Health care in the United States is notoriously expensive while often failing to deliver the care recommended in published guidelines. There is, therefore, a need to consider our approach to health-care delivery. Cancer care is a good example for consideration because it spans the continuum of health-care issues from primary prevention through long-term survival and end-of-life care. In this monograph, we emphasize that health-care delivery occurs in a multilevel system that includes organizations, teams, and individuals. To achieve health-care delivery consistent with the Institute of Medicine's six quality aims (safety, effectiveness, timeliness, efficiency, patient-centeredness, and equity), we must influence multiple levels of that multilevel system. The notion that multiple levels of contextual influence affect behaviors through interdependent interactions is a wellestablished ecological view. This view has been used to analyze health-care delivery and health disparities. However, experience considering multilevel interventions in health care is much less robust. This monograph includes 13 chapters relevant to expanding the foundation of research for multilevel interventions in health-care delivery. Subjects include clinical cases of multilevel thinking in health-care delivery, the state of knowledge regarding multilevel interventions, study design and measurement considerations, methods for combining interventions, time as a consideration in the evaluation of effects, measurement of effects, simulations, application of multilevel thinking to health-care systems and disparities, and implementation of the Affordable Care Act of 2010. Our goal is to outline an agenda to proceed with multilevel intervention research, not because it guarantees improvement in our current approach to health care, but because ignoring the complexity of the multilevel environment in which care occurs has not achieved the desired improvements in care quality outlined by the Institute of Medicine at the turn of the millennium.

Background: Women need to understand the link between human papillomavirus (HPV) and cervical cancer in order to make appropriate, evidence-based choices among existing prevention strategies (Pap test, HPV DNA test, and HPV vaccine). Assessment of the public's knowledge in nationally representative samples is a high priority for cervical cancer control. Objectives: To assess factors associated with U.S. women's awareness of HPV and knowledge about its link to cervical cancer. Methods: Analyzed cross-sectional data from women ages 18 to 75 years old responding to the 2005 Health Information National Trends Survey (n = 3,076). Results: Among the 40% of women who had ever heard about HPV, <50% knew it caused cervical cancer; knowledge that HPV was sexually transmitted and caused abnormal Pap

Purpose: The management of cancer varies across its type, stage, and natural history. This necessitates involvement of a variety of individuals and groups across a number of provider types. Evidence from other fields suggests that a team-based approach helps organize and optimize tasks that involve individuals and groups, but team effectiveness has not been fully evaluated in oncology-related care. Methods:We undertook a systematic review of literature published between 2009 and 2014 to identify studies of all teams with clear membership, a comparator group, and patient-level metrics of cancer care. When those teams included two or more people with specialty training relevant to the care of patients with cancer, we called them multidisciplinary care teams (MDTs). After reviews and exclusions, 16 studies were thoroughly evaluated: two addressing screening and diagnosis, 11 addressing treatment, two addressing palliative care, and one addressing end-of-life care. The studies included a variety of end points (eg, adherence to quality indicators, patient satisfaction with care, mortality). Results:Teams for screening and its follow-up improved screening use and reduced time to follow-up colonoscopy after an abnormal screen. Discussion of cases within MDTs improved the planning of therapy, adherence to recommended preoperative assessment, pain control, and adherence to medications. We did not see convincing evidence that MDTs affect patient survival or cost of care, or studies of how or which MDT processes and structures were associated with success. Conclusion:Further research should focus on the association between team processes and structures, efficiency in delivery of care, and mortality.

This article discusses the care process among three groups (primary care, radiology, and surgery) aiding a 57-year-old woman during her screening mammography and diagnosis of breast cancer. This is the first in a series of articles exploring principles and topics relevant to teams guiding clinicians involved in cancer care. The challenges demonstrated in this case illustrate how clinicians work within and between groups to deliver this first phase of cancer care. The case helps demonstrate the differences between groups and teams. Focusing on the patient and the overall process of care coordination can help move groups toward becoming teams who deliver better care by identifying and managing goals, roles, and interdependent care tasks. Care providers and researchers can use the case to consider their own work and essential aspects of teamwork needed to improve care, patient outcomes, and the evidence that supports each.

The promise of widespread implementation of efficacious interventions across the cancer continuum into routine practice and policy has yet to be realized. Multilevel influences, such as communities and families surrounding patients or health-care policies and organizations surrounding provider teams, may determine whether effective interventions are successfully implemented. Greater recognition of the importance of these influences in advancing (or hindering) the impact of single-level interventions has motivated the design and testing of multilevel interventions designed to address them. However, implementing research evidence from single- or multilevel interventions into sustainable routine practice and policy presents substantive challenges. Furthermore, relatively few multilevel interventions have been conducted along the cancer care continuum, and fewer still have been implemented, disseminated, or sustained in practice. The purpose of this chapter is, therefore, to illustrate and examine the concepts underlying the implementation and spread of multilevel interventions into routine practice and policy. We accomplish this goal by using a series of cancer and noncancer examples that have been successfully implemented and, in some cases, spread widely. Key concepts across these examples include the importance of phased implementation, recognizing the need for pilot testing, explicit engagement of key stakeholders within and between each intervention level; visible and consistent leadership and organizational support, including financial and human resources; better understanding of the policy context, fiscal climate, and incentives underlying implementation; explication of handoffs from researchers to accountable individuals within and across levels; ample integration of multilevel theories guiding implementation and evaluation; and strategies for long-term monitoring and sustainability.

More culturally appropriate interventions and research are needed, and these efforts must involve the community and raise the quality of health services.

1 interactions with health professionals and providing feedback that strengthens the relationship and their mutual understanding of the patient's needs and how they may best be addressed. Strong primary care, the care setting focused on in this paper, is critical to achieving better patient outcomes, especially as the prevalence of multiple chronic health conditions increases (AHRQ, 2014a). More than 75 percent of U.S. health care spending is devoted to treating persons with chronic conditions (CDC, 2009). Of course, specialists and subspecialists also play very important roles. The complexity of care and services often required today requires health professionals across the system to work with people in a coordinated, collaborative way and to consider the whole person-not just the condition or array of conditions that a person might have (Bodenheimer et al., 2002). All patients bring unique expertise regarding their preferences, skills, knowledge, and experiences into a potential relationship with a health care team. Patients-and, often, their families and caregivers-live with their conditions and symptoms 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Patients are experts in knowing how they feel from moment to moment and day to day. However, not all patients are well informed about their medical conditions and how best to manage them (Fagerlin et al., 2010). Relatively few come to medical encounters with the same technical skills, clinical knowledge, and detailed understanding of the health care system that most clinicians have. Some patients prefer to be involved at a more detailed level, others less so (Alston et al., 2012). But many patients and family members have acquired, and many more are capable of developing, considerable knowledge, skills, and confidence in decision making that could influence their outcomes positively-especially those outcomes that matter most to them. Only recently, with increased attention on patient-centered care at the practice level, has it become evident that a large percentage of patients who have personal physicians and, especially minorities, do not have an effective health care team (Beal et al., 2007). When people have a personal physician and an effective practice team, their outcomes are better (Beal et al., 2007; Havyer et al., 2014). There is still much to learn about the practical realities of patients becoming true partners in their care, and the most effective teachers will be patients themselves. When patients and clinicians have an effective partnership, the relationship becomes more fluid. It transcends the traditional roles of learner and teacher, leader and follower. Valid, ongoing assessments of team functioning and performance, including assessments by patients themselves, will be important to identify and illuminate team functioning and the strength of the partnership with patients, and to inform improvement efforts so that demonstrably better patient outcomes can be achieved consistently. Methods Given the scope of the project, an early decision of the authors was to divi...

The call for multilevel interventions to improve the quality of follow-up to abnormal cancer screening has been out for a decade but published work emphasizes individual approaches, and conceptualizations differ regarding the definition of levels. To investigate the scope and methods being undertaken in this focused area of follow-up to abnormal tests (breast, colon, cervical), we reviewed recent literature and grants (2007-2012) funded by the National Cancer Institute. A structured search yielded 16 grants with varying definitions of “follow-up” (e.g. completion of recommended tests, time to diagnosis); most included minority racial/ethnic group participants. Ten grants concentrated on measurement/intervention development, and 13 piloted or tested interventions (categories not mutually exclusive). All studies considered patient level factors and effects. While some directed interventions at provider levels, few measured group characteristics and effects of interventions on the providers or levels other than the patient. Multilevel interventions are being proposed, but clarity regarding endpoints, definition of levels, and measures is needed. The differences in the conceptualization of levels and factors that affect practice need empirical exploration and we need to measure their salient characteristics to advance our understanding of how context affects cancer care delivery in a changing practice and policy environment.