Literature DB >> 31063441

Physician Knowledge, Attitudes, and Practices Regarding Breast Density.

Jordonna Brown1, Chloe Soukas2, Jenny J Lin3, Laurie Margolies4, Marimer Santiago-Rivas5, Lina Jandorf5.   

Abstract

Background: Many states have enacted breast density laws, requiring that women be informed of their breast density status; however there is currently no consensus for screening guidelines or recommendations for women with dense breasts. The objective of this study is to access physician views about breast density and their practices for breast cancer screening of women with dense breasts in light of breast density laws. Materials and
Methods: Setting: Academic medical centers, community and private practices mostly in New York City. Participants: Primary care providers (PCPs), radiologists and gynecologists. Procedure: We conducted the study through anonymous, self-administered surveys about physician knowledge, attitudes, and practices regarding screening of women with dense breasts. Bivariate and multivariate analyses were performed to assess differences between PCPs and specialists.
Results: We received 155 responses of which 75% were female, 77% were attending-level physicians, 42% were PCPs, 28% were radiologists, 17% were gynecologists, and 9% other. Almost half of the respondents (48%) were unaware of breast density laws, and two-thirds (67%) felt they needed more education about breast density and supplemental screening. More than half of the respondents (62%) were unaware of the increased risk of breast cancer related to dense breasts. Compared to specialists, PCPs were less aware of their state's breast density laws (odds ratio [OR] 0.21; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.09-0.50) and of the increased breast cancer risk for women with dense breasts (OR 0.23; 95% CI 0.09-0.60).
Conclusion: Breast density laws have not translated into greater knowledge of breast density and recommendations for supplemental screening among PCPs.

Entities:  

Keywords:  breast density; breast density law; physician knowledge

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31063441      PMCID: PMC6743086          DOI: 10.1089/jwh.2018.7429

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)        ISSN: 1540-9996            Impact factor:   2.681


  23 in total

1.  Screening US in patients with mammographically dense breasts: initial experience with Connecticut Public Act 09-41.

Authors:  Regina J Hooley; Kathryn L Greenberg; Rebecca M Stackhouse; Jaime L Geisel; Reni S Butler; Liane E Philpotts
Journal:  Radiology       Date:  2012-06-21       Impact factor: 11.105

2.  Detection of breast cancer with addition of annual screening ultrasound or a single screening MRI to mammography in women with elevated breast cancer risk.

Authors:  Wendie A Berg; Zheng Zhang; Daniel Lehrer; Roberta A Jong; Etta D Pisano; Richard G Barr; Marcela Böhm-Vélez; Mary C Mahoney; W Phil Evans; Linda H Larsen; Marilyn J Morton; Ellen B Mendelson; Dione M Farria; Jean B Cormack; Helga S Marques; Amanda Adams; Nolin M Yeh; Glenna Gabrielli
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2012-04-04       Impact factor: 56.272

3.  Evidence of the effect of adjunct ultrasound screening in women with mammography-negative dense breasts: interval breast cancers at 1 year follow-up.

Authors:  Vittorio Corsetti; Nehmat Houssami; Marco Ghirardi; Aurora Ferrari; Michela Speziani; Sergio Bellarosa; Giuseppe Remida; Cristina Gasparotti; Enzo Galligioni; Stefano Ciatto
Journal:  Eur J Cancer       Date:  2011-01-04       Impact factor: 9.162

4.  Breast cancer screening with imaging: recommendations from the Society of Breast Imaging and the ACR on the use of mammography, breast MRI, breast ultrasound, and other technologies for the detection of clinically occult breast cancer.

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

5.  The density conundrum: does legislation help or hurt?

Authors:  Mary Lou Smith
Journal:  J Am Coll Radiol       Date:  2013-12       Impact factor: 5.532

6.  The connecticut experiment: the role of ultrasound in the screening of women with dense breasts.

Authors:  Jean Weigert; Sarah Steenbergen
Journal:  Breast J       Date:  2012-09-26       Impact factor: 2.431

Review 7.  Dense breasts: a review of reporting legislation and available supplemental screening options.

Authors:  Jessica M Ho; Nasima Jafferjee; Gabriel M Covarrubias; Munir Ghesani; Bradley Handler
Journal:  AJR Am J Roentgenol       Date:  2014-08       Impact factor: 3.959

Review 8.  Mammography in combination with breast ultrasonography versus mammography for breast cancer screening in women at average risk.

Authors:  Gerald Gartlehner; Kylie Thaler; Andrea Chapman; Angela Kaminski-Hartenthaler; Dominik Berzaczy; Megan G Van Noord; Thomas H Helbich
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2013-04-30

9.  Patterns of breast magnetic resonance imaging use in community practice.

Authors:  Karen J Wernli; Wendy B DeMartini; Laura Ichikawa; Constance D Lehman; Tracy Onega; Karla Kerlikowske; Louise M Henderson; Berta M Geller; Mike Hofmann; Bonnie C Yankaskas
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2014-01       Impact factor: 21.873

Review 10.  Early detection of breast cancer: benefits and risks of supplemental breast ultrasound in asymptomatic women with mammographically dense breast tissue. A systematic review.

Authors:  Monika Nothacker; Volker Duda; Markus Hahn; Mathias Warm; Friedrich Degenhardt; Helmut Madjar; Susanne Weinbrenner; Ute-Susann Albert
Journal:  BMC Cancer       Date:  2009-09-20       Impact factor: 4.430

View more
  6 in total

1.  Acceptability of an Interactive Computer-Animated Agent to Promote Patient-Provider Communication About Breast Density: a Mixed Method Pilot Study.

Authors:  Christine Gunn; Ariel Maschke; Timothy Bickmore; Mark Kennedy; Margaret F Hopkins; Michael D C Fishman; Michael K Paasche-Orlow; Erica T Warner
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2020-01-09       Impact factor: 5.128

2.  Evaluating educational interventions to increase breast density awareness among Latinas: A randomized trial in a Federally Qualified Health Center.

Authors:  Jennifer L Ridgeway; Sarah M Jenkins; Bijan J Borah; Vera J Suman; Bhavika K Patel; Karthik Ghosh; Deborah J Rhodes; Aaron Norman; Edna P Ramos; Matt Jewett; Crystal R Gonzalez; Valentina Hernandez; Davinder Singh; Miranda Sosa; Carmen Radecki Breitkopf; Celine M Vachon
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2021-12-02       Impact factor: 6.860

3.  The Impact of Breast Density Information or Notification on Women's Cognitive, Psychological, and Behavioral Outcomes: A Systematic Review.

Authors:  Brooke Nickel; Tessa Copp; Meagan Brennan; Rachel Farber; Kirsten McCaffery; Nehmat Houssami
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2021-10-01       Impact factor: 13.506

4.  Discussions of Potential Mammography Benefits and Harms among Patients with Limited Health Literacy and Providers: "Oh, There are Harms?"

Authors:  Ariel Maschke; Michael K Paasche-Orlow; Nancy R Kressin; Mara A Schonberg; Tracy A Battaglia; Christine M Gunn
Journal:  J Health Commun       Date:  2021-01-17

5.  Australian General Practitioners' Current Knowledge, Understanding, and Feelings Regarding Breast Density Information and Notification: A Cross-Sectional Study.

Authors:  Hankiz Dolan; Kirsten McCaffery; Nehmat Houssami; Meagan Brennan; Melanie Dorrington; Erin Cvejic; Jolyn Hersch; Angela Verde; Lisa Vaccaro; Brooke Nickel
Journal:  Int J Environ Res Public Health       Date:  2022-07-25       Impact factor: 4.614

6.  Understanding the response of mammography facilities to breast density notification.

Authors:  Louise M Henderson; Mary W Marsh; Kathryn Earnhardt; Michael Pritchard; Thad S Benefield; Robert P Agans; Sheila S Lee
Journal:  Cancer       Date:  2020-09-14       Impact factor: 6.860

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.