Home > Promising Practices > CDC COMMUNITY GUIDE: Cancer Prevention & Control, Provider-Oriented Screening Interventions: Provider Assessment & Feedback

CDC COMMUNITY GUIDE: Cancer Prevention & Control, Provider-Oriented Screening Interventions: Provider Assessment & Feedback

CDC

An Evidence-Based Practice

Description

Provider assessment and feedback interventions both evaluate provider performance in delivering or offering screening to clients (assessment) and present providers with information about their performance in providing screening services (feedback). Feedback may describe the performance of a group of providers (e.g., mean performance for a practice) or an individual provider, and may be compared with a goal or standard.

The Community Preventive Services Task Force recommends provider assessment and feedback interventions on the basis of sufficient evidence of effectiveness in increasing screening for breast cancer (mammography), cervical cancer (Pap test), and colorectal cancer (FOBT).

Goal / Mission

To promote screening of breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers in community and healthcare settings.

Impact

Provider assessment and feedback can improve the delivery of recommended cancer screenings in relationship to other elements of the specific health care system.

Results / Accomplishments

Results from the Systematic Reviews:
This review included nine studies.
• Screening for breast, cervical or colorectal cancer: median increase of 13.0 percentage points (interquartile interval [IQI]: 11.5 to 30.5 percentage points).
-Completed breast cancer screening by mammography: estimated effects ranged from a 3.4 to 20.6 percentage point increase (4 study arms)
-Completed cervical screening by Pap test: estimated effects ranged from a 4.0 to 29.5 percentage point increase (4 study arms)
-Completed colorectal screening by FOBT: estimated effects ranged from a 12.3 to 23.0 percentage point increase (3 study arms)
• The recommendation to increase screening for breast and cervical cancer as well as colorectal cancer (through FOBT) should be applicable across various settings and provider training status may be related to magnitude of effect.

About this Promising Practice

Primary Contact
The Community Guide
1600 Clifton Rd, NE
MS E69
Atlanta, GA 30329
(404) 498-1827
communityguide@cdc.gov
http://www.thecommunityguide.org/index.html
Topics
Health / Cancer
Source
Community Guide Branch Epidemiology and Analysis Program Office, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Location
USA
For more details
http://www.thecommunityguide.org/cancer/screening/...
Target Audience
Adults

Related Promising Practices

  1. Cancer Screening: One-on-One Education for Clients – Colorectal Cancer
  2. CDC COMMUNITY GUIDE: Cancer Screening: One-on-One Education for Clients – Breast Cancer
  3. CDC COMMUNITY GUIDE: Cancer Prevention & Control, Client-Oriented Screening Interventions: Reducing Structural Barriers: Breast Cancer
  4. CDC COMMUNITY GUIDE: Cancer Prevention & Control, Client-Oriented Screening Interventions: Reducing Structural Barriers: Cervical Cancer
  5. CDC COMMUNITY GUIDE: Cancer Prevention & Control, Client-Oriented Screening Interventions: Reducing Structural Barriers: Colorectal Cancer
  6. Increased Medicaid Reimbursements to Enhance Breast/Cervical Cancer Screening Project

More

Related Content for: CDC COMMUNITY GUIDE: Cancer Prevention & Control, Provider-Oriented Screening Interventions: Provider Assessment & Feedback

An Evidence-Based Practice meets the following HCI criteria:

  1. The program description includes at a minimum: the sponsoring organization, program goals, program implementation steps, and outcomes that have demonstrated program success in achieving the program goal in one or more localities.
  2. The results from an evaluation of the program include quantitative measures showing improvement in the outcome(s) of interest after the implementation of the program (i.e. increase in smoking cessation, not just the delivery of a smoking cessation program). The outcome measure(s) is/are compared at relevant time periods before and after the intervention or program implementation. Alternatively, the evaluation study compares the outcome(s) between an intervention group and an appropriate control group.
  3. The study is of peer-review quality and presents numbers in a scientific manner; measurements of precision and reliability are included (e.g. confidence intervals, standard errors), results from statistical tests show a significant difference or change in the outcome measure(s), and relevant point estimates and p-values are presented. Note: if the results from an evaluation of a program are presented in a scientific manner and the outcome measure is improved compared to the baseline measurement or the control group but the difference is not statistically significant, the practice is classified as effective and not evidence-based.