Jennifer S Haas1,2,3, William E Barlow4, Marilyn M Schapira5, Charles D MacLean6, Carrie N Klabunde7, Brian L Sprague6, Elisabeth F Beaber4, Jane S Chen8, Asaf Bitton8,9, Tracy Onega10, Kimberly Harris8, Anna N A Tosteson10. 1. Division of General Medicine and Primary Care, Brigham and Women's Hospital, 1620 Tremont Street, Boston, MA, 02120, 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. Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA. 5. University of Pennsylvania and the Philadelphia VA Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 6. University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, USA. 7. Office of Disease Prevention, Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA. 8. Division of General Medicine and Primary Care, Brigham and Women's Hospital, 1620 Tremont Street, Boston, MA, 02120, USA. 9. Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA. 10. Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth and Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Lebanon, NH, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Revised breast cancer screening guidelines have fueled debate about the effectiveness and frequency of screening mammography, encouraging discussion between women and their providers. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether primary care providers' (PCPs') beliefs about the effectiveness and frequency of screening mammography are associated with utilization by their patients. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey data from PCPs (2014) from three primary care networks affiliated with the Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens (PROSPR) consortium, linked with data about their patients' mammography use (2011-2014). PARTICIPANTS: PCPs (n = 209) and their female patients age 40-89 years without breast cancer (n = 30,233). MAIN MEASURES: Outcomes included whether (1) women received a screening mammogram during a 2-year period; and (2) screened women had >1 mammogram during that period, reflecting annual screening. Principal independent variables were PCP beliefs about the effectiveness of mammography and their recommendations for screening frequency. KEY RESULTS: Overall 65.2% of women received >1 screening mammogram. For women 40-48 years, mammography use was modestly lower for those cared for by PCPs who believed that screening was ineffective compared with those who believed it was somewhat or very effective (59.1%, 62.3%, and 64.7%; p = 0.019 after controlling for patient characteristics). Of women with PCPs who reported they did not recommend screening before age 50, 48.1% were nonetheless screened. For women age 49-74 years, the vast majority were cared for by providers who believed that screening was effective. Provider recommendations were not associated with screening frequency. For women ≥75 years, those cared for by providers who were uncertain about effectiveness had higher screening use (50.7%) than those cared for by providers who believed it was somewhat effective (42.8%). Patients of providers who did not recommend screening were less likely to be screened than were those whose providers recommended annual screening, yet 37.1% of patients whose providers recommended against screening still received screening. CONCLUSIONS: PCP beliefs about mammography effectiveness and screening recommendations are only modestly associated with use, suggesting other likely influences on patient participation in mammography.
BACKGROUND: Revised breast cancer screening guidelines have fueled debate about the effectiveness and frequency of screening mammography, encouraging discussion between women and their providers. OBJECTIVE: To examine whether primary care providers' (PCPs') beliefs about the effectiveness and frequency of screening mammography are associated with utilization by their patients. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey data from PCPs (2014) from three primary care networks affiliated with the Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens (PROSPR) consortium, linked with data about their patients' mammography use (2011-2014). PARTICIPANTS: PCPs (n = 209) and their female patients age 40-89 years without breast cancer (n = 30,233). MAIN MEASURES: Outcomes included whether (1) women received a screening mammogram during a 2-year period; and (2) screened women had >1 mammogram during that period, reflecting annual screening. Principal independent variables were PCP beliefs about the effectiveness of mammography and their recommendations for screening frequency. KEY RESULTS: Overall 65.2% of women received >1 screening mammogram. For women 40-48 years, mammography use was modestly lower for those cared for by PCPs who believed that screening was ineffective compared with those who believed it was somewhat or very effective (59.1%, 62.3%, and 64.7%; p = 0.019 after controlling for patient characteristics). Of women with PCPs who reported they did not recommend screening before age 50, 48.1% were nonetheless screened. For women age 49-74 years, the vast majority were cared for by providers who believed that screening was effective. Provider recommendations were not associated with screening frequency. For women ≥75 years, those cared for by providers who were uncertain about effectiveness had higher screening use (50.7%) than those cared for by providers who believed it was somewhat effective (42.8%). Patients of providers who did not recommend screening were less likely to be screened than were those whose providers recommended annual screening, yet 37.1% of patients whose providers recommended against screening still received screening. CONCLUSIONS: PCP beliefs about mammography effectiveness and screening recommendations are only modestly associated with use, suggesting other likely influences on patient participation in mammography.
Entities:
Keywords:
mammography; provider beliefs; variation in care
Authors: Soudabeh Fazeli Dehkordy; Kelli S Hall; Allison L Roach; Edward D Rothman; Vanessa K Dalton; Ruth C Carlos Journal: Am J Prev Med Date: 2015-04-01 Impact factor: 5.043
Authors: Holli H Seitz; Laura Gibson; Christine Skubisz; Heather Forquer; Susan Mello; Marilyn M Schapira; Katrina Armstrong; Joseph N Cappella Journal: Patient Educ Couns Date: 2016-05-04
Authors: Hude Quan; Vijaya Sundararajan; Patricia Halfon; Andrew Fong; Bernard Burnand; Jean-Christophe Luthi; L Duncan Saunders; Cynthia A Beck; Thomas E Feasby; William A Ghali Journal: Med Care Date: 2005-11 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Elisabeth F Beaber; Jane J Kim; Marilyn M Schapira; Anna N A Tosteson; Ann G Zauber; Ann M Geiger; Aruna Kamineni; Donald L Weaver; Jasmin A Tiro Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2015-05-07 Impact factor: 13.506
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: 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: William E Barlow; Elisabeth F Beaber; Berta M Geller; Aruna Kamineni; Yingye Zheng; Jennifer S Haas; Chun R Chao; Carolyn M Rutter; Ann G Zauber; Brian L Sprague; Ethan A Halm; Donald L Weaver; Jessica Chubak; V Paul Doria-Rose; Sarah Kobrin; Tracy Onega; Virginia P Quinn; Marilyn M Schapira; Anna N A Tosteson; Douglas A Corley; Celette Sugg Skinner; Mitchell D Schnall; Katrina Armstrong; Cosette M Wheeler; Michael J Silverberg; Bijal A Balasubramanian; Chyke A Doubeni; Dale McLerran; Jasmin A Tiro Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2020-03-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Justine P Enns; Craig E Pollack; Cynthia M Boyd; Jacqueline Massare; Nancy L Schoenborn Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2021-09-20 Impact factor: 6.473
Authors: Archana Radhakrishnan; Sarah A Nowak; Andrew M Parker; Kala Visvanathan; Craig E Pollack Journal: Prev Med Date: 2017-11-17 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Karen J Wernli; Erin A Bowles; Sarah Knerr; Kathleen A Leppig; Kelly Ehrlich; Hongyuan Gao; Marc D Schwartz; Suzanne C O'Neill Journal: Perm J Date: 2020-12