This commentary presents a conceptual framework, Quality in the Continuum of Cancer Care (QCCC), for quality improvement studies and research. Data sources include review of relevant literature (cancer care, quality improvement, organizational behavior, health services evaluation, and research). The Detecting Early Tumors Enables Cancer Therapy (DETECT) project is used to apply the QCCC model to evaluate the quality of secondary prevention. Cancer care includes risk assessment, primary prevention, screening, detection, diagnosis, treatment, recurrence surveillance, and end-of-life care. The QCCC model represents a systematic approach for assessing factors that influence types of cancer care and the transitions between them, the factors at several levels (community, plan and practice setting) that potentially impact access and quality, and the strategies groups and organizations can consider to reduce potential failures. Focusing on the steps and transitions in care where failures can occur can facilitate more organized systems and medical practices that improve care, establish meaningful measures of quality that promote improved outcomes, and enhance interdisciplinary research.

Community health centers (CHCs) are important settings for research aimed at reducing health disparities. However, CHCs pose many challenges to research at patient, provider, and system levels. We summarized lessons learned from a multimethod, formative study to develop intervention strategies for improving colorectal cancer screening in CHCs, and make recommendations for future research. The call for research in "real world" settings such as CHCs must be matched with greater understanding of the challenges, as well as the resources to meet those challenges.

It is estimated that 44,500 American women will die of breast cancer in 1991. The breast cancer screening guidelines of the American Cancer Society and the National Cancer Institute calling for annual mammography for all women older than 50 years have been endorsed by numerous professional groups. Third-party reimbursement for screening mammography is becoming more prevalent, and payment for screening mammography is now a Medicare benefit. Our studies, conducted as part of a National Cancer Institute grant to increase the routine use of screening mammography and clinical breast examination in women 50 to 75 years of age, have uncovered a number of significant barriers to the implementation of screening guidelines among women, primary care physicians, and providers of mammography services. These barriers, as well as methods to assure the quality of mammography, need to be addressed before universal screening is feasible.

Screening is a way of detecting disease early in an asymptomatic population. For cancer screening to be effective, there not only must be a test that will detect cancer earlier, but there also must be a treatment that will result in an improved outcome. The strongest evidence for screening benefit comes from randomized prospective trials with a decrease in mortality as the outcome. For women older than 69 years of age, there is no direct scientific evidence that screening mammography will decrease their mortality from breast cancer. If there is no direct evidence (positive or negative), what can we say about any potential benefit for older women? The Forum on Breast Cancer Screening in older women (held in Sturbridge, Massachusetts, in 1990 and sponsored by the National Cancer Institute and the National Institute of Aging) systematically reviewed a number of issues that were considered to have an indirect but positive impact on the benefit of screening mammography--incidence (which rises dramatically with age), mortality (greater in women older than 65), mammography detection (enhanced in breasts of older women), and elderly survival rates (the average women older than 65 lives long enough to benefit from screening). Unresolved issues were the proper interval for screening (12 vs. 24 vs. 33 months) and the extent to which clinical breast examination contributes to a decrease in mortality. Clinical research in the form of a national trial is needed, because the recommendations to initiate or continue screening mammography in women older than 65 is based not on scientific evidence but on opinion.

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer screening is underused, and primary care clinicians are challenged to provide patient education within the constraints of busy practices. OBJECTIVE: To test the effect of an educational video, mailed to patients' homes before a physical examination, on performance of colorectal cancer screening, particularly sigmoidoscopy. DESIGN: Randomized, controlled trial. SETTING: 5 primary care practices in central Massachusetts. PARTICIPANTS: 938 patients age 50 to 74 years who were scheduled for an upcoming physical examination, had no personal history of colorectal cancer, and were eligible for lower-endoscopy screening according to current guidelines. INTERVENTION: Participants were randomly assigned to receive usual care (n = 488) or a video about colorectal cancer, the importance of early detection, and screening options (n = 450). MEASUREMENTS: Baseline and 6-month follow-up telephone assessments were conducted. A dependent variable classified screening since baseline as 1) sigmoidoscopy with or without other tests, 2) another test or test combination, or 3) no tests. RESULTS: Overall screening rates were the same in the intervention and control groups (55%). In regression modeling, intervention participants were nonsignificantly more likely to complete sigmoidoscopy alone or in combination with another test (odds ratio, 1.22 [95% CI, 0.88 to 1.70]). Intervention dose (viewing at least half of the video) was significantly related to receiving sigmoidoscopy with or without another test (odds ratio, 2.81 [CI, 1.85 to 4.26]). Recruitment records showed that at least 23% of people coming for periodic health assessments were currently screened by a lower-endoscopy procedure and therefore were not eligible. LIMITATIONS: The primary care sample studied consisted primarily of middle-class white persons who had high screening rates at baseline. The results may not be generalizable to other populations. The trial was conducted during a period of increased health insurance coverage for lower-endoscopy procedures and public media attention to colon cancer screening. CONCLUSIONS: A mailed video had no effect on the overall rate of colorectal cancer screening and only modestly improved sigmoidoscopy screening rates among patients in primary care practices.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have related stages of mammography screening nonadherence with the rationale used by overdue women. METHODS: We used a grounded theory approach to obtain and analyze data from focus groups, telephone interviews, and surveys. Emergent specific themes were compared with emerging decision levels of nonadherence. Each decision level was then compared with the Precaution Adoption Process Model and the Transtheoretical Model. RESULTS: A total of 6 key themes influencing mammogram nonadherence emerged as did 6 decision levels. Variability within themes was associated with specific decision levels. The decision levels were not adequately classified by either stage model. CONCLUSIONS: Stage-based educational strategies may benefit by tailoring interventions to these 6 decision levels.