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.
|Clark, Cheryl R; Tosteson, Tor D; Tosteson, Anna N A et al. (2017) Diffusion of digital breast tomosynthesis among women in primary care: associations with insurance type. Cancer Med 6:1102-1107|
|Haas, Jennifer S; Baer, Heather J; Eibensteiner, Katyuska et al. (2017) A Cluster Randomized Trial of a Personalized Multi-Condition Risk Assessment in Primary Care. Am J Prev Med 52:100-105|
|Rutter, Carolyn M; Kim, Jane J; Meester, Reinier G S et al. (2017) Effect of Time to Diagnostic Testing for Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancer Screening Abnormalities on Screening Efficacy: A Modeling Study. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev :|
|Weiss, Julie E; Goodrich, Martha; Harris, Kimberly A et al. (2017) Challenges With Identifying Indication for Examination in Breast Imaging as a Key Clinical Attribute in Practice, Research, and Policy. J Am Coll Radiol 14:198-207.e2|
|Onega, Tracy; Haas, Jennifer S; Bitton, Asaf et al. (2017) Alignment of breast cancer screening guidelines, accountability metrics, and practice patterns. Am J Manag Care 23:35-40|
|Haas, Jennifer S; Barlow, William E; Schapira, Marilyn M et al. (2017) Primary Care Providers' Beliefs and Recommendations and Use of Screening Mammography by their Patients. J Gen Intern Med 32:449-457|
|Sprague, Brian L; Conant, Emily F; Onega, Tracy et al. (2016) Variation in Mammographic Breast Density Assessments Among Radiologists in Clinical Practice: A Multicenter Observational Study. Ann Intern Med 165:457-464|
|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|
|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|
|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|
Showing the most recent 10 out of 28 publications