the targeted audience, logistical difficulties, and cost and cost-effectiveness. We assessed the relative feasibility along these dimensions of three intervention strategies shown previously to be efficacious among 62 internal medicine resident physicians. Two strategies, medical record audit with feedback and computerized cancer screening reminders were aimed at physicians directly, and one, patient education, indirectly through their patients. While all three interventions were acceptable to the physicians, implementation of the audit with feedback intervention was logistically more difficult and more costly than either the cancer screening reminders or patient education interventions. The average cost per additional screening test (beyond the number that would have been performed without intervention) was $50.40 for audit with feedback, $18.19 for cancer screening reminders, and $51.20 for patient education. Overall, the cancer screening reminder intervention was the most feasible of the three strategies.
doi_str_mv 10.1097/00005650-199011000-00003
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_80149654</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>3765213</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>3765213</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c2363-ff17ccdfd23c1ca8bba6b9a2acacdad9a7824e54e2b6f95d8248b249c17caeac3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kV9r2zAUxcXo6LJ232ADPfXNq_5YtrWXUUKzBgorpGV7E9fydeLMtlJJIezbV2nSvFUv4px7fldwRAjl7Dtnurxm6ahCsYxrzThPKttb8gOZcCXLZOfVGZkwJlRWslJ_Ip9DWDPGS6nEOTkXQrG8qibk7-PKI9JF9BBx2WGg0dEH7wYXkU5htOjpwqbI2I3LH_TO7egMIXR1j3Qe6J-uwWxhYa-GTY8DjhFi58afl-RjC33AL8f7gjzNbh-nd9n971_z6c19ZoUsZNa2vLS2aRshLbdQ1TUUtQYBFmwDjYayEjmqHEVdtFo1SVW1yLVNGCBYeUGuDns33j1vMUQzdMFi38OIbhtMxXiuC5WnYHUIWu9C8Niaje8G8P8NZ2Zfqnkr1ZxKfbVkQr8d39jWAzYn8NhimueH-c71EX3412936M0KoY8r895fJezrAVuH6PxpqywLJbiUL38mi_s</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>80149654</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Three Strategies to Promote Cancer Screening: How Feasible Is Wide-Scale Implementation?</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Journals@Ovid Complete</source><source>JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing</source><creator>Bird, Joyce Adair ; McPhee, Stephen J. ; Jenkins, Christopher ; Fordham, Don</creator><creatorcontrib>Bird, Joyce Adair ; McPhee, Stephen J. ; Jenkins, Christopher ; Fordham, Don</creatorcontrib><description>Many studies have tested the efficacy of intervention strategies for improving physicians' performance of cancer screening tests. Less attention has been paid to the feasibility of strategy implementation. Three important dimensions of feasibility are acceptability to the targeted audience, logistical difficulties, and cost and cost-effectiveness. We assessed the relative feasibility along these dimensions of three intervention strategies shown previously to be efficacious among 62 internal medicine resident physicians. Two strategies, medical record audit with feedback and computerized cancer screening reminders were aimed at physicians directly, and one, patient education, indirectly through their patients. While all three interventions were acceptable to the physicians, implementation of the audit with feedback intervention was logistically more difficult and more costly than either the cancer screening reminders or patient education interventions. The average cost per additional screening test (beyond the number that would have been performed without intervention) was $50.40 for audit with feedback, $18.19 for cancer screening reminders, and $51.20 for patient education. Overall, the cancer screening reminder intervention was the most feasible of the three strategies.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0025-7079</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1537-1948</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1097/00005650-199011000-00003</identifier><identifier>PMID: 2250488</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: J. B. Lippincott Co</publisher><subject>Administrative expenses ; Attitude of Health Personnel ; Average cost ; Cancer screening ; Costs and Cost Analysis ; Feasibility Studies ; Female ; Humans ; Internal medicine ; Internship and Residency ; Male ; Mammography ; Mass Screening - economics ; Mass Screening - methods ; Medical Audit ; Medical audits ; Medical Records ; Neoplasms - diagnosis ; Neoplasms - epidemiology ; Patient Acceptance of Health Care ; Patient education ; Patient Education as Topic ; Physicians ; San Francisco ; Screening tests</subject><ispartof>Medical care, 1990-11, Vol.28 (11), p.1005-1012</ispartof><rights>Copyright 1990 J. B. Lippincott Company</rights><rights>Lippincott-Raven Publishers.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/3765213$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/3765213$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,803,27924,27925,58017,58250</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2250488$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Bird, Joyce Adair</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McPhee, Stephen J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jenkins, Christopher</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fordham, Don</creatorcontrib><title>Three Strategies to Promote Cancer Screening: How Feasible Is Wide-Scale Implementation?</title><title>Medical care</title><addtitle>Med Care</addtitle><description>Many studies have tested the efficacy of intervention strategies for improving physicians' performance of cancer screening tests. Less attention has been paid to the feasibility of strategy implementation. Three important dimensions of feasibility are acceptability to the targeted audience, logistical difficulties, and cost and cost-effectiveness. We assessed the relative feasibility along these dimensions of three intervention strategies shown previously to be efficacious among 62 internal medicine resident physicians. Two strategies, medical record audit with feedback and computerized cancer screening reminders were aimed at physicians directly, and one, patient education, indirectly through their patients. While all three interventions were acceptable to the physicians, implementation of the audit with feedback intervention was logistically more difficult and more costly than either the cancer screening reminders or patient education interventions. The average cost per additional screening test (beyond the number that would have been performed without intervention) was $50.40 for audit with feedback, $18.19 for cancer screening reminders, and $51.20 for patient education. Overall, the cancer screening reminder intervention was the most feasible of the three strategies.</description><subject>Administrative expenses</subject><subject>Attitude of Health Personnel</subject><subject>Average cost</subject><subject>Cancer screening</subject><subject>Costs and Cost Analysis</subject><subject>Feasibility Studies</subject><subject>Female</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Internal medicine</subject><subject>Internship and Residency</subject><subject>Male</subject><subject>Mammography</subject><subject>Mass Screening - economics</subject><subject>Mass Screening - methods</subject><subject>Medical Audit</subject><subject>Medical audits</subject><subject>Medical Records</subject><subject>Neoplasms - diagnosis</subject><subject>Neoplasms - epidemiology</subject><subject>Patient Acceptance of Health Care</subject><subject>Patient education</subject><subject>Patient Education as Topic</subject><subject>Physicians</subject><subject>San Francisco</subject><subject>Screening tests</subject><issn>0025-7079</issn><issn>1537-1948</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1990</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kV9r2zAUxcXo6LJ232ADPfXNq_5YtrWXUUKzBgorpGV7E9fydeLMtlJJIezbV2nSvFUv4px7fldwRAjl7Dtnurxm6ahCsYxrzThPKttb8gOZcCXLZOfVGZkwJlRWslJ_Ip9DWDPGS6nEOTkXQrG8qibk7-PKI9JF9BBx2WGg0dEH7wYXkU5htOjpwqbI2I3LH_TO7egMIXR1j3Qe6J-uwWxhYa-GTY8DjhFi58afl-RjC33AL8f7gjzNbh-nd9n971_z6c19ZoUsZNa2vLS2aRshLbdQ1TUUtQYBFmwDjYayEjmqHEVdtFo1SVW1yLVNGCBYeUGuDns33j1vMUQzdMFi38OIbhtMxXiuC5WnYHUIWu9C8Niaje8G8P8NZ2Zfqnkr1ZxKfbVkQr8d39jWAzYn8NhimueH-c71EX3412936M0KoY8r895fJezrAVuH6PxpqywLJbiUL38mi_s</recordid><startdate>199011</startdate><enddate>199011</enddate><creator>Bird, Joyce Adair</creator><creator>McPhee, Stephen J.</creator><creator>Jenkins, Christopher</creator><creator>Fordham, Don</creator><general>J. B. Lippincott Co</general><general>Lippincott-Raven Publishers</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>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>199011</creationdate><title>Three Strategies to Promote Cancer Screening: How Feasible Is Wide-Scale Implementation?</title><author>Bird, Joyce Adair ; McPhee, Stephen J. ; Jenkins, Christopher ; Fordham, Don</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c2363-ff17ccdfd23c1ca8bba6b9a2acacdad9a7824e54e2b6f95d8248b249c17caeac3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1990</creationdate><topic>Administrative expenses</topic><topic>Attitude of Health Personnel</topic><topic>Average cost</topic><topic>Cancer screening</topic><topic>Costs and Cost Analysis</topic><topic>Feasibility Studies</topic><topic>Female</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Internal medicine</topic><topic>Internship and Residency</topic><topic>Male</topic><topic>Mammography</topic><topic>Mass Screening - economics</topic><topic>Mass Screening - methods</topic><topic>Medical Audit</topic><topic>Medical audits</topic><topic>Medical Records</topic><topic>Neoplasms - diagnosis</topic><topic>Neoplasms - epidemiology</topic><topic>Patient Acceptance of Health Care</topic><topic>Patient education</topic><topic>Patient Education as Topic</topic><topic>Physicians</topic><topic>San Francisco</topic><topic>Screening tests</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Bird, Joyce Adair</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>McPhee, Stephen J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Jenkins, Christopher</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Fordham, Don</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Medical care</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Bird, Joyce Adair</au><au>McPhee, Stephen J.</au><au>Jenkins, Christopher</au><au>Fordham, Don</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Three Strategies to Promote Cancer Screening: How Feasible Is Wide-Scale Implementation?</atitle><jtitle>Medical care</jtitle><addtitle>Med Care</addtitle><date>1990-11</date><risdate>1990</risdate><volume>28</volume><issue>11</issue><spage>1005</spage><epage>1012</epage><pages>1005-1012</pages><issn>0025-7079</issn><eissn>1537-1948</eissn><abstract>Many studies have tested the efficacy of intervention strategies for improving physicians' performance of cancer screening tests. Less attention has been paid to the feasibility of strategy implementation. Three important dimensions of feasibility are acceptability to the targeted audience, logistical difficulties, and cost and cost-effectiveness. We assessed the relative feasibility along these dimensions of three intervention strategies shown previously to be efficacious among 62 internal medicine resident physicians. Two strategies, medical record audit with feedback and computerized cancer screening reminders were aimed at physicians directly, and one, patient education, indirectly through their patients. While all three interventions were acceptable to the physicians, implementation of the audit with feedback intervention was logistically more difficult and more costly than either the cancer screening reminders or patient education interventions. The average cost per additional screening test (beyond the number that would have been performed without intervention) was $50.40 for audit with feedback, $18.19 for cancer screening reminders, and $51.20 for patient education. Overall, the cancer screening reminder intervention was the most feasible of the three strategies.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>J. B. Lippincott Co</pub><pmid>2250488</pmid><doi>10.1097/00005650-199011000-00003</doi><tpages>8</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0025-7079
ispartof Medical care, 1990-11, Vol.28 (11), p.1005-1012
issn 0025-7079
1537-1948
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_80149654
source MEDLINE; Journals@Ovid Complete; JSTOR Archive Collection A-Z Listing
subjects Administrative expenses
Attitude of Health Personnel
Average cost
Cancer screening
Costs and Cost Analysis
Feasibility Studies
Female
Humans
Internal medicine
Internship and Residency
Male
Mammography
Mass Screening - economics
Mass Screening - methods
Medical Audit
Medical audits
Medical Records
Neoplasms - diagnosis
Neoplasms - epidemiology
Patient Acceptance of Health Care
Patient education
Patient Education as Topic
Physicians
San Francisco
Screening tests
title Three Strategies to Promote Cancer Screening: How Feasible Is Wide-Scale Implementation?
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-29T13%3A44%3A53IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Three%20Strategies%20to%20Promote%20Cancer%20Screening:%20How%20Feasible%20Is%20Wide-Scale%20Implementation?&rft.jtitle=Medical%20care&rft.au=Bird,%20Joyce%20Adair&rft.date=1990-11&rft.volume=28&rft.issue=11&rft.spage=1005&rft.epage=1012&rft.pages=1005-1012&rft.issn=0025-7079&rft.eissn=1537-1948&rft_id=info:doi/10.1097/00005650-199011000-00003&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E3765213%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=80149654&rft_id=info:pmid/2250488&rft_jstor_id=3765213&rfr_iscdi=true