Literature DB >> 22972742

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

Patricia Smith1, Susan Hum, Vered Kakzanov, M Elisabeth Del Giudice, Ruth Heisey.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To determine family physicians' attitudes and behaviour toward screening mammography, breast self-examination, and breast awareness in women aged 40 to 49 at average risk of breast cancer.
DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey.
SETTING: Women's College Hospital and Sunnybrook Health Sciences Centre, both in Toronto, Ont. PARTICIPANTS: Family medicine residents, fellows, and staff physicians at 2 academic family practice health centres affiliated with the University of Toronto (n = 95). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Physicians' answers to questions about offering screening mammography and promoting breast self-examination and breast awareness.
RESULTS: Fifty-two completed surveys were returned (response rate 55%). Less than half of all surveyed family physicians (46%) routinely offered screening mammography to women aged 40 to 49 who were at average risk of breast cancer. Although 40% of physicians did not think breast cancer screening was necessary for women aged 40 to 49, 62% indicated that they would offer screening if their patients requested it. Physicians' reasons not to offer screening included no evidence of decreasing breast cancer deaths (63%), grade A recommendation to screen women starting at age 50 and not at age 40 (25%), and the harms of screening outweighing the benefits (19%). Physicians' reasons to offer screening included patient request (55%), personal clinical practice experience or mentors' recommendations (27%), and guideline recommendations (18%). Breast self-examination was not recommended by most physicians (74%), yet most encouraged women to practise breast awareness (81%).
CONCLUSION: Many women at average risk of breast cancer are not being offered the opportunity to discuss and initiate mammographic screening before 50 years of age. While breast-self examination is not recommended, most physicians promote breast awareness.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22972742      PMCID: PMC3440292     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Can Fam Physician        ISSN: 0008-350X            Impact factor:   3.275


  17 in total

1.  The Swedish Two-County Trial twenty years later. Updated mortality results and new insights from long-term follow-up.

Authors:  L Tabár; B Vitak; H H Chen; S W Duffy; M F Yen; C F Chiang; U B Krusemo; T Tot; R A Smith
Journal:  Radiol Clin North Am       Date:  2000-07       Impact factor: 2.303

2.  Women's views on the introduction of Annual Screening Mammography to those aged 40-49 years (a pilot study).

Authors:  K Mokbel; F Lirosi; W al-Sarakbi; C Leris
Journal:  Curr Med Res Opin       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 2.580

Review 3.  Clinical practice. Mammographic screening for breast cancer.

Authors:  Suzanne W Fletcher; Joann G Elmore
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2003-04-24       Impact factor: 91.245

4.  Recommendations on screening for breast cancer in average-risk women aged 40-74 years.

Authors:  Marcello Tonelli; Sarah Connor Gorber; Michel Joffres; James Dickinson; Harminder Singh; Gabriela Lewin; Richard Birtwhistle; Donna Fitzpatrick-Lewis; Nicole Hodgson; Donna Ciliska; Mary Gauld; Yan Yun Liu
Journal:  CMAJ       Date:  2011-11-22       Impact factor: 8.262

Review 5.  Long-term effects of mammography screening: updated overview of the Swedish randomised trials.

Authors:  Lennarth Nyström; Ingvar Andersson; Nils Bjurstam; Jan Frisell; Bo Nordenskjöld; Lars Erik Rutqvist
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2002-03-16       Impact factor: 79.321

6.  Patterns and predictors of the breast cancer detection methods in women under 45 years of age (United States).

Authors:  R J Coates; R J Uhler; D J Brogan; M D Gammon; K E Malone; C A Swanson; E W Flagg; L A Brinton
Journal:  Cancer Causes Control       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 2.506

7.  14 years of follow-up from the Edinburgh randomised trial of breast-cancer screening.

Authors:  F E Alexander; T J Anderson; H K Brown; A P Forrest; W Hepburn; A E Kirkpatrick; B B Muir; R J Prescott; A Smith
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  1999-06-05       Impact factor: 79.321

8.  The Gothenburg Breast Screening Trial.

Authors:  Nils Bjurstam; Lena Björneld; Jane Warwick; Evis Sala; Stephen W Duffy; Lennarth Nyström; Neil Walker; Erling Cahlin; Olof Eriksson; Lars-Olof Hafström; Halvard Lingaas; Jan Mattsson; Stellan Persson; Carl-Magnus Rudenstam; Håkan Salander; Johan Säve-Söderbergh; Torkel Wahlin
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2003-05-15       Impact factor: 6.860

9.  The Canadian National Breast Screening Study-1: breast cancer mortality after 11 to 16 years of follow-up. A randomized screening trial of mammography in women age 40 to 49 years.

Authors:  Anthony B Miller; Teresa To; Cornelia J Baines; Claus Wall
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2002-09-03       Impact factor: 25.391

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

Authors:  Eric Chamot; Agathe Charvet; Thomas V Perneger
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2004 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 2.583

View more
  5 in total

1.  Attitudes About Lung Cancer Screening: Primary Care Providers Versus Specialists.

Authors:  Sritha Rajupet; Dhvani Doshi; Juan P Wisnivesky; Jenny J Lin
Journal:  Clin Lung Cancer       Date:  2017-05-10       Impact factor: 4.785

2.  The Moderating Role of Clinical Experience in the Relationship Between Patient Characteristics, Attributed Barriers to Mammography, Beliefs About Cancer, and Clinical Decisions: a Study of Israeli Arab Physicians.

Authors:  Michal Soffer; Miri Cohen; Faisal Azaiza
Journal:  J Racial Ethn Health Disparities       Date:  2021-03-05

3.  Clinical Features and Outcomes of Invasive Breast Cancer: Age-Specific Analysis of a Modern Hospital-Based Registry.

Authors:  Ji-Yeon Kim; Danbee Kang; Seok Jin Nam; Seok Won Kim; Jeong Eon Lee; Jong Han Yu; Se Kyung Lee; Young-Hyuck Im; Jin Seok Ahn; Eliseo Guallar; Juhee Cho; Yeon Hee Park
Journal:  J Glob Oncol       Date:  2019-07

4.  Clinician Variation in Ordering and Completion of Low-Dose Computed Tomography for Lung Cancer Screening in a Safety-Net Medical System.

Authors:  David E Gerber; Heidi A Hamann; Olivia Dorsey; Chul Ahn; Jessica L Phillips; Noel O Santini; Travis Browning; Cristhiaan D Ochoa; Joyce Adesina; Vijaya Subbu Natchimuthu; Eric Steen; Harris Majeed; Amrit Gonugunta; Simon J Craddock Lee
Journal:  Clin Lung Cancer       Date:  2020-12-11       Impact factor: 4.840

Review 5.  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
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.