Jennifer S Haas1,2,3,4, Brian L Sprague5, Carrie N Klabunde6, Anna N A Tosteson7, Jane S Chen8, Asaf Bitton8,9, Elisabeth F Beaber10, Tracy Onega7, Jane J Kim11, Charles D MacLean5, Kimberly Harris8, Phillip Yamartino12, Kathleen Howe5, Loretta Pearson7, Sarah Feldman8,9, Phyllis Brawarsky8, Marilyn M Schapira12. 1. Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. jhaas@partners.org. 2. Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. jhaas@partners.org. 3. Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA. jhaas@partners.org. 4. Division of General Medicine and Primary Care, Brigham and Women's Hospital, 1620 Tremont Street, Boston, MA, 02120, USA. jhaas@partners.org. 5. University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, USA. 6. Office of Disease Prevention, Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA. 7. Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth and Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Lebanon, NH, USA. 8. Brigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. 9. Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 10. Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA. 11. Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA. 12. University of Pennsylvania and the Philadelphia VA Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Changes to national guidelines for breast and cervical cancer screening have created confusion and controversy for women and their primary care providers. OBJECTIVE: To characterize women's primary health care provider attitudes towards screening and changes in practice in response to recent revisions in guidelines for breast and cervical cancer screening. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: In 2014, we distributed a confidential web and mail survey to 668 women's health care providers affiliated with the four clinical care networks participating in the three PROSPR (Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens) consortium breast cancer research centers (385 respondents; response rate 57.6 %). MAIN MEASURES: We assessed self-reported attitudes toward breast and cervical cancer screening, as well as practice changes in response to the most recent revisions of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations. KEY RESULTS: The majority of providers believed that mammography screening was effective for reducing cancer mortality among women ages 40-74 years, and that Papanicolaou (Pap) testing was very effective for women ages 21-64 years. While the USPSTF breast and cervical cancer screening recommendations were widely perceived by the respondents as influential, 75.7 and 41.2 % of providers (for mammography and cervical cancer screening, respectively) reported screening practices in excess of those recommended by USPSTF. Provider-reported barriers to concordance with guideline recommendations included: patient concerns (74 and 36 % for breast and cervical, respectively), provider disagreement with the recommendations (50 and 14 %), health system measurement of a provider's screening practices that use conflicting measurement criteria (40 and 21 %), concern about malpractice risk (33 and 11 %), and lack of time to discuss the benefits and harms with their patients (17 and 8 %). CONCLUSIONS: Primary care providers do not consistently follow recent USPSTF breast and cervical cancer screening recommendations, despite noting that these guidelines are influential.
BACKGROUND: Changes to national guidelines for breast and cervical cancer screening have created confusion and controversy for women and their primary care providers. OBJECTIVE: To characterize women's primary health care provider attitudes towards screening and changes in practice in response to recent revisions in guidelines for breast and cervical cancer screening. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: In 2014, we distributed a confidential web and mail survey to 668 women's health care providers affiliated with the four clinical care networks participating in the three PROSPR (Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens) consortium breast cancer research centers (385 respondents; response rate 57.6 %). MAIN MEASURES: We assessed self-reported attitudes toward breast and cervical cancer screening, as well as practice changes in response to the most recent revisions of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations. KEY RESULTS: The majority of providers believed that mammography screening was effective for reducing cancer mortality among women ages 40-74 years, and that Papanicolaou (Pap) testing was very effective for women ages 21-64 years. While the USPSTF breast and cervical cancer screening recommendations were widely perceived by the respondents as influential, 75.7 and 41.2 % of providers (for mammography and cervical cancer screening, respectively) reported screening practices in excess of those recommended by USPSTF. Provider-reported barriers to concordance with guideline recommendations included: patient concerns (74 and 36 % for breast and cervical, respectively), provider disagreement with the recommendations (50 and 14 %), health system measurement of a provider's screening practices that use conflicting measurement criteria (40 and 21 %), concern about malpractice risk (33 and 11 %), and lack of time to discuss the benefits and harms with their patients (17 and 8 %). CONCLUSIONS: Primary care providers do not consistently follow recent USPSTF breast and cervical cancer screening recommendations, despite noting that these guidelines are influential.
Entities:
Keywords:
breast cancer screening; cervical cancer screening; clinical practice guidelines; primary care; provider practice patterns
Authors: Rebecca A Hubbard; Karla Kerlikowske; Chris I Flowers; Bonnie C Yankaskas; Weiwei Zhu; Diana L Miglioretti Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2011-10-18 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Paul K J Han; Carrie N Klabunde; Nancy Breen; Gigi Yuan; Alyssa Grauman; William W Davis; Stephen H Taplin Journal: Med Care Date: 2011-02 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: K Robin Yabroff; Carrie N Klabunde; Gigi Yuan; Timothy S McNeel; Martin L Brown; Dana Casciotti; Dennis W Buckman; Stephen Taplin Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2010-10-14 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Carol H Lee; D David Dershaw; Daniel Kopans; Phil Evans; Barbara Monsees; Debra Monticciolo; R James Brenner; Lawrence Bassett; Wendie Berg; Stephen Feig; Edward Hendrick; Ellen Mendelson; Carl D'Orsi; Edward Sickles; Linda Warren Burhenne Journal: J Am Coll Radiol Date: 2010-01 Impact factor: 5.532
Authors: Heidi D Nelson; Kari Tyne; Arpana Naik; Christina Bougatsos; Benjamin K Chan; Linda Humphrey Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2009-11-17 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Tracy Onega; Jennifer S Haas; Asaf Bitton; Charles Brackett; Julie Weiss; Martha Goodrich; Kimberly Harris; Steve Pyle; Anna N A Tosteson Journal: Am J Manag Care Date: 2017-01 Impact factor: 2.229
Authors: Jennifer S Haas; William E Barlow; Marilyn M Schapira; Charles D MacLean; Carrie N Klabunde; Brian L Sprague; Elisabeth F Beaber; Jane S Chen; Asaf Bitton; Tracy Onega; Kimberly Harris; Anna N A Tosteson Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2017-01-09 Impact factor: 5.128
Authors: Nirupa R Ghai; Christopher D Jensen; Sophie A Merchant; Joanne E Schottinger; Jeffrey K Lee; Jessica Chubak; Aruna Kamineni; Ethan A Halm; Celette Sugg Skinner; Jennifer S Haas; Beverly B Green; Nancy T Cannizzaro; Jennifer L Schneider; Douglas A Corley Journal: Cancer Prev Res (Phila) Date: 2020-07-15
Authors: Elisabeth F Beaber; Anna N A Tosteson; Jennifer S Haas; Tracy Onega; Brian L Sprague; Donald L Weaver; Anne Marie McCarthy; Chyke A Doubeni; Virginia P Quinn; Celette Sugg Skinner; Ann G Zauber; William E Barlow Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2016-09-24 Impact factor: 4.872