Prioritizing performance and outcome indicators for quality assessment of cancer screening programs in the EU.

IF 3.9 3区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Brian Sheridan, Abyan Irzaldy, Eveline A M Heijnsdijk, Nadya Dimitrova, Carlo Senore, Partha Basu, Harry J de Koning
{"title":"Prioritizing performance and outcome indicators for quality assessment of cancer screening programs in the EU.","authors":"Brian Sheridan, Abyan Irzaldy, Eveline A M Heijnsdijk, Nadya Dimitrova, Carlo Senore, Partha Basu, Harry J de Koning","doi":"10.1016/j.puhe.2024.12.010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>A key element in ensuring appropriate balance of harms and benefits in cancer screening is to develop a priority set of performance and outcome indicators to be used in screening data evaluation systems. These indicators need to be equity-focused, aligned to new screening approaches and broad-based to cover possible opportunistic screening, but at the same time as limited as possible.</p><p><strong>Study design: </strong>Indicators for breast, colorectal and cervical cancer screening programs were chosen through a consensus building Delphi methodology involving a panel of cancer screening experts.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>The list of indicators was developed using a multistage process. First, a systematic search was performed along with an extensive grey literature search to identify all potential existing indicators. Next, these indicators were refined by two expert groups, definitions and calculations were agreed upon, redundant indicators removed. A final list of 38 indicators was put forward into a Delphi study. 33 cancer screening experts were invited to take part. The Delphi study consisted of two rounds of an online survey and an online facilitated discussion between the cancer screening experts.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>23 indicators were chosen covering 10 predefined indicator categories with detection rate, examination coverage and interval cancer rate deemed most important. Outcome indicators such as crude incidence rate and time from screen to result notification, while ultimately reaching consensus were deemed of less importance.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>23 priority indicators cover the entire screening pathway including harms, barriers and inequalities. These indicators have been piloted by the CanScreen-ECIS project.</p>","PeriodicalId":49651,"journal":{"name":"Public Health","volume":"239 ","pages":"185-192"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2024.12.010","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives: A key element in ensuring appropriate balance of harms and benefits in cancer screening is to develop a priority set of performance and outcome indicators to be used in screening data evaluation systems. These indicators need to be equity-focused, aligned to new screening approaches and broad-based to cover possible opportunistic screening, but at the same time as limited as possible.

Study design: Indicators for breast, colorectal and cervical cancer screening programs were chosen through a consensus building Delphi methodology involving a panel of cancer screening experts.

Methods: The list of indicators was developed using a multistage process. First, a systematic search was performed along with an extensive grey literature search to identify all potential existing indicators. Next, these indicators were refined by two expert groups, definitions and calculations were agreed upon, redundant indicators removed. A final list of 38 indicators was put forward into a Delphi study. 33 cancer screening experts were invited to take part. The Delphi study consisted of two rounds of an online survey and an online facilitated discussion between the cancer screening experts.

Results: 23 indicators were chosen covering 10 predefined indicator categories with detection rate, examination coverage and interval cancer rate deemed most important. Outcome indicators such as crude incidence rate and time from screen to result notification, while ultimately reaching consensus were deemed of less importance.

Conclusion: 23 priority indicators cover the entire screening pathway including harms, barriers and inequalities. These indicators have been piloted by the CanScreen-ECIS project.

求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Public Health
Public Health 医学-公共卫生、环境卫生与职业卫生
CiteScore
7.60
自引率
0.00%
发文量
280
审稿时长
37 days
期刊介绍: Public Health is an international, multidisciplinary peer-reviewed journal. It publishes original papers, reviews and short reports on all aspects of the science, philosophy, and practice of public health.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信