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

IF 3.2 3区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Public Health Pub Date : 2025-02-01 Epub Date: 2025-01-26 DOI:10.1016/j.puhe.2024.12.010
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 ,&nbsp;Abyan Irzaldy ,&nbsp;Eveline A.M. Heijnsdijk ,&nbsp;Nadya Dimitrova ,&nbsp;Carlo Senore ,&nbsp;Partha Basu ,&nbsp;Harry J. de Koning","doi":"10.1016/j.puhe.2024.12.010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><div>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.</div></div><div><h3>Study design</h3><div>Indicators for breast, colorectal and cervical cancer screening programs were chosen through a consensus building Delphi methodology involving a panel of cancer screening experts.</div></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><div>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.</div></div><div><h3>Results</h3><div>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.</div></div><div><h3>Conclusion</h3><div>23 priority indicators cover the entire screening pathway including harms, barriers and inequalities. These indicators have been piloted by the CanScreen-ECIS project.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":49651,"journal":{"name":"Public Health","volume":"239 ","pages":"Pages 185-192"},"PeriodicalIF":3.2000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Public Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0033350624005067","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/1/26 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","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.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
优先考虑欧盟癌症筛查项目质量评估的绩效和结果指标。
目标:确保在癌症筛查中适当平衡危害和益处的一个关键因素是制定一套优先的绩效和结果指标,用于筛查数据评估系统。这些指标需要以公平为重点,与新的筛查方法保持一致,并具有广泛的基础,以涵盖可能的机会性筛查,但同时也要尽可能有限。研究设计:乳腺癌、结直肠癌和宫颈癌筛查项目的指标是通过一组癌症筛查专家参与的共识建立德尔菲方法来选择的。方法:采用多阶段法编制指标表。首先,进行了系统检索,并进行了广泛的灰色文献检索,以确定所有潜在的现有指标。然后,由两个专家组对这些指标进行了改进,商定了定义和计算方法,删除了多余的指标。在德尔菲研究中提出了38个指标的最终清单。33名癌症筛查专家应邀参加。德尔菲研究包括两轮在线调查和癌症筛查专家之间的在线促进讨论。结果:选取23个指标,涵盖10个预定义指标类别,其中以检出率、检查覆盖率和间隔癌率最为重要。结果指标,如粗发病率和从筛选到结果通知的时间,虽然最终达成共识,但被认为不太重要。结论:23项优先指标涵盖了包括危害、障碍和不平等在内的整个筛查途径。这些指标已在CanScreen-ECIS项目中试行。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
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.
期刊最新文献
Effectiveness of tailored public health messages for vulnerable populations: A randomised controlled trial Comparing the riskiness and determinants of non-adherence to five quarantine and isolation guidelines: A dynamic cohort study during COVID-19 Clinical characteristics and mortality risk factors among 400,509 individuals diagnosed with AIDS in Brazil: A nationwide observational study Exploring acute malnutrition, acute watery diarrhea, dietary diversity, and vaccination coverage among internally displaced children in Yemen: A cross-sectional study The public health approach to violence reduction: A process evaluation of a UK inner-city serious youth violence strategy
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1