Utility of routine data sources for feedback on the quality of cancer care: an assessment based on clinical practice guidelines

Background Not all cancer patients receive state-of-the-art care and providing regular feedback to clinicians might reduce this problem. The purpose of this study was to assess the utility of various data sources in providing feedback on the quality of cancer care. Methods Published clinical practice guidelines were used to obtain a list of processes-of-care of interest to clinicians. These were assigned to one of four data categories according to their availability and the marginal cost of using them for feedback. Results Only 8 (3%) of 243 processes-of-care could be measured using population-based registry or administrative inpatient data (lowest cost). A further 119 (49%) could be measured using a core clinical registry, which contains information on important prognostic factors (e.g., clinical stage, physiological reserve, hormone-receptor status). Another 88 (36%) required an expanded clinical registry or medical record review; mainly because they concerned long-term management of disease progression (recurrences and metastases) and 28 (11.5%) required patient interview or audio-taping of consultations because they involved information sharing between clinician and patient. Conclusion The advantages of population-based cancer registries and administrative inpatient data are wide coverage and low cost. The disadvantage is that they currently contain information on only a few processes-of-care. In most jurisdictions, clinical cancer registries, which can be used to report on many more processes-of-care, do not cover smaller hospitals. If we are to provide feedback about all patients, not just those in larger academic hospitals with the most developed data systems, then we need to develop sustainable population-based data systems that capture information on prognostic factors at the time of initial diagnosis and information on management of disease progression.

Correlates of Pedometer Use: Results from a Community-based Physical Activity Intervention Trial (10,000 Steps Rockhampton)

Background Pedometers have become common place in physical activity promotion, yet little information exists on who is using them. The multi-strategy, community-based 10,000 Steps Rockhampton physical activity intervention trial provided an opportunity to examine correlates of pedometer use at the population level. Methods Pedometer use was promoted across all intervention strategies including: local media, pedometer loan schemes through general practice, other health professionals and libraries, direct mail posted to dog owners, walking trail signage, and workplace competitions. Data on pedometer use were collected during the 2-year follow-up telephone interviews from random population samples in Rockhampton, Australia, and a matched comparison community (Mackay). Logistic regression analyses were used to determine the independent influence of interpersonal characteristics and program exposure variables on pedometer use. Results Data from 2478 participants indicated that 18.1% of Rockhampton and 5.6% of Mackay participants used a pedometer in the previous 18-months. Rockhampton pedometer users (n = 222) were more likely to be female (OR = 1.59, 95% CI: 1.11, 2.23), aged 45 or older (OR = 1.69, 95% CI: 1.16, 2.46) and to have higher levels of education (university degree OR = 4.23, 95% CI: 1.86, 9.6). Respondents with a BMI > 30 were more likely to report using a pedometer (OR = 1.68, 95% CI: 1.11, 2.54) than those in the healthy weight range. Compared with those in full-time paid work, respondents in 'home duties' were significantly less likely to report pedometer use (OR = 0.18, 95% CI: 0.06, 0.53). Exposure to individual program components, in particular seeing 10,000 Steps street signage and walking trails or visiting the website, was also significantly associated with greater pedometer use. Conclusion Pedometer use varies between population subgroups, and alternate strategies need to be investigated to engage men, people with lower levels of education and those in full-time 'home duties', when using pedometers in community-based physical activity promotion initiatives.