Search

Your search keyword '"Malin, Jennifer"' showing total 581 results
Start Over Author "Malin, Jennifer"
581 results on '"Malin, Jennifer"'

156. Medical treatment consensus in unresectable midgut gastrointestinal neuroendocrine tumors.

Author

Strosberg, Jonathan R., primary, Fisher, George A., additional, Benson, Al B., additional, Malin, Jennifer L., additional, Anthony, Lowell Brian, additional, Arslan, Bulent, additional, Gibbs, John F., additional, Greeno, Edward, additional, Iyer, Renuka V., additional, Kim, M. K., additional, Maples, W., additional, Philip, Philip Agop, additional, Wolin, Edward M., additional, Cherepanov, Dasha, additional, and Broder, Michael S., additional

Published
2012
Full Text
View/download PDF

168. Patients' Experiences With Care for Lung Cancer and Colorectal Cancer: Findings From the Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance Consortium

Author

Ayanian, John Z., primary, Zaslavsky, Alan M., additional, Arora, Neeraj K., additional, Kahn, Katherine L., additional, Malin, Jennifer L., additional, Ganz, Patricia A., additional, van Ryn, Michelle, additional, Hornbrook, Mark C., additional, Kiefe, Catarina I., additional, He, Yulei, additional, Urmie, Julie M., additional, Weeks, Jane C., additional, and Harrington, David P., additional

Published
2010
Full Text
View/download PDF

169. American Society of Clinical Oncology Clinical Practice Guideline: Update on Adjuvant Endocrine Therapy for Women With Hormone Receptor–Positive Breast Cancer

Author

Burstein, Harold J., primary, Prestrud, Ann Alexis, additional, Seidenfeld, Jerome, additional, Anderson, Holly, additional, Buchholz, Thomas A., additional, Davidson, Nancy E., additional, Gelmon, Karen E., additional, Giordano, Sharon H., additional, Hudis, Clifford A., additional, Malin, Jennifer, additional, Mamounas, Eleftherios P., additional, Rowden, Diana, additional, Solky, Alexander J., additional, Sowers, MaryFran R., additional, Stearns, Vered, additional, Winer, Eric P., additional, Somerfield, Mark R., additional, and Griggs, Jennifer J., additional

Published
2010
Full Text
View/download PDF

177. Research Highlights: Measuring Quality of Care for Prostate Cancer

Author

RAND CORP SANTA MONICA CA, Litwin, Mark S., Steinberg, Michael, Malin, Jennifer, Naitoh, John, McGuigan, Kimberly A., RAND CORP SANTA MONICA CA, Litwin, Mark S., Steinberg, Michael, Malin, Jennifer, Naitoh, John, and McGuigan, Kimberly A.

Abstract

Prostate cancer is the most common solid malignancy diagnosed in American men. More than half of the new cases identified each year are clinically localized, an early stage of the disease in which the tumor is believed to be confined to the prostate. The usual treatment approaches include radical prostatectomy, radiation therapy, or watchful waiting. Each year, more than 100,000 men newly diagnosed with prostate cancer must decide where and how to be treated. But the basis for choice is often unclear. Even untreated, most men with early stage prostate cancer have a life expectancy comparable to similarly aged men without prostate cancer, and there is no consensus on what constitutes quality care for this condition. For many patients, treatment of prostate cancer has long-term complications, including urinary incontinence, impotence, and bowel dysfunction. However, the rates of these complications, as reported by different researchers and institutions in the scientific literature, vary substantially. We need valid measures for assessing quality of care for prostate cancer and we need to understand how variations in quality of care affect treatment outcomes. In Prostate Cancer Patient Outcomes and Choice of Providers: Development; of an Infrastructure Quality Assessment, Mark Litwin, Michael Steinberg, Jennifer Malin, and their colleagues take a critical first step toward these goals. Drawing on the scientific literature and the opinions of both clinical experts and patients, they have built the framework necessary to begin evaluating quality of care for this widespread disease.

Published
2000

178. Prostate Cancer Patient Outcomes and Choice of Providers: Development of an Infrastructure for Quality Assessment

Author

RAND CORP SANTA MONICA CA, Litwin, Mark S., Steinberg, Michael, Malin, Jennifer, Naitoh, John, McGuigan, Kimberly A., RAND CORP SANTA MONICA CA, Litwin, Mark S., Steinberg, Michael, Malin, Jennifer, Naitoh, John, and McGuigan, Kimberly A.

Abstract

Prostate cancer is the most common solid malignancy diagnosed in American men. More than half of the new cases identified each year are localized prostate cancer, an early stage of the disease in which the tumor is confined to the prostate. The usual approach to localized prostate cancer includes radical prostatectomy, radiation therapy, or watchful waiting. Unfortunately, clear evidence about the comparative efficacy of these treatments is lacking; and, even untreated, most men with early stage prostate cancer have a life expectancy comparable to similarly aged men without prostate cancer. The most common potential long-term complications after treatment include urinary incontinence, impotence, and bowel dysfunction. The rates of these complications reported by different researchers and institutions in the scientific literature vary substantially. Although this variability may simply reflect differences in the patients included (case-mix) or the ways in which the data were collected, it does raise concern that widespread variation exists in the quality of treatment provided for men with prostate cancer across the United States.

Published
2000

185. Surviving colorectal cancer

Author

Schneider, Eric C., primary, Malin, Jennifer L., additional, Kahn, Katherine L., additional, Ko, Clifford Y., additional, Adams, John, additional, and Epstein, Arnold M., additional

Published
2007
Full Text
View/download PDF

186. Patient-reported quality of care and pain severity in cancer.

Author

Martinez, Kathryn A., Snyder, Claire F., Malin, Jennifer L., and Dy, Sydney M.

Abstract

Objective:Despite treatment availability, many cancer patients experience severe pain. Although patient assessments of care are increasingly employed to evaluate quality of care, little is known about its association with cancer symptom burden. The objective of our study was to examine the association between patient-reported quality of care and pain severity in a nationally representative cohort of cancer patients.Method:Quality of care was measured in three domains: physician communication, care coordination/responsiveness, and nursing care. Quality scores were dichotomized as optimal versus nonoptimal. Pain was measured on a scale of 0 (least) to 100 (worst). We utilized multivariable linear regression to examine the association between patient-reported quality of care and pain severity.Results:The analytic sample included 2,746 individuals. Fifty and 54% of patients, respectively, rated physician communication and care coordination/responsiveness as nonoptimal; 28% rated nursing care as nonoptimal. In adjusted models, rating physician communication as nonoptimal (versus optimal) was associated with a 1.8-point higher pain severity (p = 0.018), and rating care coordination/responsiveness as nonoptimal was associated with a 2.2-point higher pain severity (p = 0.006).Significance of results:Patient-reported quality of care was significantly associated with pain severity, although the differences were small. Interventions targeting physician communication and care coordination/responsiveness may result in improved pain control for some patients. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Published
2015
Full Text
View/download PDF

187. Leveraging State Cancer Registries to Measure and Improve the Quality of Cancer Care: A Potential Strategy for California and Beyond.

Author

Hiatt, Robert A., Tai, Caroline G., Blayney, Douglas W., Deapen, Dennis, Hogarth, Michael, Kizer, Kenneth W., Lipscomb, Joseph, Malin, Jennifer, Phillips, Stephen K., Santa, John, and Schrag, Deborah

Subjects
CANCER treatment, MEDICAL quality control, CANCER patient medical care, ELECTRONIC health records
Abstract

Despite recent increased attention to healthcare performance and the burden of disease from cancer, measures of quality of cancer care are not readily available. In 2013, the California HealthCare Foundation convened an expert workgroup to explore the potential for leveraging data in the California Cancer Registry (CCR), one of the world's largest population-based cancer registries, for measuring and improving the quality of cancer care. The workgroup assessed current registry operations, the value to be gained by linking CCR data with health insurance claims or encounter data and clinical data contained in health system electronic health records, and potential barriers to these linkages. The workgroup concluded that: 1) The CCR mandate should be expanded to include use of its data for quality of cancer care measurement and public reporting; and 2) a system should be developed to support linkage of registry data with both claims data and provider electronic health record data. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2015
Full Text
View/download PDF

188. Original Contribution. Implementing Lung Cancer Screening Using Low-Dose Computed Tomography: Recommendations From an Expert Panel.

Author

Ramsey, Scott D., Malin, Jennifer L., Goulart, Bernardo, Ambrose, Laurie F., Kanne, Jeffrey P., McKee, Andrea B., Reed, Shelby D., Schwartz, J. Sanford, and Sullivan, Sean D.

Subjects
*LUNG tumors, *COMPUTED tomography, *COMMITTEES, *HEALTH care teams, *MEDICAL personnel, *MEDICAL protocols, *GENERAL practitioners, *RESEARCH funding, *SMOKING, *LEADERS, *HUMAN services programs, *ELECTRONIC health records, *EARLY detection of cancer, *DIAGNOSIS, *TUMOR risk factors
Abstract

Purpose: In December 2013, the US Preventive Services Task Force issued a final B-level recommendation indicating that individuals between the ages of 55 and 80 years who have a 30 - pack-year smoking history and have smoked within the past 15 years should receive annual low-dose computed tomography (CT) lung cancer screening. We convened a multidisciplinary panel of experts to create practical guidance for efficiently implementing effective CT lung cancer screening programs. Methods: The lung cancer screening panel included 12 members, representing a broad range of stakeholders. The panel discussed clinical and system issues related to the implementation of CT lung cancer screening and developed recommendations for implementing CT lung cancer screening programs. Results: The panel identified five main goals that must be achieved to maximize the efficiency and effectiveness of implementing CT lung cancer screening: one, accurately identify individuals eligible for screening; two, provide access to screening at qualified facilities for eligible individuals; three, ensure appropriate follow-up for positive and negative screening results; four, promote continuous quality improvement of screening programs and downstream care; and five, provide smoking cessation support for all current smokers. The panel proposed a series of stakeholder-specific recommendations for achieving these goals. Conclusion: Implementation of effective and efficient population-based CT lung cancer screening will require involvement and coordination of stakeholders across the health care system to address the data and infrastructural needs that were identified. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2015
Full Text
View/download PDF

189. Uptake and Costs of Hypofractionated vs Conventional Whole Breast Irradiation After Breast Conserving Surgery in the United States, 2008-2013.

Author

Bekelman, Justin E., Sylwestrzak, Gosia, Barron, John, Liu, Jinan, Epstein, Andrew J., Freedman, Gary, Malin, Jennifer, and Emanuel, Ezekiel J.

Subjects
CANCER radiotherapy, BREAST cancer treatment, CANCER treatment, MEDICAL care costs, CANCER in women, IRRADIATION, BREAST surgery, ECONOMICS, THERAPEUTICS
Abstract

IMPORTANCE Based on randomized evidence, expert guidelines in 2011 endorsed shorter, hypofractionated whole breast irradiation (WBI) for selected patients with early-stage breast cancer and permitted hypofractionated WBI for other patients. OBJECTIVES To examine the uptake and costs of hypofractionated WBI among commercially insured patients in the United States. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Retrospective, observational cohort study, using administrative claims data from 14 commercial health care plans covering 7.4%of US adult women in 2013, we classified patients with incident early-stage breast cancer treated with lumpectomy and WBI from 2008 and 2013 into 2 cohorts: (1) the hypofractionation-endorsed cohort (n = 8924) included patients aged 50 years or older without prior chemotherapy or axillary lymph node involvement and (2) the hypofractionation-permitted cohort (n = 6719) included patients younger than 50 years or those with prior chemotherapy or axillary lymph node involvement. EXPOSURES Hypofractionated WBI (3-5 weeks of treatment) vs conventional WBI (5-7 weeks of treatment). MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Use of hypofractionated and conventional WBI, total and radiotherapy-related health care expenditures, and patient out-of-pocket expenses. Patient and clinical characteristics included year of treatment, age, comorbid disease, prior chemotherapy, axillary lymph node involvement, intensity-modulated radiotherapy, practice setting, and other contextual variables. RESULTS Hypofractionated WBI increased from 10.6%(95%CI, 8.8%-12.5%) in 2008 to 34.5%(95%CI, 32.2%-36.8%) in 2013 in the hypofractionation-endorsed cohort and from 8.1% (95%CI, 6.0%-10.2%) in 2008 to 21.2%(95%CI, 18.9%-23.6%) in 2013 in the hypofractionation-permitted cohort. Adjusted mean total health care expenditures in the 1 year after diagnosis were $28 747 for hypofractionated and $31 641 for conventional WBI in the hypofractionation-endorsed cohort (difference, $2894; 95%CI, $1610-$4234; P < .001) and $64 273 for hypofractionated and $72 860 for conventional WBI in the hypofractionation-permitted cohort (difference, $8587; 95%CI, $5316-$12 017; P < .001). Adjusted mean total 1-year patient out-of-pocket expenses were not significantly different between hypofractionated vs conventional WBI in either cohort. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Hypofractionated WBI after breast conserving surgery increased among women with early-stage breast cancer in 14 US commercial health care plans between 2008 and 2013. However, only 34.5%of patients with hypofractionationendorsed and 21.2%with hypofractionation-permitted early-stage breast cancer received hypofractionated WBI in 2013. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2014
Full Text
View/download PDF

190. Understanding cancer patients’ experience and outcomes: development and pilot study of the Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance patient survey

Author

Malin, Jennifer L., primary, Ko, Clifford, additional, Ayanian, John Z., additional, Harrington, David, additional, Nerenz, David R., additional, Kahn, Katherine L., additional, Ganther-Urmie, Julie, additional, Catalano, Paul J., additional, Zaslavsky, Alan M., additional, Wallace, Robert B., additional, Guadagnoli, Edward, additional, Arora, Neeraj K., additional, Roudier, Maryse D., additional, and Ganz, Patricia A., additional

Published
2006
Full Text
View/download PDF

195. Understanding Cancer Treatment and Outcomes: The Cancer Care Outcomes Research and Surveillance Consortium

Author

Ayanian, John Z., primary, Chrischilles, Elizabeth A., additional, Wallace, Robert B., additional, Fletcher, Robert H., additional, Fouad, Mona N., additional, Kiefe, Catarina I., additional, Harrington, David P., additional, Weeks, Jane C., additional, Kahn, Katherine L., additional, Malin, Jennifer L., additional, Lipscomb, Joseph, additional, Potosky, Arnold L., additional, Provenzale, Dawn T., additional, Sandler, Robert S., additional, van Ryn, Michelle, additional, and West, Dee W., additional

Published
2004
Full Text
View/download PDF

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results