PubMed · 12017062
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
Karen Murray. Smart move.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12017062/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
The effective and efficient delivery of cervical screening programs requires information for planning, management, delivery and evaluation. Specially designed systems are generally required to meet these needs. In many developing countries, lack of information systems constitutes an important barrier to development of comprehensive screening programs and the effective control of cervical cancer. Our report outlines a framework for creating such systems in developing countries and describes a conceptual model for a cervical screening information system. The proposed system is modular, recognizing that there will be considerable between-region heterogeneity in current status and priorities. The proposed system is centered on modules that would allow for the assembly and computerization of data on Pap tests, since these represent the main screening modality at the present time. Additional modules would process data and create and maintain a screening database (e.g., standardize, edit, link and update modules) and allow for the integration of other types of data, such as cervical histopathology results. An open systems development model is proposed, since it is most compatible with the goals of local stakeholder involvement and capacity-building.
The Internet's global reach offers new powerful tools to professionals in Occupational and Environmental Health (OEH). The World Wide Web includes extensive free and commercially available reference materials on toxicology, regulatory issues, environmental epidemiology and prevention programs. Much of this especially useful content is inaccessible to general Web-based search engines. Effective use of the Web requires discovery and familiarity with sites housing query engines for technical databases. Although the Web's structure and capacity is so dynamic that any listing is incomplete, introductions to many resources are provided in this article. The Internet also offers professionals electronic access to one another, for collegial discourse. Electronic mailing lists provide assembly points for collaboration and guidance about technical issues. Several specialty forums for OEH professionals are also discussed.
BACKGROUND: Cancer mortality should include not only deaths from cancer but also deaths from cancer treatment. By convention, deaths within 30 days of a surgical procedure are considered treatment-related deaths in the calculation of operative mortality-that is, the chance of dying from surgery. How cause of death is attributed in patients who die within 1 month of cancer-directed surgery is unknown. METHODS: The National Cancer Institute's Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) program data from 1994 through 1998 were used to examine the cause of death in patients diagnosed with one of 19 common solid tumors who had died within 1 month of diagnosis and had also received cancer-directed surgery. We determined the proportion of deaths not attributed to the cancer and the magnitude of the undercount in cancer-specific mortality. RESULTS: Among 4135 patients with only one cancer who died within 1 month of diagnosis and cancer-directed surgery, the proportion of deaths not attributed to the coded cancer was 41% (1714/4135), ranging from 13% (1/8) for cervical cancer to 81% (13/16) for laryngeal cancer. Selected intermediate values include 25% (14/56) for esophageal cancer, 34% (177/525) for lung cancer, 42% (719/1695) for colorectal cancer, 59% (110/186) for breast cancer, and 75% (80/106) for prostate cancer. Restricting the analysis to deaths following specific major procedures (e.g., esophagectomy, pneumonectomy, colectomy) had little effect on the findings. If all deaths within 1 month of cancer-directed surgery were attributed to cancer, cancer mortality would rise about 1%. CONCLUSION: Some deaths that are conventionally attributed to surgery are not being attributed to the cancer for which the surgery was performed. Although the estimated effect of this misclassification on overall cancer mortality is modest, it may be indicative of more widespread confusion about how to code treatment-related deaths of patients with cancer.