Literature DB >> 19661809

Breast cancer risk communication: assessment of primary care physicians by standardized patients.

Julie O Culver1, Deborah J Bowen, Susan E Reynolds, Linda E Pinsky, Nancy Press, Wylie Burke.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To assess primary care providers' communication about breast cancer risk.
METHODS: We evaluated 86 primary care providers' communication of risk using unannounced standardized (simulated) patients. Physicians were randomly assigned to receive one of three cases: (1) moderate risk case (n = 25), presenting with a breast lump and mother with postmenopausal breast cancer; (2) high-risk (maternal side) case (n = 28), presenting with concern about breast cancer risk; and (3) high-risk (paternal side) case (n = 33), presenting with an unrelated problem. After the appointment, three qualitative parameters were assessed by standardized patients on a 3-point scale (3 = highest satisfaction, 1 = lowest): whether the physician took adequate time; acknowledged her concerns; and offered reassurance.
RESULTS: Mean satisfaction with physician communication was higher for the moderate risk case (2.92) than for the high-risk paternal case (2.25) or high-risk maternal case (2.42) (P < 0.0001). The score was not influenced by session length, medical specialty, or physician gender.
CONCLUSION: Physicians more consistently provided a moderate risk standardized patients with reassurance and support compared with the high-risk cases. Primary care physicians may be more unprepared or uneasy addressing the issues raised by more complex scenarios and may benefit from training in the assessment and communication of breast cancer risk.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19661809     DOI: 10.1097/GIM.0b013e3181b2e5eb

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Genet Med        ISSN: 1098-3600            Impact factor:   8.822


  16 in total

1.  Young Women's Perceptions Regarding Communication with Healthcare Providers About Breast Cancer, Risk, and Prevention.

Authors:  Natasha Buchanan Lunsford; Karena F Sapsis; Betsy Smither; Jennifer Reynolds; Ben Wilburn; Temeika Fairley
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2017-05-04       Impact factor: 2.681

2.  An Applied Framework in Support of Shared Decision Making about BRCA Genetic Testing.

Authors:  Thomas B Silverman; Gilad J Kuperman; Alejandro Vanegas; Margaret Sin; Jill Dimond; Katherine D Crew; Rita Kukafka
Journal:  AMIA Annu Symp Proc       Date:  2018-12-05

3.  Impact of a randomized controlled educational trial to improve physician practice behaviors around screening for inherited breast cancer.

Authors:  Robert A Bell; Haley McDermott; Tonya L Fancher; Michael J Green; Frank C Day; Michael S Wilkes
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2014-12-02       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 4.  The advantages and challenges of unannounced standardized patient methodology to assess healthcare communication.

Authors:  Laura A Siminoff; Heather L Rogers; Allison C Waller; Sonja Harris-Haywood; Ronald M Esptein; Francesc Borrell Carrio; Gayle Gliva-McConvey; Daniel R Longo
Journal:  Patient Educ Couns       Date:  2011-03

5.  Models of service delivery for cancer genetic risk assessment and counseling.

Authors:  Angela M Trepanier; Dawn C Allain
Journal:  J Genet Couns       Date:  2013-10-26       Impact factor: 2.537

6.  Individual breast cancer risk assessment in underserved populations: integrating empirical bioethics and health disparities research.

Authors:  Emily E Anderson; Kent Hoskins
Journal:  J Health Care Poor Underserved       Date:  2012-11

7.  Comparative effectiveness of audit-feedback versus additional physician communication training to improve cancer screening for patients with limited health literacy.

Authors:  Eboni G Price-Haywood; Jewel Harden-Barrios; Lisa A Cooper
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2014-02-04       Impact factor: 5.128

8.  Components of family history associated with women's disease perceptions for cancer: a report from the Family Healthware™ Impact Trial.

Authors:  Wendy S Rubinstein; Suzanne M O'neill; Nan Rothrock; Erin J Starzyk; Jennifer L Beaumont; Louise S Acheson; Catharine Wang; Robert Gramling; James M Galliher; Mack T Ruffin
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2011-01       Impact factor: 8.822

9.  Educational needs about cancer family history and genetic counseling for cancer risk among frontline healthcare clinicians in New York City.

Authors:  Katarina M Sussner; Lina Jandorf; Heiddis B Valdimarsdottir
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 8.822

10.  Effectiveness of oncogenetics training on general practitioners' consultation skills: a randomized controlled trial.

Authors:  Elisa J F Houwink; Arno M M Muijtjens; Sarah R van Teeffelen; Lidewij Henneman; Jan Joost Rethans; Liesbeth E J van der Jagt; Scheltus J van Luijk; Geert Jan Dinant; Cees van der Vleuten; Martina C Cornel
Journal:  Genet Med       Date:  2013-05-30       Impact factor: 8.822

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.