Literature DB >> 15271276

Women's preferences for doctor's involvement in decisions about mammography screening.

Eric Chamot1, Agathe Charvet, Thomas V Perneger.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To assess women's preferences for doctor's involvement in mammography screening decisions.
METHODS: Mail survey of 50- to 69-year-old women residing in Geneva, Switzerland (N = 2216).
RESULTS: Women considered that the decision to undergo mammography screening should be made by the doctor alone (5.6%), doctor primarily (42.6%), shared equally between woman and doctor (45.0%), woman primarily (4.2%), and woman alone (2.4%). These subgroups differed considerably. Compared to women in the shared equally group, doctor alone respondents were more likely to be older, to be born outside Switzerland, and to wish to know as late as possible about having cancer. In contrast, woman alone respondents were more likely to report no previous mammogram, to expect bad news from mammograms, and to feel nervous about screening.
CONCLUSIONS: Most women wished to see their doctor involved in the decision to undergo a screening mammogram. Nevertheless, notable minorities held other opinions.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15271276     DOI: 10.1177/0272989X04267011

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med Decis Making        ISSN: 0272-989X            Impact factor:   2.583


  10 in total

1.  Physicians' attitudes and behaviour toward screening mammography in women 40 to 49 years of age.

Authors:  Patricia Smith; Susan Hum; Vered Kakzanov; M Elisabeth Del Giudice; Ruth Heisey
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2012-09       Impact factor: 3.275

2.  Scripts and Strategies for Discussing Stopping Cancer Screening with Adults > 75 Years: a Qualitative Study.

Authors:  Mara A Schonberg; Alicia R Jacobson; Maria Karamourtopoulos; Gianna M Aliberti; Adlin Pinheiro; Alexander K Smith; Linnaea C Schuttner; Elyse R Park; Mary Beth Hamel
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2020-03-03       Impact factor: 5.128

3.  Decision-making processes for breast, colorectal, and prostate cancer screening: the DECISIONS survey.

Authors:  Richard M Hoffman; Carmen L Lewis; Michael P Pignone; Mick P Couper; Michael J Barry; Joann G Elmore; Carrie A Levin; John Van Hoewyk; Brian J Zikmund-Fisher
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2010 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 2.583

4.  Patient assessments of the most important medical decision during a hospitalization.

Authors:  Thomas V Perneger; Agathe Charvet-Bérard; Arnaud Perrier
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2008-07-29       Impact factor: 5.128

5.  Quebec breast cancer screening program: a study of the perceptions of physicians in Laval, Que.

Authors:  Minh-Nguyet Nguyen; Diane Larocque; Daniel Paquette; Alejandra Irace-Cima
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2009-06       Impact factor: 3.275

6.  Barriers and facilitators to implementing shared decision-making in clinical practice: a systematic review of health professionals' perceptions.

Authors:  Karine Gravel; France Légaré; Ian D Graham
Journal:  Implement Sci       Date:  2006-08-09       Impact factor: 7.327

7.  The role of communication in breast cancer screening: a qualitative study with Australian experts.

Authors:  Lisa M Parker; Lucie Rychetnik; Stacy M Carter
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2015-10-19       Impact factor: 4.430

8.  Patient's preferences for health scenarios associated with hepatitis C and its treatment.

Authors:  Fabio Tinè
Journal:  Patient Prefer Adherence       Date:  2009-12-29       Impact factor: 2.711

Review 9.  Scrutinizing screening: a critical interpretive review of primary care provider perspectives on mammography decision-making with average-risk women.

Authors:  Sophia Siedlikowski; Carolyn Ells; Gillian Bartlett
Journal:  Public Health Rev       Date:  2018-04-23

10.  The impact of general practitioners' gender on process indicators in Hungarian primary healthcare: a nation-wide cross-sectional study.

Authors:  Nóra Kovács; Orsolya Varga; Attila Nagy; Anita Pálinkás; Valéria Sipos; László Kőrösi; Róza Ádány; János Sándor
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2019-09-06       Impact factor: 2.692

  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.