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...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Medical care 1990-11, Vol.28 (11), p.1005-1012 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , |
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 |