Utility of routine data sources for feedback on the quality of cancer care: an assessment based on clinical practice guidelines

Background Not all cancer patients receive state-of-the-art care and providing regular feedback to clinicians might reduce this problem. The purpose of this study was to assess the utility of various data sources in providing feedback on the quality of cancer care. Methods Published clinical practice guidelines were used to obtain a list of processes-of-care of interest to clinicians. These were assigned to one of four data categories according to their availability and the marginal cost of using them for feedback. Results Only 8 (3%) of 243 processes-of-care could be measured using population-based registry or administrative inpatient data (lowest cost). A further 119 (49%) could be measured using a core clinical registry, which contains information on important prognostic factors (e.g., clinical stage, physiological reserve, hormone-receptor status). Another 88 (36%) required an expanded clinical registry or medical record review; mainly because they concerned long-term management of disease progression (recurrences and metastases) and 28 (11.5%) required patient interview or audio-taping of consultations because they involved information sharing between clinician and patient. Conclusion The advantages of population-based cancer registries and administrative inpatient data are wide coverage and low cost. The disadvantage is that they currently contain information on only a few processes-of-care. In most jurisdictions, clinical cancer registries, which can be used to report on many more processes-of-care, do not cover smaller hospitals. If we are to provide feedback about all patients, not just those in larger academic hospitals with the most developed data systems, then we need to develop sustainable population-based data systems that capture information on prognostic factors at the time of initial diagnosis and information on management of disease progression

Improving adherence to surveillance and screening recommendations for people with colorectal cancer and their first degree relatives: a randomized controlled trial

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Colorectal cancer (CRC) is among the leading causes of cancer-related morbidity and mortality worldwide. Despite clinical practice guidelines to guide surveillance care for those who have completed treatment for this disease as well as screening for first degree relatives of people with CRC, the level of uptake of these recommendations remains uncertain. If outcomes for both patients and their families are to be improved, it is important to establish systematic and cost-effective interventions to improve adherence to guideline recommendations for CRC surveillance and screening.</p> <p>Methods/Design</p> <p>A randomized controlled trial will be used to test the effectiveness of a print-based intervention to improve adherence to colonoscopy surveillance among people with CRC and adherence to CRC screening recommendations among their first degree relatives (FDRs). People diagnosed with CRC in the past 10 months will be recruited through a population-based cancer registry. Consenting participants will be asked if their first degree relatives might also be willing to participate in the trial. Information on family history of CRC will be obtained from patients at baseline. Patients and their families will be randomized to either minimal ethical care or the print-based intervention. The print-based intervention for FDRs will be tailored to the participant's level of risk of CRC as determined by the self-reported family history assessment. Follow up data on surveillance and screening participation will be collected from patients and their FDRs respectively at 12, 24 and 36 months' post recruitment. The primary analyses will relate to comparing levels of guideline adherence in usual care group versus print-based group in the patient sample and the FDR sample respectively.</p> <p>Discussion</p> <p>Results of this study will provide contribute to the evidence base about effective strategies to a) improve adherence to surveillance recommendation for people with CRC; and b) improve adherence to screening recommendation for FDRs of people with CRC. The use of a population-based cancer registry to access the target population may have significant advantages in increasing the reach of the intervention.</p> <p>Trial registration</p> <p>This trial is registered with the Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry Registration Number (ACTRN): <a href="http://www.anzctr.org.au/ACTRN12609000628246">ACTRN12609000628246</a>.</p

Socio-demographic factors drive regional differences in participation in the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program – An ecological analysis

© 2017 The Authors Objective: To examine if geographic variations in the participation rates in the National Bowel Cancer Screening Program (NBCSP) are related to population-level socio-demographic characteristics. Methods: Data reflecting participation in the NBCSP for 504 Local Government Areas (LGAs) between July 2011 and June 2013 were extracted from the Social Health Atlas of Australia. Logistic regression models were used to examine independent associations (odds ratios [ORs]) between participation, Remoteness Area (RA) and selected socio-demographic variables. Results: Compared to the participation rate for major cities (33.4%), participation was significantly higher in inner regional areas (36.5%, OR=1.15), but was much lower in remote (27.9%, OR=0.77) or very remote areas (25.0%, OR=0.65). When controlling for study period, gender, proportion of persons aged 65 years and older, Indigenous status, cultural background and socioeconomic status, significantly higher rates were observed in all non-metropolitan areas than in major cities. Indigenous status was strongly related to the poorer participation in remote areas. Conclusions: Socio-demographic characteristics, particularly Indigenous status, cultural background and population ageing, seem to be more important drivers of regional disparities in NBCSP participation than geographic remoteness. Implications for public health: This study provides important evidence to understand the regional disparities in participating in the national screening program

Behavioural and demographic predictors of adherence to three consecutive faecal occult blood test screening opportunities: a population study

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.Background Social cognitive variables are often examined for their association with initial participation in colorectal cancer screening. Few studies have examined the association of these variables with adherence to multiple screening offers i.e., rescreening. This study aimed to describe patterns of participatory behaviour after three rounds of screening using faecal immunochemical tests (FIT) and to determine social cognitive, demographic and background variables predictive of variations in adherence. Methods Participants were 1,540 men and women aged 50 to 75 living in South Australia who completed a behavioural survey measuring demographic (for example, age, gender) and social cognitive variables relevant to FIT screening (for example, perceived barriers, benefits, self-efficacy). The survey was followed by three, free FIT screening offers mailed on an annual basis from 2008 to 2010. Patterns of participation after three screening rounds were described as one of five screening behaviours; 1) consistent re-participation (adherent with all screening rounds), 2) consistent refusal (adherent with no screening rounds), 3) drop out (adherent with earlier but not later rounds), 4) intermittent re-participation (adherent with alternate rounds) and 5) delayed entry (adherent with later but not initial round(s)). Univariate (Chi Square and Analysis of Variance) and multivariate (Generalised Estimating Equations) analyses were conducted to determine variables predictive of each category of non-adherence (those that did not participate in every screening offer, groups 2, 3, 4 and 5) relative to consistent re-participation. Results Significant social cognitive predictors of non-adherence were; less self-efficacy (drop out and consistent refusal), greater perceived barriers (drop out) and lower levels of response efficacy (consistent refusal). Demographic predictors of non-adherence included; male gender (delayed entry), younger age (intermittent, delayed and consistent refusal), less frequent GP visits (intermittent re-participation) and lack of adequate health insurance (drop out). Less satisfaction with screening at baseline predicted drop out, consistent refusal and delayed entry. Conclusions Different combinations of demographic and behavioural variables predicted different patterns of rescreening adherence. Rescreening interventions may benefit from a targeted approach that considers the different needs of the population subgroups. Satisfaction with past FOBT screening measured prior to the study screening offers was an important predictor of adherence

Reliability of collecting colorectal cancer stage information from pathology reports and general practitioners in Queensland.

Objective: To investigate the reliability of\ud collecting colorectal stage information from\ud pathology reports and general practitioners\ud in Queensland, Australia.-----\ud Methods: A longitudinal study of colorectal\ud cancer survivors conducted in 2003 and\ud 2004 (n=1966, response rate=57%)\ud obtained stage information from clinical\ud specialists (n=1334), general practitioners\ud (GP) (n=1417) and by extracting stage\ud from pathology reports (n=1484). Reliability\ud of stage information was determined by\ud comparing stage from GPs and pathology\ud reports with that reported by the clinical\ud specialists, using a weighted kappa.-----\ud Results: GPs and pathology reports each\ud had a similar level of agreement with\ud clinical specialists, with kappa scores of\ud 0.77 (0.75-0.80) (n=1042) and 0.78 (0.75-\ud 0.81) (n=1152), respectively. Results were\ud similar when restricting to records staged\ud by all three methods (n=847). GPs had\ud similar levels of agreement with clinical\ud specialists within each stage, although\ud pathology reports tended to under-stage\ud patients in Stage D (0.37). Collapsing\ud stage into two categories (A or B, C or D)\ud increased the reliability estimates from the\ud pathology reports to 0.91 (0.88-0.93), but\ud there was little change in GP estimates\ud 0.79 (0.75-0.83).-----\ud Conclusions: Extractions from pathology\ud reports are a valid source of broad stage\ud information for colorectal cancer.\ud Implications: In the absence of clinical\ud stage data, access to pathology records by\ud population-based cancer registries enables\ud a more accurate assessment of survival\ud inequalities in colorectal cancer survival