Dataset Information

Comparing Prognostic Tools for Cancer Screening: Considerations for Clinical Practice and Performance Assessment.

ABSTRACT: To compare the agreement and rates of cancer screening using four prognostic tools that require different types of clinical information.Observational retrospective cohort study.2009 and 2010 waves of the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey.Adults aged 66-90 with survey and claims data (N = 9,469).Agreement between four indices predicting short-term (4-5 years) and long-term (9-10 years) survival; self-reported breast and prostate cancer screening.Agreement between the four prognostic tools was high. Pearson correlation coefficients ranged from 0.63 to 0.90 for short-term survival and 0.68 to 0.94 for long-term survival. When defining limited short-term life expectancy as less than 25% chance of surviving 4 or 5 years, all four tools agreed in 96.4% of the sample. All four tools agreed in their placement of participants into limited or not-limited long-term life expectancy in 77.1% of participants (<25% chance of surviving 9 or 10 years). Rates of cancer screening were similarly high in individuals with limited long-term life expectancy regardless of the tool used: greater than 31% for mammographic screening in women and greater than 69% for prostate cancer screening.There is substantial agreement among different prognostic tools for short- and long-term survival in Medicare beneficiaries. The high rates of cancer screening of individuals with limited life expectancy suggest the importance of incorporating tools into clinical decision-making.

SUBMITTER: Pollack CE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4882245 | biostudies-literature | 2016 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Comparing Prognostic Tools for Cancer Screening: Considerations for Clinical Practice and Performance Assessment.

Pollack Craig Evan CE Blackford Amanda L AL Schoenborn Nancy L NL Boyd Cynthia M CM Peairs Kimberly S KS DuGoff Eva H EH

Journal of the American Geriatrics Society 20160430 5

<h4>Objectives</h4>To compare the agreement and rates of cancer screening using four prognostic tools that require different types of clinical information.<h4>Design</h4>Observational retrospective cohort study.<h4>Setting</h4>2009 and 2010 waves of the Medicare Current Beneficiary Survey.<h4>Participants</h4>Adults aged 66-90 with survey and claims data (N = 9,469).<h4>Measurements</h4>Agreement between four indices predicting short-term (4-5 years) and long-term (9-10 years) survival; self-rep ...[more]

PMID: 27131231

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Implementation tools (iTools) may enhance uptake of guidelines. However, little evidence exists on their use by primary care clinicians. This study explored which iTools clinicians used and how often; how satisfied clinicians were with the tools; whether tool use was associated with practice changes; and identified mediators for practice change(s) related to breast cancer screening (BCS). METHODS:Canadian primary care providers who are members of the Practice-Based Small Group Learning Program (n?=?1464) were invited to participate in this mixed methods study. An educational module was discussed in a small group learning context, and data collection included an on-line survey, practice reflection tools (PRTs), and interviews. The module included both the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care revised guideline on BCS and iTools for clinician and/or patient use. After discussing the module and at 3 months, participants completed PRTs identifying their planned practice change(s) and documenting implementation outcome(s). Use of the iTools was explored via online survey and individual interviews. RESULTS:Seventy participants agreed to participate. Of these, 48 participated in the online survey, 43 completed PRTs and 14 were interviewed. Most survey participants (77%) reported using at least one of seven tools available for implementing BCS guideline. Of these (78%) reported using more than one tool. Almost all participants used tools for clinicians (92%) and 62% also used tools for patients. As more tools were used, more practice changes were reported on the survey and PRTs. Interviews provided additional findings. Once information from an iTool was internalized, there was no further need for the tool. Participants did not use tools (23%) due to disagreements with the BCS guideline, patients' expectations, and/or experiences with diagnosis of breast cancer. CONCLUSION:This study found that clinicians use tools to implement practice changes related to BCS guideline. Tools developed for clinicians were used to understand and consolidate the recommendations before tools to be used with patients were employed to promote decision-making. Mediating factors that impacted tool use confirmed previous research. Finally, use of some iTools decreased over time because information was internalized.

Project description:A performance algorithm can be successfully used by bone density technologists at the time of a bone density test to identify patients with an indication for vertebral fracture assessment (VFA). Doing so appropriately increases physician prescription of fracture prevention medication.Densitometric spine imaging (vertebral fracture assessment, VFA) can identify prevalent vertebral fracture but is underutilized. We developed an algorithm by which DXA technologists identify patients for whom VFA should be performed. Following this algorithm, VFA was performed in patients whose lowest T-score (lumbar spine, total hip, or femoral neck) was between -1.5 and -2.4 inclusive and with one of the following: age, ≥ 65 years; height loss, ≥ 1.5 in.; or current systemic glucocorticoid therapy. Our main objectives were to assess change in VFA utilization at two other healthcare organizations after algorithm implementation, and to estimate the association of VFA results with prescription of fracture prevention medication.The proportions of patients with an indication for VFA who had one performed before and after algorithm implementation were compared. Logistic regression was used to estimate the multivariable-adjusted association of VFA results with subsequent prescription of fracture prevention medication adjusted for healthcare organization (study site).After algorithm introduction, appropriate VFA use rose significantly Patients with a VFA positive for vertebral fracture had an odds ratio of 3.2 (95 % C.I., 2.1- 5.1) for being prescribed new fracture prevention medication, adjusted for age, sex, prior clinical fracture, use of glucocorticoid medication, femoral neck bone mineral density T-score, and study site.An algorithm to identify those for whom VFA is indicated can successfully be implemented by DXA technologists. Documentation of vertebral fracture increases prescription of fracture prevention medication for patients who otherwise lack an apparent indication for such therapy.

Dataset Information

Comparing Prognostic Tools for Cancer Screening: Considerations for Clinical Practice and Performance Assessment.

Publications

Comparing Prognostic Tools for Cancer Screening: Considerations for Clinical Practice and Performance Assessment.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets