Prevention Care Management

An Evidence-Based Practice

Description

The Prevention Care Management program is a centralized telephone system to increase cancer screenings among women aged 50-69 years. Prevention care managers call women who are not up to date for cancer screenings, and help facilitate the screening process by addressing barriers that prevent or delay cancer screenings. The calls provide motivational support, respond to the patient's personal barriers, and provide patient activity cards that list overdue screenings to improve communication between patients and clinicians. The managers schedule appointments, educate women about screenings, remind women of appointments, provide directions, and help women arrange transportation to appointments. Women participating in the program are recruited during routine visits to health centers or by clinician referral.

Goal / Mission

The goal of the Prevention Care Management program is to increase cancer screening among women.

Impact

Prevention Care Management increased mammography rates, cervical cancer screening rates, and colorectal cancer screening rates among participating women.

Results / Accomplishments

In a pre- and post-test study, women in the intervention group had significantly greater increases in cancer screening from baseline to follow-up when compared to a control group. The proportion of women up-to-date for one cancer screening increased significantly more from baseline in the intervention group than the control group (5% vs. 1%, p < 0.017). Women in the intervention group had significantly greater increases than the control group in the proportion up-to-date for two cancer screenings (14% vs. 1%, p < 0.017) and three cancer screenings (22% vs. 8%, p < 0.017). Between baseline and follow-up women in the intervention group who were up-to-date for mammography screenings increased by 10% (p < 0.001) and women up-to-date for cervical cancer screening increased by 7% (p < 0.001), while there were no increases in the control group. The proportion of women up-to-date for colorectal cancer screening increased significantly in both groups, but this increase was greater in the intervention group (24%, p < 0.001) than the control group (11%, p < 0.05).

About this Promising Practice

Organization(s)
Dartmouth-Hitchcock Norris Cotton Cancer Center
Primary Contact
Allen Dietrich
Norris Cotton Cancer Center and Dartmouth Medical School
One Medical Center Drive
Lebanon, NH 03756
(603) 653-9050
Allen.J.Dietrich@dartmouth.edu
http://www.cancer.dartmouth.edu/
Topics
Health / Cancer
Health / Prevention & Safety
Health / Women's Health
Organization(s)
Dartmouth-Hitchcock Norris Cotton Cancer Center
Source
National Cancer Institute Research-Tested Intervention Programs
Date of publication
2007
Date of implementation
Nov 2001
Geographic Type
Urban
Location
New York, NY
For more details
http://rtips.cancer.gov/rtips/programDetails.do?pr...
Target Audience
Adults, Women

Related Promising Practices

  1. Cancer Screening Office Systems (Cancer SOS)
  2. North Carolina Breast Cancer Screening Program
  3. Celebrity Colon Cancer Screening Promotional Campaign
  4. Telephone Outreach to Increase Colon Cancer Screening
  5. Direct Mailing of Fecal Occult Blood Tests to Increase Colorectal Cancer Screening
  6. Increased Medicaid Reimbursements to Enhance Breast/Cervical Cancer Screening Project

More

Related Content for: Prevention Care Management

An Evidence-Based Practice meets the following HCI criteria:

  1. The program description includes at a minimum: the sponsoring organization, program goals, program implementation steps, and outcomes that have demonstrated program success in achieving the program goal in one or more localities.
  2. The results from an evaluation of the program include quantitative measures showing improvement in the outcome(s) of interest after the implementation of the program (i.e. increase in smoking cessation, not just the delivery of a smoking cessation program). The outcome measure(s) is/are compared at relevant time periods before and after the intervention or program implementation. Alternatively, the evaluation study compares the outcome(s) between an intervention group and an appropriate control group.
  3. The study is of peer-review quality and presents numbers in a scientific manner; measurements of precision and reliability are included (e.g. confidence intervals, standard errors), results from statistical tests show a significant difference or change in the outcome measure(s), and relevant point estimates and p-values are presented. Note: if the results from an evaluation of a program are presented in a scientific manner and the outcome measure is improved compared to the baseline measurement or the control group but the difference is not statistically significant, the practice is classified as effective and not evidence-based.