Literature DB >> 28141929

Alignment of breast cancer screening guidelines, accountability metrics, and practice patterns.

Tracy Onega, Jennifer S Haas, Asaf Bitton, Charles Brackett, Julie Weiss, Martha Goodrich1, Kimberly Harris, Steve Pyle, Anna N A Tosteson.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Breast cancer screening guidelines and metrics are inconsistent with each other and may differ from breast screening practice patterns in primary care. This study measured breast cancer screening practice patterns in relation to common evidence-based guidelines and accountability metrics. STUDY
DESIGN: Cohort study using primary data collected from a regional breast cancer screening research network between 2011 and 2014.
METHODS: Using information on women aged 30 to 89 years within 21 primary care practices of 2 large integrated health systems in New England, we measured the proportion of women screened overall and by age using 2 screening definition categories: any mammogram and screening mammogram.
RESULTS: Of the 81,352 women in our cohort, 54,903 (67.5%) had at least 1 mammogram during the time period, 48,314 (59.4%) had a screening mammogram. Women aged 50 to 69 years were the highest proportion screened (82.4% any mammogram, 75% screening indication); 72.6% of women at age 40 had a screening mammogram with a median of 70% (range = 54.3%-84.8%) among the practices. Of women aged at least 75 years, 63.3% had a screening mammogram, with the median of 63.9% (range = 37.2%-78.3%) among the practices. Of women who had 2 or more mammograms, 79.5% were screened annually.
CONCLUSIONS: Primary care practice patterns for breast cancer screening are not well aligned with some evidence-based guidelines and accountability metrics. Metrics and incentives should be designed with more uniformity and should also include shared decision making when the evidence does not clearly support one single conclusion.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28141929      PMCID: PMC5546912     

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Am J Manag Care        ISSN: 1088-0224            Impact factor:   2.229


  14 in total

1.  Recommendations for treating hypertension: what are the right goals and purposes?

Authors:  Eric D Peterson; J Michael Gaziano; Philip Greenland
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2014-02-05       Impact factor: 56.272

2.  Mammography rates after the 2009 US Preventive Services Task Force breast cancer screening recommendation.

Authors:  David H Howard; E Kathleen Adams
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2012-09-19       Impact factor: 4.018

3.  The effect of the controversial US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations on the use of screening mammography.

Authors:  Richard E Sharpe; David C Levin; Laurence Parker; Vijay M Rao
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 5.532

4.  Physician adherence to U.S. Preventive Services Task Force mammography guidelines.

Authors:  Jennifer Corbelli; Sonya Borrero; Rachel Bonnema; Megan McNamara; Kevin Kraemer; Doris Rubio; Irina Karpov; Melissa McNeil
Journal:  Womens Health Issues       Date:  2014 May-Jun

5.  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

6.  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

7.  Patient and clinical perspectives on changes to mammography screening guidelines.

Authors:  Gloria D Coronado; Javiera Martinez Gutierrez; Esther Jhingan; Antoinette Angulo; Ricardo Jimenez
Journal:  Breast J       Date:  2013-11-22       Impact factor: 2.431

8.  Patient-centered medical home initiatives expanded in 2009-13: providers, patients, and payment incentives increased.

Authors:  Samuel T Edwards; Asaf Bitton; Johan Hong; Bruce E Landon
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2014-10       Impact factor: 6.301

9.  Impact of the 2009 US Preventive Services Task Force guidelines on screening mammography rates on women in their 40s.

Authors:  Amy T Wang; Jiaquan Fan; Holly K Van Houten; Jon C Tilburt; Natasha K Stout; Victor M Montori; Nilay D Shah
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-03-11       Impact factor: 3.240

10.  Awareness of the 2009 US Preventive Services Task Force recommended changes in mammography screening guidelines, accuracy of awareness, sources of knowledge about recommendations, and attitudes about updated screening guidelines in women ages 40-49 and 50+.

Authors:  Marc T Kiviniemi; Jennifer L Hay
Journal:  BMC Public Health       Date:  2012-10-24       Impact factor: 3.295

View more
  3 in total

1.  Multilevel Predictors of Continued Adherence to Breast Cancer Screening Among Women Ages 50-74 Years in a Screening Population.

Authors:  Elisabeth F Beaber; Brian L Sprague; Anna N A Tosteson; Jennifer S Haas; Tracy Onega; Marilyn M Schapira; Anne Marie McCarthy; Christopher I Li; Sally D Herschorn; Constance D Lehman; Karen J Wernli; William E Barlow
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2018-11-27       Impact factor: 2.681

2.  Multi-level Influences on Breast Cancer Screening in Primary Care.

Authors:  Tracy Onega; Tor D Tosteson; Julie Weiss; Jennifer S Haas; Martha Goodrich; Roberta DiFlorio; Charles Brackett; Cheryl Clark; Kimberly Harris; Anna N A Tosteson
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2018-08-03       Impact factor: 5.128

3.  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
  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.