Literature DB >> 28070772

Primary Care Providers' Beliefs and Recommendations and Use of Screening Mammography by their Patients.

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.   

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.

Entities:  

Keywords:  mammography; provider beliefs; variation in care

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28070772      PMCID: PMC5377895          DOI: 10.1007/s11606-016-3973-y

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Gen Intern Med        ISSN: 0884-8734            Impact factor:   5.128


  25 in total

1.  Trends in Breast Cancer Screening: Impact of U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendations.

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

2.  Clinical decisions. Mammography screening for breast cancer.

Authors:  Robert A Smith; Karla Kerlikowske; Diana L Miglioretti; Mette Kalager
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  2012-11-22       Impact factor: 91.245

3.  A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation.

Authors:  M E Charlson; P Pompei; K L Ales; C R MacKenzie
Journal:  J Chronic Dis       Date:  1987

4.  Targeting of mammography screening according to life expectancy in women aged 75 and older.

Authors:  Mara A Schonberg; Erica S Breslau; Ellen P McCarthy
Journal:  J Am Geriatr Soc       Date:  2013-02-15       Impact factor: 5.562

5.  Effects of a risk-based online mammography intervention on accuracy of perceived risk and mammography intentions.

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

6.  Coding algorithms for defining comorbidities in ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 administrative data.

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

7.  Unifying screening processes within the PROSPR consortium: a conceptual model for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening.

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

Review 8.  Screening for breast cancer: an update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

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

9.  Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement.

Authors: 
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2009-11-17       Impact factor: 25.391

10.  Are patients of women physicians screened more aggressively? A prospective study of physician gender and screening.

Authors:  M W Kreuter; V J Strecher; R Harris; S C Kobrin; C S Skinner
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1995-03       Impact factor: 5.128

View more
  10 in total

Review 1.  Factors Influencing Overuse of Breast Cancer Screening: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Ritu Sharma; Jean Pannikottu; Yunwen Xu; Monica Tung; Stephanie Nothelle; Allison H Oakes; Jodi B Segal
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2018-04-30       Impact factor: 2.681

2.  Variation in Breast Cancer Screening Recommendations by Primary Care Providers Surveyed in Wisconsin.

Authors:  Emily Nachtigal; Noelle K LoConte; Sarah Kerch; Xiao Zhang; Amanda Parkes
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2020-06-03       Impact factor: 5.128

3.  Primary Care Provider Beliefs and Recommendations About Colorectal Cancer Screening in Four Healthcare Systems.

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

4.  Evaluating Screening Participation, Follow-up, and Outcomes for Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancer in the PROSPR Consortium.

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

5.  Linking Reminders and Physician Breast Cancer Screening Recommendations: Results From a National Survey.

Authors:  Elizabeth J Siembida; Archana Radhakrishnan; Sarah A Nowak; Andrew M Parker; Craig Evan Pollack
Journal:  JCO Clin Cancer Inform       Date:  2017-11

6.  Characteristics Associated with Low-Value Cancer Screening Among Office-Based Physician Visits by Older Adults in the USA.

Authors:  Mary A Gerend; Russell Bradbury; Jeffrey S Harman; George Rust
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2021-08-11       Impact factor: 6.473

7.  Discontinuing Cancer Screening for Older Adults: a Comparison of Clinician Decision-Making for Breast, Colorectal, and Prostate Cancer Screenings.

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

8.  Linking physician attitudes to their breast cancer screening practices: A survey of US primary care providers and gynecologists.

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

9.  Characteristics Associated with Participation in ENGAGED 2 - A Web-based Breast Cancer Risk Communication and Decision Support Trial.

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

10.  Primary care provider perspectives on screening mammography in older women: A qualitative study.

Authors:  Sachiko M Oshima; Sarah D Tait; Laura Fish; Rachel A Greenup; Lars J Grimm
Journal:  Prev Med Rep       Date:  2021-04-17
  10 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.