Literature DB >> 18556635

Effect of guidelines on primary care physician use of PSA screening: results from the Community Tracking Study Physician Survey.

Carmen E Guerra1, Phyllis A Gimotty, Judy A Shea, José A Pagán, J Sanford Schwartz, Katrina Armstrong.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the effect of guidelines that recommend shared decision making on physician practice patterns. The objective of this study was to determine the association between physicians' perceived effect of guidelines on clinical practice and self-reported prostate-specific antigen (PSA) screening patterns.
METHODS: This was a cross-sectional study using a nationally representative sample of 3914 primary care physicians participating in the 1998-1999 Community Tracking Study Physician Survey. Responses to a case vignette that asked physicians what proportion of asymptomatic 60-year-old white men they would screen with a PSA were divided into 3 distinct groups: consistent PSA screeners (screen all), variable screeners (screen 1%- 99%), and consistent nonscreeners (screen none). Logistic regression was used to determine the association between PSA screening patterns and physician-reported effect of guidelines (no effect v. any magnitude effect).
RESULTS: Only 27% of physicians were variable PSA screeners; the rest were consistent screeners (60%) and consistent nonscreeners (13%). Only 8% of physicians perceived guidelines to have no effect on their practice. After adjustment for demographic and practice characteristics, variable screeners were more likely to report any magnitude effect of guidelines on their practice when compared with physicians in the other 2 groups (adjusted odds ratio= 1.73; 95% confidence interval=1:25-2:38;P=0:001).
CONCLUSIONS: Physicians who perceive an effect of guidelines on their practice are almost twice as likely to exhibit screening PSA practice variability, whereas physicians who do not perceive an effect of guidelines on their practice are more likely to be consistent PSA screeners or consistent PSA nonscreeners.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2008        PMID: 18556635      PMCID: PMC3991564          DOI: 10.1177/0272989X08315243

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


  42 in total

1.  Guidelines for the diagnoses and treatment of adult lower respiratory tract infections: a true "European cooperative effort".

Authors:  M I Restrepo; A Anzueto
Journal:  Eur Respir J       Date:  2005-12       Impact factor: 16.671

2.  Decision making in prostate-specific antigen screening National Health Interview Survey, 2000.

Authors:  Paul K J Han; Ralph J Coates; Robert J Uhler; Nancy Breen
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2006-03-23       Impact factor: 5.043

3.  Closing the gap between research and practice: an overview of systematic reviews of interventions to promote the implementation of research findings. The Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care Review Group.

Authors:  L A Bero; R Grilli; J M Grimshaw; E Harvey; A D Oxman; M A Thomson
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  1998-08-15

4.  Prostate-specific antigen testing in Ontario: reasons for testing patients without diagnosed prostate cancer.

Authors:  P S Bunting; V Goel; J I Williams; N A Iscoe
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  1999-01-12       Impact factor: 8.262

5.  Prostate-specific antigen for prostate cancer screening. Do physician characteristics affect its use?

Authors:  K L Edlefsen; M T Mandelson; M W McIntosh; M R Andersen; E H Wagner; N Urban
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  1999-07       Impact factor: 5.043

6.  Factors influencing use of the prostate-specific antigen screening test in primary care.

Authors:  W P Moran; S J Cohen; J S Preisser; J L Wofford; B J Shelton; M W McClatchey
Journal:  Am J Manag Care       Date:  2000-03       Impact factor: 2.229

Review 7.  Detection of prostate cancer: the impact of the European Randomized Study of Screening for Prostate Cancer (ERSPC).

Authors:  Fritz H Schröder
Journal:  Can J Urol       Date:  2005-02       Impact factor: 1.344

8.  The validity of male patients' self-reports regarding prostate cancer screening.

Authors:  T R Jordan; J H Price; K A King; T Masyk; A W Bedell
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  1999-03       Impact factor: 4.018

9.  A prospective, multicenter study of a pneumonia practice guideline.

Authors:  D C Rhew; M S Riedinger; M Sandhu; C Bowers; N Greengold; S R Weingarten
Journal:  Chest       Date:  1998-07       Impact factor: 9.410

10.  Measuring the quality of physician practice by using clinical vignettes: a prospective validation study.

Authors:  John W Peabody; Jeff Luck; Peter Glassman; Sharad Jain; Joyce Hansen; Maureen Spell; Martin Lee
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2004-11-16       Impact factor: 25.391

View more
  5 in total

1.  African american primary care physicians' prostate cancer screening practices.

Authors:  Louie E Ross; Ingrid J Hall
Journal:  J Prim Care Community Health       Date:  2013-10-17

2.  Prostate cancer screening in men ages 75 and older fell by 8 percentage points after Task Force recommendation.

Authors:  David H Howard; Florence K Tangka; Gery P Guy; Donatus U Ekwueme; Joseph Lipscomb
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2013-03       Impact factor: 6.301

3.  Do Men Receive Information Required for Shared Decision Making About PSA Testing? Results from a National Survey.

Authors:  Bryan Leyva; Alexander Persoskie; Allison Ottenbacher; Jada G Hamilton; Jennifer D Allen; Sarah C Kobrin; Stephen H Taplin
Journal:  J Cancer Educ       Date:  2016-12       Impact factor: 2.037

4.  Exploring factors that might influence primary-care provider discussion of and recommendation for prostate and colon cancer screening.

Authors:  Christine E Kistler; Maihan Vu; Anne Sutkowi-Hemstreet; Ziya Gizlice; Russell P Harris; Noel T Brewer; Carmen L Lewis; Rowena J Dolor; Colleen Barclay; Stacey L Sheridan
Journal:  Int J Gen Med       Date:  2018-05-17

5.  Is anyone listening? Variation in PSA screening among providers for men 75+ before and after United States Preventive Services Task Force recommendations against it: a retrospective cohort study.

Authors:  James S Goodwin; Elizabeth Jaramillo; Liu Yang; Yong-Fang Kuo; Alai Tan
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-09-10       Impact factor: 3.240

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.