Literature DB >> 10428195

Physician intention to recommend complete diagnostic evaluation in colorectal cancer screening.

R E Myers1, T Hyslop, M Gerrity, N Schlackman, N Hanchak, J Grana, B J Turner, D Weinberg, W W Hauck.   

Abstract

Primary care physicians (PCPs) often do not recommend complete diagnostic evaluation (CDE; i.e., diagnostic colonoscopy or the combination of flexible sigmoidoscopy and barium enema X-ray procedures) for patients with an abnormal screening fecal occult blood test (FOBT+) result. Information is needed to understand why PCPs do not recommend CDE. In the spring of 1994, a telephone survey was carried out using a random sample of 520 PCPs in Pennsylvania or New Jersey who had patients that were targeted for an FOBT screening program. Survey data were obtained from 363 (70%) PCPs on physician practice characteristics; personal background; perceptions concerning FOBT screening, CDE performance, and patient behavior; social influence related to CDE; and intention to recommend CDE for FOBT+ patients. Physician CDE intention scores were distributed as follows: low (22%), moderate (51%), and high (27%). Multivariate analyses demonstrate that physician board certification status, time in practice, belief in CDE efficacy, and belief that CDE is standard practice were positively associated with CDE intention, whereas concern about CDE-related costs was negatively associated with CDE intention. Among physicians in larger practices, perceived FOBT screening efficacy was negatively associated with CDE intention, and belief in the benefit of CDE was positively associated with outcome. There is substantial variability in CDE intention among PCPs. Physician perceptions about FOBT screening and follow-up are associated with CDE intention, are likely to influence CDE performance, and may be amenable to educational intervention. Additional research is needed to evaluate the impact of educational interventions on CDE intention and performance.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10428195

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev        ISSN: 1055-9965            Impact factor:   4.254


  12 in total

Review 1.  Interventions to improve follow-up of abnormal findings in cancer screening.

Authors:  Roshan Bastani; K Robin Yabroff; Ronald E Myers; Beth Glenn
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2004-09-01       Impact factor: 6.860

2.  Reality check: perceived versus actual performance of community mammographers.

Authors:  Joshua J Fenton; Joseph Egger; Patricia A Carney; Gary Cutter; Carl D'Orsi; Edward A Sickles; Jessica Fosse; Linn Abraham; Stephen H Taplin; William Barlow; R Edward Hendrick; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2006-07       Impact factor: 3.959

3.  Effectiveness of a provider reminder on fecal occult blood test follow-up.

Authors:  Meaghan F Larson; Cynthia W Ko; Jason A Dominitz
Journal:  Dig Dis Sci       Date:  2009-03-03       Impact factor: 3.199

4.  Contribution of patient, physician, and environmental factors to demographic and health variation in colonoscopy follow-up for abnormal colorectal cancer screening test results.

Authors:  Melissa R Partin; Amy A Gravely; James F Burgess; David A Haggstrom; Sarah E Lillie; David B Nelson; Sean M Nugent; Aasma Shaukat; Shahnaz Sultan; Louise C Walter; Diana J Burgess
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2017-05-11       Impact factor: 6.860

5.  Physician and patient factors associated with ordering a colon evaluation after a positive fecal occult blood test.

Authors:  Barbara Turner; Ronald E Myers; Terry Hyslop; Walter W Hauck; David Weinberg; Timothy Brigham; James Grana; Todd Rothermel; Neil Schlackman
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 5.128

6.  Are physicians' recommendations for colorectal cancer screening guideline-consistent?

Authors:  K Robin Yabroff; Carrie N Klabunde; Gigi Yuan; Timothy S McNeel; Martin L Brown; Dana Casciotti; Dennis W Buckman; Stephen Taplin
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2010-10-14       Impact factor: 5.128

7.  Physician reminders to promote surveillance colonoscopy for colorectal adenomas: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  John Z Ayanian; Thomas D Sequist; Alan M Zaslavsky; Richard S Johannes
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2008-04-02       Impact factor: 5.128

8.  Increasing patient/physician communications about colorectal cancer screening in rural primary care practices.

Authors:  Berta M Geller; Joan M Skelly; Anne L Dorwaldt; Kathleen D Howe; Greg S Dana; Brian S Flynn
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2008-09       Impact factor: 2.983

9.  Factors associated with intentions to adhere to colorectal cancer screening follow-up exams.

Authors:  Ying-Fang Zheng; Tami Saito; Miyako Takahashi; Teruo Ishibashi; Ichiro Kai
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2006-11-06       Impact factor: 3.295

10.  Improving follow-up of abnormal cancer screens using electronic health records: trust but verify test result communication.

Authors:  Hardeep Singh; Lindsey Wilson; Laura A Petersen; Mona K Sawhney; Brian Reis; Donna Espadas; Dean F Sittig
Journal:  BMC Med Inform Decis Mak       Date:  2009-12-09       Impact factor: 2.796

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.