about
Reducing inequities in colorectal cancer screening in North AmericaFollow-up to abnormal cancer screening tests: considering the multilevel context of careCancer screening in the United States, 2013: a review of current American Cancer Society guidelines, current issues in cancer screening, and new guidance on cervical cancer screening and lung cancer screeningIntegrating evidence-based practices for increasing cancer screenings in safety net health systems: a multiple case study using the Consolidated Framework for Implementation ResearchUnifying screening processes within the PROSPR consortium: a conceptual model for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screeningInfluence of primary care practices on patients' uptake of diabetic retinopathy screening: a qualitative case study.Physicians, clinics, and neighborhoods: multiple levels of influence on colorectal cancer screeningThe colorectal cancer screening process in community settings: a conceptual model for the population-based research optimizing screening through personalized regimens consortiumPhysicians' colorectal cancer screening discussion and recommendation patterns.Organizational predictors of colonoscopy follow-up for positive fecal occult blood test results: an observational study.Performance measures in three rounds of the English bowel cancer screening pilotSystems strategies to support cancer screening in U.S. primary care practice.Colorectal Cancer Screening in US Seniors Ages 76-84 Years.Effect of Fee on Cervical Cancer Screening Attendance--ScreenFee, a Swedish Population-Based Randomised Trial.Grounded theory of barriers and facilitators to mandated implementation of mental health care in the primary care setting.A multilevel research perspective on cancer care delivery: the example of follow-up to an abnormal mammogramThe interface of primary and oncology specialty care: from symptoms to diagnosisToward improving the quality of cancer care: addressing the interfaces of primary and oncology-related subspecialty careInterfaces across the cancer continuum offer opportunities to improve the process of care.Multilevel factors affecting quality: examples from the cancer care continuum.Screening colonoscopy in the US: attitudes and practices of primary care physiciansCommunication about colorectal cancer screening in Britain: public preferences for an expert recommendation.Cancer screening at a federally qualified health center: a qualitative study on organizational challenges in the era of the patient-centered medical home.Patients' preferences and priorities regarding colorectal cancer screeningAn Individualized Approach to Cancer Screening Decisions in Older Adults: A Multilevel Framework.Patient activation increases colorectal cancer screening rates: a randomized trial among low-income minority patientsSystems intervention to promote colon cancer screening in safety net settings: protocol for a community-based participatory randomized controlled trial.Factors in quality care--the case of follow-up to abnormal cancer screening tests--problems in the steps and interfaces of care.Community Members' Input into Cancer Prevention Campaign Development and Experience Being Featured in the Campaign.Primary Care Physicians' Action Plans for Responding to Results of Screening Tests Based on the Concept of Quaternary Prevention.Early detection of breast cancer using a self-referral mammography process: the Kaiser Permanente Northwest 20-year history.Cancer screening in the United States, 2012: A review of current American Cancer Society guidelines and current issues in cancer screening.Optimising colorectal cancer screening acceptance: a review.Providers' Views on a Community-Wide Patient Navigation Program: Implications for Dissemination and Future Implementation.White-Black Differences in Cancer Incidence, Stage at Diagnosis, and Survival among Adults Aged 85 Years and Older in the United States.Hepatocellular Carcinoma Surveillance Among Patients With Cirrhosis in a Population-based Integrated Health Care Delivery System.Inadequate Systems to Support Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening in Primary Care Practice.Tumor size, node status, grading, HER2 and estrogen receptor status still retain a strong value in patients with operable breast cancer diagnosed in recent years.Healthcare Access and Cancer Screening Among Victims of Intimate Partner Violence.Breast cancer screening outreach effectiveness: Mammogram-specific reminders vs. comprehensive preventive services birthday letters.
P2860
Q26859952-87A596EF-2BAD-4102-B036-9BB623805F5CQ26861549-5D61FDA5-82C0-4224-ABC4-F9265FEBCC7DQ26864419-FE1E744E-9135-4152-A1DE-7DF0D526208CQ27301505-600A24B7-BC91-495A-8C88-0EC88EFA4F41Q28392615-39BD87A9-3740-4E39-98D9-CEE3BF345470Q33951722-8A779F83-2A33-452D-BA22-2EB857EF5217Q34074246-4F103EE2-43C1-4D5F-A103-D7F315A868CEQ34106363-9C1C922F-5ABA-4295-AEF6-7B258759148FQ34634268-4165CA4E-1BD5-4024-AF2C-FC810D5EF7C5Q35070432-F4ED34ED-CA5B-4B98-B337-D45400B5E56EQ35593125-7CF21B52-AF07-46EE-948C-3DA1701D2CD1Q35612889-73CF9910-C5DD-42A2-A045-95021DB4514CQ35815899-E2936E78-5868-4DF9-98C9-D7BE42AF9899Q35961162-4AD28B16-C03A-4D59-80BB-6491809B0661Q36147960-138076DD-89B2-4210-918E-6EEF5407FA65Q36306247-CCE76B47-6BC2-475E-8354-83D6088A8CA3Q36352753-392EC42C-1A2B-4CE3-A249-E5911ADF396FQ36352783-7EE6339D-BA09-4283-A895-8F6BAC4105B8Q36352799-0A20E55F-0157-4505-94CE-3FC7DD55F283Q36352891-702B55AD-2FB5-44AB-A66F-E9CD54C349AAQ36447280-980F028F-8098-4317-A13B-F3466020DE75Q36451775-AF0EE0F7-A722-4727-B276-08D17247A4BDQ36489967-FE0ADE8D-5613-42C6-947E-F20FAE0DC0B3Q36522000-A7295FC0-6DEF-44C0-A8BC-771EEF04CBEBQ36809001-03EF6F4A-9DF9-4F63-9475-E5D53D0EF459Q36834162-4C2DD9B1-6D28-4CB2-81D0-22A07D341535Q36908570-7481A101-F61B-4B88-83F5-7A3FC5CEAF6CQ37064294-4A79FEBF-1DC5-488E-BB69-823E4AC66605Q37327118-7E77FBD3-F979-401A-9159-B66F458BDE90Q37509147-CC3D08DE-3098-4CEC-B0CD-A5A3CBCECE9FQ37632482-DB5E6718-3761-4AA0-8DCE-BAA5198300DFQ37977324-57705E6D-4628-45C1-88EA-763E82AC3259Q38389267-5A4EF5E8-B10A-4748-AE62-5FC96BC36071Q38890996-76FEAAB8-9929-4AF3-9EB8-F0AFEE63C531Q39486611-8725E8E5-81B7-4833-8DD9-6A98FBE76440Q40442376-34070BA3-F381-40E9-B008-33C9CF0A526AQ41648033-CF3D1580-87EA-415F-904A-733F4054B67BQ47232507-017D28CD-64F6-4C4B-BE93-B05A7DB43726Q47627844-77C44110-067E-4B98-9C5C-5B360A55B94EQ47785921-834CC4F5-8020-49B7-B9F9-46495A733BE1
P2860
description
article científic
@ca
article scientifique
@fr
articolo scientifico
@it
artigo científico
@pt
bilimsel makale
@tr
scientific article published on January 2010
@en
vedecký článok
@sk
vetenskaplig artikel
@sv
videnskabelig artikel
@da
vědecký článek
@cs
name
Organizational factors and the cancer screening process
@en
Organizational factors and the cancer screening process.
@nl
type
label
Organizational factors and the cancer screening process
@en
Organizational factors and the cancer screening process.
@nl
prefLabel
Organizational factors and the cancer screening process
@en
Organizational factors and the cancer screening process.
@nl
P2093
P2860
P356
P1476
Organizational factors and the cancer screening process
@en
P2093
Heather Edwards
Jane Zapka
Rebecca Anhang Price
Stephen H Taplin
P2860
P356
10.1093/JNCIMONOGRAPHS/LGQ008
P577
2010-01-01T00:00:00Z