These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


BIOMARKERS

Molecular Biopsy of Human Tumors

- a resource for Precision Medicine *

187 related articles for article (PubMed ID: 15316914)

  • 1. Interventions to improve follow-up of abnormal findings in cancer screening.
    Bastani R; Yabroff KR; Myers RE; Glenn B
    Cancer; 2004 Sep; 101(5 Suppl):1188-200. PubMed ID: 15316914
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 2. Is the promise of cancer-screening programs being compromised? Quality of follow-up care after abnormal screening results.
    Yabroff KR; Washington KS; Leader A; Neilson E; Mandelblatt J
    Med Care Res Rev; 2003 Sep; 60(3):294-331. PubMed ID: 12971231
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 3. Effectiveness of interventions to improve follow-up after abnormal cervical cancer screening.
    Yabroff KR; Kerner JF; Mandelblatt JS
    Prev Med; 2000 Oct; 31(4):429-39. PubMed ID: 11006069
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 4. Having a personal healthcare provider and receipt of adequate cervical and breast cancer screening.
    Cardarelli R; Kurian AK; Pandya V
    J Am Board Fam Med; 2010; 23(1):75-81. PubMed ID: 20051545
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 5. Quality assurance audits of community screening mammography practices: availability of active follow-up for data collection and outcome assessment.
    Brown ML; Houn F
    AJR Am J Roentgenol; 1994 Oct; 163(4):825-9. PubMed ID: 8092017
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 6. Association of insurance with cancer care utilization and outcomes.
    Ward E; Halpern M; Schrag N; Cokkinides V; DeSantis C; Bandi P; Siegel R; Stewart A; Jemal A
    CA Cancer J Clin; 2008; 58(1):9-31. PubMed ID: 18096863
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 7. Evaluation of a VHA collaborative to improve follow-up after a positive colorectal cancer screening test.
    Powell AA; Nugent S; Ordin DL; Noorbaloochi S; Partin MR
    Med Care; 2011 Oct; 49(10):897-903. PubMed ID: 21642875
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 8. Improving follow-up after an abnormal pap smear: results from a quasi-experimental intervention study.
    Kaplan CP; Bastani R; Belin TR; Marcus A; Nasseri K; Hu MY
    J Womens Health Gend Based Med; 2000 Sep; 9(7):779-90. PubMed ID: 11025870
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 9. Interventions for patients, providers, and health care organizations.
    Zapka JG; Lemon SC
    Cancer; 2004 Sep; 101(5 Suppl):1165-87. PubMed ID: 15329892
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 10. Modeling the cost-effectiveness of colorectal cancer screening: policy guidance based on patient preferences and compliance.
    Subramanian S; Bobashev G; Morris RJ
    Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 2009 Jul; 18(7):1971-8. PubMed ID: 19567507
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 11. Interventions to increase recommendation and delivery of screening for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancers by healthcare providers systematic reviews of provider assessment and feedback and provider incentives.
    Sabatino SA; Habarta N; Baron RC; Coates RJ; Rimer BK; Kerner J; Coughlin SS; Kalra GP; Chattopadhyay S;
    Am J Prev Med; 2008 Jul; 35(1 Suppl):S67-74. PubMed ID: 18541190
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 12. Understanding barriers for adherence to follow-up care for abnormal pap tests.
    Eggleston KS; Coker AL; Das IP; Cordray ST; Luchok KJ
    J Womens Health (Larchmt); 2007 Apr; 16(3):311-30. PubMed ID: 17439377
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 13. Measuring the quality of colorectal cancer screening: the importance of follow-up.
    Etzioni DA; Yano EM; Rubenstein LV; Lee ML; Ko CY; Brook RH; Parkerton PH; Asch SM
    Dis Colon Rectum; 2006 Jul; 49(7):1002-10. PubMed ID: 16673056
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 14. Adherence to care plan in women with abnormal Papanicolaou smears: a review of barriers and interventions.
    Khanna N; Phillips MD
    J Am Board Fam Pract; 2001; 14(2):123-30. PubMed ID: 11314919
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 15. Adherence characteristics after abnormal screening results between mammogram and Papanicolaou test groups.
    Fang SY; Shu BC
    Cancer Nurs; 2009; 32(6):437-45. PubMed ID: 19816157
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 16. Nursing intervention and older adults who have cancer: specific science and evidence based practice.
    Bourbonniere M; Kagan SH
    Nurs Clin North Am; 2004 Sep; 39(3):529-43. PubMed ID: 15331300
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 17. What factors are associated with diagnostic follow-up after abnormal mammograms? Findings from a U.S. National Survey.
    Yabroff KR; Breen N; Vernon SW; Meissner HI; Freedman AN; Ballard-Barbash R
    Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev; 2004 May; 13(5):723-32. PubMed ID: 15159302
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 18. How has the impact of 'care pathway technologies' on service integration in stroke care been measured and what is the strength of the evidence to support their effectiveness in this respect?
    Allen D; Rixson L
    Int J Evid Based Healthc; 2008 Mar; 6(1):78-110. PubMed ID: 21631815
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 19. Implementing recommendations for the early detection of breast and cervical cancer among low-income women.
    Lawson HW; Henson R; Bobo JK; Kaeser MK
    MMWR Recomm Rep; 2000 Mar; 49(RR-2):37-55. PubMed ID: 15580731
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

  • 20. Quality of cancer care in Spain: recommendations of a patients' jury.
    Arrighi E; Blancafort S; Jovell AJ; Navarro Rubio MD
    Eur J Cancer Care (Engl); 2015 May; 24(3):387-94. PubMed ID: 24841164
    [TBL] [Abstract][Full Text] [Related]  

    [Next]    [New Search]
    of 10.