The comparative effectiveness research (CER) that we propose conducting within the New England Collaborative Breast Surveillance Network, will use registry data and modeling to advance systems-based approaches to improving the processes of care for breast cancer screening with a focus on health information technology (IT). We propose three specific aims:
Specific Aim 1 : To develop a quantitative modeling framework that depicts screening processes across clinical practice network sites and incorporates findings from Project 1 (screening process measurement and feedback) to identity high-value targets for screening process improvement.
Specific Aim 2 : To use decision-analytic methods to estimate and compare the benefits and harms of alternative breast cancer screening strategies over various age horizons for use in the risk tools that will be developed and trialed within Project 2 (personalized modules for risk).
Specific Aim 3 : To compare breast cancer screening outcomes between study sites and across time to assess the impact that care processes involving health IT have as they are disseminated within the New England Collaborative Breast Surveillance Network. We hypothesize that a limited number of key attributes of care processes can be identified that are most associated with improved screening outcomes. To achieve this aim longitudinal data obtained by the Screening Process Documentation Unit on women undergoing digital mammography will be analyzed to compare process outcomes, benefits, and harms. Secondary analyses will address digital breast tomosynthesis, an emerging technology whose regulatory approval for use in clinical practice is imminent, in comparison with digital mammography. Comparing outcomes for an emerging technology relative to digital mammography will provide early evidence on the best uses of digital breast tomosynthesis.
|Klabunde, Carrie N; Zheng, Yingye; Quinn, Virginia P et al. (2016) Influence of Age and Comorbidity on Colorectal Cancer Screening in the Elderly. Am J Prev Med 51:e67-75|
|McCarthy, Anne Marie; Kim, Jane J; Beaber, Elisabeth F et al. (2016) Follow-Up of Abnormal Breast and Colorectal Cancer Screening by Race/Ethnicity. Am J Prev Med 51:507-12|
|Conant, Emily F; Beaber, Elisabeth F; Sprague, Brian L et al. (2016) Breast cancer screening using tomosynthesis in combination with digital mammography compared to digital mammography alone: a cohort study within the PROSPR consortium. Breast Cancer Res Treat 156:109-16|
|Weiss, Julie E; Goodrich, Martha; Harris, Kimberly A et al. (2016) Challenges With Identifying Indication for Examination in Breast Imaging as a Key Clinical Attribute in Practice, Research, and Policy. J Am Coll Radiol :|
|Kim, Jane J; Tosteson, Anna Na; Zauber, Ann G et al. (2016) Cancer Models and Real-world Data: Better Together. J Natl Cancer Inst 108:|
|Tosteson, Anna N A; Beaber, Elisabeth F; Tiro, Jasmin et al. (2016) Variation in Screening Abnormality Rates and Follow-Up of Breast, Cervical and Colorectal Cancer Screening within the PROSPR Consortium. J Gen Intern Med 31:372-9|
|Haas, Jennifer S; Sprague, Brian L; Klabunde, Carrie N et al. (2016) Provider Attitudes and Screening Practices Following Changes in Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening Guidelines. J Gen Intern Med 31:52-9|
|Chen, Jane S; Sprague, Brian L; Klabunde, Carrie N et al. (2016) Take the money and run? Redemption of a gift card incentive in a clinician survey. BMC Med Res Methodol 16:25|
|Corley, Douglas A; Haas, Jennifer S; Kobrin, Sarah (2016) Reducing Variation in the "Standard of Care" for Cancer Screening: Recommendations From the PROSPR Consortium. JAMA 315:2067-8|
|Schapira, Marilyn M; Sprague, Brian L; Klabunde, Carrie N et al. (2016) Inadequate Systems to Support Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening in Primary Care Practice. J Gen Intern Med 31:1148-55|
Showing the most recent 10 out of 22 publications