scholarly journals Implementing cancer-screening programs by training primary care physicians in India – Findings from the National Institute of Cancer Prevention Research Project ECHO for Cancer Prevention

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Prajakta Adsul ◽  
Suzanne Tanya Nethan ◽  
Sasha Herbst deCortina ◽  
Kavitha Dhanasekaran ◽  
Roopa Hariprasad
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Cancer Prevention ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Prevention Research ◽  
Knowledge And Skills ◽  
Screening Programs ◽  
Project Echo ◽  
Screening Services ◽  
The Impact

Abstract BackgroundIn an effort to address the growing cancer burden, the Government of India introduced a national program for screening and prevention of the most common cancers (oral, breast, and cervical) in 2016. To support the screening program, the National Institute for Cancer Prevention Research (NICPR) adopted the Project ECHO (Extension for Community Healthcare Outcomes) model for training health care providers in cancer screening. Very few studies examine the impact of the ECHO model on provider behavior or health outcomes related to cancer screening. We assess the change in knowledge and, skills among primary care physicians attending NICPR ECHO trainings and the impact of the training program on the implementation of cancer screening services.MethodsPrior to the start of the online phase and upon completion of the 14 weeks, trainees answered a 23-item questionnaire (administered online via SurveyMonkey). We conducted a descriptive and bivariate analysis of the pre-post assessments conducted on trainees participating in the online phase and where available report on the weekly quizzes and the hands-on workshop assessments.ResultsSix hundred forty-one medical officers have participated in the trainings, across nine cohorts of trainees and this study presents data from 116 primary care physicians that completed both the pre- and post-assessments, trained from May 2019 to February 2020. Almost two-thirds had completed medical training (MD equivalent) (69.7%) and 85% were working in government healthcare facilities. Trainees reported statistically significant improvements before and after the online phase, when queried specifically on knowledge and skills using visual vignettes about oral and cervical cancer screening. Trainees did not report significant changes in the provision of cancer-screening services after completing the program. ConclusionsStudy findings support the effectiveness of the training program in reaching primary care physicians across the country and improving their knowledge and skills related to screening for breast, oral, and cervical cancer. After the training, very few primary care physicians mentioned implementing cancer screening services highlighting barriers that require further study and development of complementary implementation strategies. Study findings could inform the development and refinement of training for cancer-screening programs in low- and middle-income countries.

scholarly journals The impact of personalized clinical decision support on primary care patients’ views of cancer prevention and screening: a cross-sectional survey

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel M. Saman ◽  
Ella A. Chrenka ◽  
Melissa L. Harry ◽  
Clayton I. Allen ◽  
Laura A. Freitag ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Decision Support ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Cancer Prevention ◽  
Weight Management ◽  
Clinical Decision Support ◽  
Clinical Decision ◽  
Cross Sectional Survey ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Background Few studies have assessed the impact of clinical decision support (CDS), with or without shared decision-making tools (SDMTs), on patients’ perceptions of cancer screening or prevention in primary care settings. This cross-sectional survey was conducted to understand primary care patient’s perceptions on cancer screening or prevention. Methods We mailed surveys (10/2018–1/2019) to 749 patients aged 18 to 75 years within 15 days after an index clinical encounter at 36 primary care clinics participating in a clinic-randomized control trial of a CDS system for cancer prevention. All patients were overdue for cancer screening or human papillomavirus vaccination. The survey compared respondents’ answers by study arm: usual care; CDS; or CDS + SDMT. Results Of 387 respondents (52% response rate), 73% reported having enough time to discuss cancer prevention options with their primary care provider (PCP), 64% reported their PCP explained the benefits of the cancer screening choice very well, and 32% of obese patients reported discussing weight management, with two-thirds reporting selecting a weight management intervention. Usual care respondents were significantly more likely to decide on colorectal cancer screening than CDS respondents (p < 0.01), and on tobacco cessation than CDS + SDMT respondents (p = 0.02) and both CDS and CDS + SDMT respondents (p < 0.001). Conclusions Most patients reported discussing cancer prevention needs with PCPs, with few significant differences between the three study arms in patient-reported cancer prevention care. Upcoming research will assess differences in screening and vaccination rates between study arms during the post-intervention follow-up period. Trial registration clinicaltrials.gov, NCT02986230, December 6, 2016.

scholarly journals Barriers and facilitators to preventive cancer screening in Limited English Proficient (LEP) patients: Physicians’ perspectives

2014 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Kelly H. Bruce ◽  
Rebecca J. Schwei ◽  
Linda S. Park ◽  
Elizabeth A. Jacobs
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Language Proficiency ◽  
Limited English Proficient ◽  
Primary Care Physicians ◽  
Barriers And Facilitators ◽  
Structured Interviews ◽  
Simple Language ◽  
Physician Time ◽  
The Impact

Background: Limited English Proficient (LEP) patients receive fewer recommended preventive screenings than English-speaking patients. Studies have explored patients’ perceptions of the factors that contribute to this disparity, but little research has focused on physicians’ perceptions. The objective of this paper is to describe physicians’ perceptions of the barriers and facilitators to preventive cancer screening in LEP patients, based on semi-structured interviews with eight primary care physicians from Wisconsin, systematically coded to illuminate important themes. It was found that a variety of barriers specifically hinder LEP patients’ receipt of cancer screening, including poor language proficiency, lack of transportation, unfamiliarity with the concept of prevention, complex scheduling systems, poor interpretation, and limited physician time to discuss preventive care. While physicians identified many factors that facilitate preventive screening in general, they mentioned few that are perceived as specific to LEP patients. We found that primary care physicians attribute the low rates of preventive cancer screening among LEP populations to a variety of patient, provider, interpreter, and system factors, most of which go beyond simple language barriers. Interventions designed to reduce these barriers and enhance the impact of identified facilitators should be multifactorial and designed to engage primary care physicians.

scholarly journals An evaluation of the implementation of quality improvement (QI) in primary care dentistry: a multi-method approach

2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. e000839
Author(s):  
Heather Cassie ◽  
Vinay Mistry ◽  
Laura Beaton ◽  
Irene Black ◽  
Janet E Clarkson ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Quality Improvement ◽  
Case Studies ◽  
Quality Care ◽  
Theoretical Domains Framework ◽  
Team Members ◽  
Knowledge And Skills ◽  
Scottish Government ◽  
The Impact

ObjectivesEnsuring that healthcare is patient-centred, safe and harm free is the cornerstone of the NHS. The Scottish Patient Safety Programme (SPSP) is a national initiative to support the provision of safe, high-quality care. SPSP promotes a coordinated approach to quality improvement (QI) in primary care by providing evidence-based methods, such as the Institute for Healthcare Improvement’s Breakthrough Series Collaborative methodology. These methods are relatively untested within dentistry. The aim of this study was to evaluate the impact to inform the development and implementation of improvement collaboratives as a means for QI in primary care dentistry.DesignA multimethod study underpinned by the Theoretical Domains Framework and the Kirkpatrick model. Quantitative data were collected using baseline and follow-up questionnaires, designed to explore beliefs and behaviours towards improving quality in practice. Qualitative data were gathered using interviews with dental team members and practice-based case studies.ResultsOne hundred and eleven dental team members completed the baseline questionnaire. Follow-up questionnaires were returned by 79 team members. Twelve practices, including two case studies, participated in evaluation interviews. Findings identified positive beliefs and increased knowledge and skills towards QI, as well as increased confidence about using QI methodologies in practice. Barriers included time, poor patient and team engagement, communication and leadership. Facilitators included team working, clear roles, strong leadership, training, peer support and visible benefits. Participants’ knowledge and skills were identified as an area for improvement.ConclusionsFindings demonstrate increased knowledge, skills and confidence in relation to QI methodology and highlight areas for improvement. This is an example of partnership working between the Scottish Government and NHSScotland towards a shared ambition to provide safe care to every patient. More work is required to evaluate the sustainability and transferability of improvement collaboratives as a means for QI in dentistry and wider primary care.

scholarly journals Recovery strategies following COVID-19 disruption to cervical cancer screening and their impact on excess diagnoses

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alejandra Castanon ◽  
Matejka Rebolj ◽  
Francesca Pesola ◽  
Peter Sasieni
Keyword(s):  
Cervical Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Cervical Cancer Screening ◽  
Intraepithelial Neoplasia ◽  
Cervical Cancers ◽  
Screening Interval ◽  
Recovery Strategies ◽  
Screening Services ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Published Research

Abstract Background The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted cervical cancer screening services. Assuming increases to screening capacity are unrealistic, we propose two recovery strategies: one extends the screening interval by 6 months for all and the other extends the interval by 36/60 months, but only for women who have already missed being screened. Methods Using routine statistics from England we estimate the number of women affected by delays to screening. We used published research to estimate the proportion of screening age women with high-grade cervical intraepithelial neoplasia and progression rates to cancer. Under two recovery scenarios, we estimate the impact of COVID-19 on cervical cancer over one screening cycle (3 years at ages 25–49 and 5 years at ages 50–64 years). The duration of disruption in both scenarios is 6 months. In the first scenario, 10.7 million women have their screening interval extended by 6 months. In the second, 1.5 million women (those due to be screened during the disruption) miss one screening cycle, but most women have no delay. Results Both scenarios result in similar numbers of excess cervical cancers: 630 vs. 632 (both 4.3 per 100,000 women in the population). However, the scenario in which some women miss one screening cycle creates inequalities—they would have much higher rates of excess cancer: 41.5 per 100,000 delayed for screened women compared to those with a 6-month delay (5.9 per 100,000). Conclusion To ensure equity for those affected by COVID-19 related screening delays additional screening capacity will need to be paired with prioritising the screening of overdue women.

scholarly journals Acceptability, utility, and cost of an mHealth cancer screening education application for training primary care physicians in India

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sujha Subramanian ◽  
Regi Jose ◽  
Anoop Lal ◽  
Paul Augustine ◽  
Madeleine Jones ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Primary Care ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Primary Care Physicians

The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on stage at diagnosis of breast and colorectal cancers.

2021 ◽  
Vol 39 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 6501-6501
Author(s):  
Jade Zhou ◽  
Shelly Kane ◽  
Celia Ramsey ◽  
Melody Ann Akhondzadeh ◽  
Ananya Banerjee ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Colorectal Cancer ◽  
Cancer Screening ◽  
Late Stage ◽  
Stage Iv ◽  
Stage I ◽  
Screening Programs ◽  
Stage Distribution ◽  
Number Of Patients ◽  
The Impact

6501 Background: Effective cancer screening leads to a substantial increase in the detection of earlier stages of cancer, while decreasing the incidence of later stage cancer diagnoses. Timely screening programs are critical in reducing cancer-related mortality in both breast and colorectal cancer by detecting tumors at an early, curable stage. The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in the postponement or cancellation of many screening procedures, due to both patient fears of exposures within the healthcare system as well as the cancellation of some elective procedures. We sought to identify how the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the incidence of early and late stage breast and colorectal cancer diagnoses at our institution. Methods: We examined staging for all patients presenting to UCSD at first presentation for a new diagnosis of malignancy or second opinion in 2019 and 2020. Treating clinicians determined the stage at presentation for all patients using an AJCC staging module (8th edition) in the electronic medical record (Epic). We compared stage distribution at presentation in 2019 vs 2020, both for cancers overall and for colorectal and breast cancer, because these cancers are frequently detected by screening. Results: Total numbers of new patient visits for malignancy were similar in 2019 and 2020 (1894 vs 1915 pts), and stage distribution for all cancer patients was similar (stage I 32% in 2019 vs 29% in 2020; stage IV 26% in both 2019 and 2020). For patients with breast cancer, we saw a lower number of patients presenting with stage I disease (64% in 2019 vs 51% in 2020) and a higher number presenting with stage IV (2% vs 6%). Similar findings were seen in colorectal cancer (stage I: 22% vs 16%; stage IV: 6% vs 18%). Conclusions: Since the COVID-19 pandemic, there has been an increase in incidence of late stage presentation of colorectal and breast cancer, corresponding with a decrease in early stage presentation of these cancers at our institution. Cancer screening is integral to cancer prevention and control, specifically in colorectal and breast cancers which are often detected by screening, and the disruption of screening services has had a significant impact on our patients. We plan to continue following these numbers closely, and will present data from the first half of 2021 as it becomes available.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document