OBJECTIVE: This study examined the likelihood that U.S. primary care physicians (PCPs) discuss and recommend prostate cancer screening with their patients and physician-related and practice-related factors associated with this behavior. METHODS: We analyzed data from the 2007-2008 National Survey of Primary Care Physician Practices Regarding Prostate Cancer Screening (N = 1,256), the most recent and comprehensive survey specifically designed to address issues concerning prostate cancer screening and representing nearly 95,000 PCPs. We evaluated the relationship between PCP behavior regarding prostate cancer screening discussions and covariates, including PCP demographic and practice-related factors. Weighted percentages and Chi-square tests were used to compare use of screening discussions by PCP characteristics. Adjusted odds of discussing screening and recommending the PSA test were determined from logistic regression. RESULTS: Eighty percent of PCPs reported that they routinely discuss prostate cancer screening with all of their male patients, and 64.1% of PCPs who discussed screening with any patients reported that they attempted to talk their patients into getting the PSA test. In multivariate analyses, encouraging PSA testing was more likely among non-Hispanic black PCPs (OR = 2.80, 95% CI [1.88, 4.16]), PCPs serving 100 or more patients per week (OR = 2.16, 95% CI [1.38, 3.37]), and PCPs spending longer hours per week in direct patient care (31-40 hours: OR = 1.90, 95% CI [1.13, 3.20]; 41 or more hours: OR = 2.09, 95% CI [1.12, 3.88]), compared to their referents. PCPs in multi-specialty group practice were more likely to remain neutral or discourage PSA testing compared to PCPs in solo practice. CONCLUSIONS: Both individual and practice-related factors of PCPs were associated with the use of prostate cancer screening discussions by U.S. PCPs. Results from this study may prove valuable to researchers and clinicians and help guide the development and implementation of future prostate cancer screening interventions in the U.S.
OBJECTIVE: This study examined the likelihood that U.S. primary care physicians (PCPs) discuss and recommend prostate cancer screening with their patients and physician-related and practice-related factors associated with this behavior. METHODS: We analyzed data from the 2007-2008 National Survey of Primary Care Physician Practices Regarding Prostate Cancer Screening (N = 1,256), the most recent and comprehensive survey specifically designed to address issues concerning prostate cancer screening and representing nearly 95,000 PCPs. We evaluated the relationship between PCP behavior regarding prostate cancer screening discussions and covariates, including PCP demographic and practice-related factors. Weighted percentages and Chi-square tests were used to compare use of screening discussions by PCP characteristics. Adjusted odds of discussing screening and recommending the PSA test were determined from logistic regression. RESULTS: Eighty percent of PCPs reported that they routinely discuss prostate cancer screening with all of their male patients, and 64.1% of PCPs who discussed screening with any patients reported that they attempted to talk their patients into getting the PSA test. In multivariate analyses, encouraging PSA testing was more likely among non-Hispanic black PCPs (OR = 2.80, 95% CI [1.88, 4.16]), PCPs serving 100 or more patients per week (OR = 2.16, 95% CI [1.38, 3.37]), and PCPs spending longer hours per week in direct patient care (31-40 hours: OR = 1.90, 95% CI [1.13, 3.20]; 41 or more hours: OR = 2.09, 95% CI [1.12, 3.88]), compared to their referents. PCPs in multi-specialty group practice were more likely to remain neutral or discourage PSA testing compared to PCPs in solo practice. CONCLUSIONS: Both individual and practice-related factors of PCPs were associated with the use of prostate cancer screening discussions by U.S. PCPs. Results from this study may prove valuable to researchers and clinicians and help guide the development and implementation of future prostate cancer screening interventions in the U.S.
Authors: Judith Swan; Nancy Breen; Barry I Graubard; Timothy S McNeel; Donald Blackman; Florence K Tangka; Rachel Ballard-Barbash Journal: Cancer Date: 2010-10-15 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: Andrew M D Wolf; Richard C Wender; Ruth B Etzioni; Ian M Thompson; Anthony V D'Amico; Robert J Volk; Durado D Brooks; Chiranjeev Dash; Idris Guessous; Kimberly Andrews; Carol DeSantis; Robert A Smith Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2010-03-03 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Robert J Volk; Suzanne K Linder; Michael A Kallen; James M Galliher; Mindy S Spano; Patricia Dolan Mullen; Stephen J Spann Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2013 Jan-Feb Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Seul Ki Choi; Jessica S Seel; Susan E Steck; Johnny Payne; Douglas McCormick; Courtney S Schrock; Daniela B Friedman Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: Catherine Tomko; Kimberly M Davis; George Luta; Alexander H Krist; Steven H Woolf; Kathryn L Taylor Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2014-09-03 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Paul K J Han; Sarah Kobrin; Nancy Breen; Djenaba A Joseph; Jun Li; Dominick L Frosch; Carrie N Klabunde Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2013 Jul-Aug Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Suzanne K Linder; Michael A Kallen; Patricia Dolan Mullen; James M Galliher; Paul R Swank; Evelyn C Y Chan; Robert J Volk Journal: J Cancer Educ Date: 2014-06 Impact factor: 2.037
Authors: Ingrid J Hall; Sun Hee Rim; Greta M Massetti; Cheryll C Thomas; Jun Li; Lisa C Richardson Journal: Prev Med Date: 2017-08-06 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Stacy N Davis; Steven K Sutton; Susan T Vadaparampil; Cathy D Meade; Brian M Rivers; Mitul V Patel; Javier F Torres-Roca; Randy V Heysek; Philippe Spiess; Julio Pow-Sang; Paul B Jacobsen; Clement K Gwede Journal: Contemp Clin Trials Date: 2014-10-23 Impact factor: 2.226
Authors: Craig E Pollack; Elizabeth A Platz; Nrupen A Bhavsar; Gary Noronha; Gene E Green; Sean Chen; H Ballentine Carter Journal: Cancer Date: 2012-04-19 Impact factor: 6.860