Literature DB >> 32495085

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

Emily Nachtigal1,2, Noelle K LoConte3,4, Sarah Kerch4, Xiao Zhang4, Amanda Parkes3,4.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Cancer screening is chiefly performed by primary care providers (PCPs) who rely on organizational screening guidelines. These guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations; however, they are often without unanimity leading to divergent screening recommendations.
OBJECTIVE: Due to the high incidence of breast cancer, the availability of screening methods, and the presence of multiple incongruent guideline recommendations, we sought to understand breast cancer screening practices in Wisconsin to identify patterns that would allow us to improve evidence-based screening adherence.
METHODS: A 46-question survey on breast cancer screening beliefs and practices for average-risk women was sent to healthcare providers in Wisconsin in 2018, who provided cancer screening services to women. Providers included physicians, nurse practitioners (NPs), physician assistants (PAs), and midwives.
RESULTS: A total of 295 people responded to the survey, for a response rate of 28.6%. Most respondents were physicians (64.1%), followed by NPs (25.7%), PAs (5.3%), and midwives (1.5%). Of physicians, most practiced family medicine (65.3%), followed by internal medicine (25.3%) and gynecology (9.4%). The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) was reported as being "very influential" for 60.5% of providers, followed by the American Cancer Society at 46.8%. For patients 40-49 years old, 75.6% of providers performed clinical breast exams and 58.5% recommended self-breast exams; these numbers increased for women 50+ years old to 78.7% and 61.2%, respectively. Mammography was more likely to be recommended annually for women aged 40-49 rather than biennially by non-physician clinicians compared to physicians (p < .001).
CONCLUSIONS: PCPs in Wisconsin continue to overestimate the efficacy of clinical and self-breast exams as well as overuse these in clinical practice. Providers find multiple screening guidelines influential but favor the USPSTF; however, these guidelines are frequently not being followed. Further research needs to be done to investigate the lack of national guideline adherence by providers to improve compliance with evidence-based screening recommendations.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Wisconsin; breast cancer; cancer screening; primary care providers

Mesh:

Year:  2020        PMID: 32495085      PMCID: PMC7459047          DOI: 10.1007/s11606-020-05922-y

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


  21 in total

1.  Collaborative Modeling of the Benefits and Harms Associated With Different U.S. Breast Cancer Screening Strategies.

Authors:  Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Natasha K Stout; Clyde B Schechter; Jeroen J van den Broek; Diana L Miglioretti; Martin Krapcho; Amy Trentham-Dietz; Diego Munoz; Sandra J Lee; Donald A Berry; Nicolien T van Ravesteyn; Oguzhan Alagoz; Karla Kerlikowske; Anna N A Tosteson; Aimee M Near; Amanda Hoeffken; Yaojen Chang; Eveline A Heijnsdijk; Gary Chisholm; Xuelin Huang; Hui Huang; Mehmet Ali Ergun; Ronald Gangnon; Brian L Sprague; Sylvia Plevritis; Eric Feuer; Harry J de Koning; Kathleen A Cronin
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2016-01-12       Impact factor: 25.391

2.  Aggregate cost of mammography screening in the United States: comparison of current practice and advocated guidelines.

Authors:  Cristina O'Donoghue; Martin Eklund; Elissa M Ozanne; Laura J Esserman
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2014-02-04       Impact factor: 25.391

3.  Screening for cancer: advice for high-value care from the American College of Physicians.

Authors:  Timothy J Wilt; Russell P Harris; Amir Qaseem
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2015-05-19       Impact factor: 25.391

4.  Physician Adherence to Breast Cancer Screening Recommendations.

Authors:  Deborah Grady; Rita F Redberg
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2017-06-01       Impact factor: 21.873

Review 5.  Effectiveness of Breast Cancer Screening: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis to Update the 2009 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation.

Authors:  Heidi D Nelson; Rochelle Fu; Amy Cantor; Miranda Pappas; Monica Daeges; Linda Humphrey
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2016-01-12       Impact factor: 25.391

Review 6.  Response rate differences between web and alternative data collection methods for public health research: a systematic review of the literature.

Authors:  Cauane Blumenberg; Aluísio J D Barros
Journal:  Int J Public Health       Date:  2018-04-24       Impact factor: 3.380

7.  Provider Attitudes and Screening Practices Following Changes in Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening Guidelines.

Authors:  Jennifer S Haas; Brian L Sprague; Carrie N Klabunde; Anna N A Tosteson; Jane S Chen; Asaf Bitton; Elisabeth F Beaber; Tracy Onega; Jane J Kim; Charles D MacLean; Kimberly Harris; Phillip Yamartino; Kathleen Howe; Loretta Pearson; Sarah Feldman; Phyllis Brawarsky; Marilyn M Schapira
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 5.128

8.  Practice Bulletin Number 179: Breast Cancer Risk Assessment and Screening in Average-Risk Women.

Authors: 
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2017-07       Impact factor: 7.661

9.  Breast cancer statistics, 2017, racial disparity in mortality by state.

Authors:  Carol E DeSantis; Jiemin Ma; Ann Goding Sauer; Lisa A Newman; Ahmedin Jemal
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2017-10-03       Impact factor: 508.702

Review 10.  Choosing wisely in oncology: necessity and obstacles.

Authors:  Piercarlo Saletti; Piero Sanna; Luca Gabutti; Michele Ghielmini
Journal:  ESMO Open       Date:  2018-07-11
View more
  1 in total

1.  Racial Disparities Persist in Cancer Screening: New USPSTF Colorectal Cancer Screening Guidelines Illuminate Inadequate Breast Cancer Screening Guidelines for Black Women.

Authors:  Christine E Edmonds; Samantha P Zuckerman; Carmen E Guerra
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2022-01-11       Impact factor: 6.473

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.