BACKGROUND: Multiple clinical practice guidelines exist for breast and cervical cancer screening, and differ in aggressiveness with respect to the recommended frequency and target populations for screening. OBJECTIVES: To determine (1) US primary care physicians' (PCPs) perceptions of the influence of different clinical practice guidelines; (2) the relationship between the number, aggressiveness, and agreement of influential guidelines and the aggressiveness of physicians' screening recommendations; and (3) factors associated with guideline perceptions. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A nationally representative sample of 1212 PCPs was surveyed in 2006-2007. Cross-sectional analyses examined physicians' perceptions of the influence of different breast and cervical cancer screening guidelines, the relationship of guideline perceptions to screening recommendations in response to hypothetical vignettes, and the predictors of guideline perceptions. RESULTS: American Cancer Society and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists guidelines were perceived as more influential than other guidelines. Most physicians (62%) valued multiple guidelines, and conflicting and aggressive rather than conservative guideline combinations. The number, aggressiveness, and agreement of influential guidelines were associated with the aggressiveness of screening recommendations (P < 0.01)-which was highest for physicians valuing multiple-aggressive, lowest for physicians valuing multiple-conservative, and intermediate for physicians valuing multiple-conflicting, single, and no guidelines. Obstetrician/gynecologists specialty predicted valuation of aggressive guidelines (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: PCPs' perceptions of cancer screening guidelines vary, relate to screening recommendations in logically-consistent ways, and are predicted by specialty and other factors. The number, aggressiveness, and agreement of valued guidelines are associated with screening recommendations, suggesting that guideline multiplicity is an important problem in clinical decision-making.
BACKGROUND: Multiple clinical practice guidelines exist for breast and cervical cancer screening, and differ in aggressiveness with respect to the recommended frequency and target populations for screening. OBJECTIVES: To determine (1) US primary care physicians' (PCPs) perceptions of the influence of different clinical practice guidelines; (2) the relationship between the number, aggressiveness, and agreement of influential guidelines and the aggressiveness of physicians' screening recommendations; and (3) factors associated with guideline perceptions. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A nationally representative sample of 1212 PCPs was surveyed in 2006-2007. Cross-sectional analyses examined physicians' perceptions of the influence of different breast and cervical cancer screening guidelines, the relationship of guideline perceptions to screening recommendations in response to hypothetical vignettes, and the predictors of guideline perceptions. RESULTS: American Cancer Society and American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists guidelines were perceived as more influential than other guidelines. Most physicians (62%) valued multiple guidelines, and conflicting and aggressive rather than conservative guideline combinations. The number, aggressiveness, and agreement of influential guidelines were associated with the aggressiveness of screening recommendations (P < 0.01)-which was highest for physicians valuing multiple-aggressive, lowest for physicians valuing multiple-conservative, and intermediate for physicians valuing multiple-conflicting, single, and no guidelines. Obstetrician/gynecologists specialty predicted valuation of aggressive guidelines (P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: PCPs' perceptions of cancer screening guidelines vary, relate to screening recommendations in logically-consistent ways, and are predicted by specialty and other factors. The number, aggressiveness, and agreement of valued guidelines are associated with screening recommendations, suggesting that guideline multiplicity is an important problem in clinical decision-making.
Authors: S R Tunis; R S Hayward; M C Wilson; H R Rubin; E B Bass; M Johnston; E P Steinberg Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 1994-06-01 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: David B Portnoy; Paul K J Han; Rebecca A Ferrer; William M P Klein; Steven B Clauser Journal: Health Expect Date: 2011-08-12 Impact factor: 3.377
Authors: Neil Bell; Sarah Connor Gorber; Marcello Tonelli; Kevin Pottie; Harminder Singh; Michel Joffres; Elizabeth Shaw Journal: Can Fam Physician Date: 2013-12 Impact factor: 3.275
Authors: Ramzi G Salloum; Racquel E Kohler; Gail A Jensen; Stacey L Sheridan; William R Carpenter; Andrea K Biddle Journal: J Womens Health (Larchmt) Date: 2013-11-06 Impact factor: 2.681
Authors: Gwendolyn P Quinn; Caprice A Knapp; Teri L Malo; Jessica McIntyre; Paul B Jacobsen; Susan T Vadaparampil Journal: J Support Oncol Date: 2012-01-23
Authors: Jennifer S Haas; Brian L Sprague; Carrie N Klabunde; Anna N A Tosteson; Jane S Chen; Asaf Bitton; Elisabeth F Beaber; Tracy Onega; Jane J Kim; Charles D MacLean; Kimberly Harris; Phillip Yamartino; Kathleen Howe; Loretta Pearson; Sarah Feldman; Phyllis Brawarsky; Marilyn M Schapira Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 5.128
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
Authors: Jacqueline W Miller; Laura-Mae Baldwin; Barbara Matthews; Katrina F Trivers; C Holly Andrilla; Denise Lishner; Barbara A Goff Journal: Prev Med Date: 2014-07-17 Impact factor: 4.018