Literature DB >> 9793832

Prostate cancer screening--a physician survey in Missouri.

D A Lawson1, E J Simoes, D Sharp, T Murayi, R Hagan, R C Brownson, J Wilkerson.   

Abstract

This study investigated prostate cancer screening practices using prostate specific antigen testing (PSA), digital rectal examination (DRE), and transrectal ultrasonography (TRUS) by primary care physicians in Missouri. In 1993, a mail survey was sent to a stratified random sample of 750 physicians whose primary specialty was general practice, family practice, or internal medicine. Three separate mailings resulted in an overall adjusted response rate of 60 percent. Ninety-five percent of physicians were more inclined to use PSA compared with three years previously, with only 45 percent of physicians more inclined to use DRE. An increase in the use of PSA following a negative DRE was reported by 85 percent and a greater inclination to use TRUS following a positive PSA was reported by 90 percent Eighty-six percent agreed with the American Cancer Society (ACS) guidelines on prostate cancer screening. Using logistic regression adjusted across levels of demographic and practice factors, prevalence odds ratios were derived with results indicating that agreement with ACS guidelines and being in private practice are strong predictors of a physician's inclination to routinely screen asymptomatic patients for prostate cancer. Our findings have provided baseline information on prostate cancer screening in Missouri and suggest that primary care physicians view PSA testing as a useful procedure and appear to be using it in a manner similar to the general pattern seen across the country.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9793832     DOI: 10.1023/a:1018745821888

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Community Health        ISSN: 0094-5145


  8 in total

1.  The importance of assessing the fit of logistic regression models: a case study.

Authors:  D W Hosmer; S Taber; S Lemeshow
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  1991-12       Impact factor: 9.308

2.  Screening for prostate cancer: commentary on the recommendations of the Canadian Task Force on the Periodic Health Examination. The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force.

Authors: 
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  1994 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 5.043

Review 3.  Recommendations of the first Michigan conference on prostate cancer.

Authors:  A T Porter; J Zimmerman; M Ruffin; M Chernew; C Callaghan; R Davis; F Lee; J Montie; G M Swanson; J E Oesterling
Journal:  Urology       Date:  1996-10       Impact factor: 2.649

4.  Prostate cancer detection in a clinical urological practice by ultrasonography, digital rectal examination and prostate specific antigen.

Authors:  W H Cooner; B R Mosley; C L Rutherford; J H Beard; H S Pond; W J Terry; T C Igel; D D Kidd
Journal:  J Urol       Date:  1990-06       Impact factor: 7.450

Review 5.  Controversies in prostate cancer screening. Analogies to the early lung cancer screening debate.

Authors:  M M Collins; M J Barry
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1996-12-25       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 6.  An evaluation of prostate-specific antigen as a screening test for prostate cancer.

Authors:  V J Dorr; S K Williamson; R L Stephens
Journal:  Arch Intern Med       Date:  1993-11-22

7.  General practitioners' attitudes to screening for prostate and testicular cancers.

Authors:  M J Sladden; J A Dickinson
Journal:  Med J Aust       Date:  1995-04-17       Impact factor: 7.738

8.  Screening for prostate cancer. A decision analytic view.

Authors:  M D Krahn; J E Mahoney; M H Eckman; J Trachtenberg; S G Pauker; A S Detsky
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1994-09-14       Impact factor: 56.272

  8 in total
  8 in total

1.  Adoption of liquid-based cervical cancer screening tests by family physicians and gynecologists.

Authors:  Karen M Rappaport; Christopher B Forrest; Neil A Holtzman
Journal:  Health Serv Res       Date:  2004-08       Impact factor: 3.402

2.  Trends in prostate specific antigen testing in Ireland: lessons from a country without guidelines.

Authors:  F J Drummond; A-E Carsin; L Sharp; H Comber
Journal:  Ir J Med Sci       Date:  2009-06-27       Impact factor: 1.568

3.  Informed consent for cancer screening with prostate-specific antigen: how well are men getting the message?

Authors:  Evelyn C Y Chan; Sally W Vernon; Frederick T O'Donnell; Chul Ahn; Anthony Greisinger; Donnie W Aga
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 9.308

4.  Prostate-specific antigen testing among the elderly in community-based family medicine practices.

Authors:  Shawna V Hudson; Pamela Ohman-Strickland; Jeanne M Ferrante; Grace Lu-Yao; A John Orzano; Benjamin F Crabtree
Journal:  J Am Board Fam Med       Date:  2009 May-Jun       Impact factor: 2.657

5.  Effect of guidelines on primary care physician use of PSA screening: results from the Community Tracking Study Physician Survey.

Authors:  Carmen E Guerra; Phyllis A Gimotty; Judy A Shea; José A Pagán; J Sanford Schwartz; Katrina Armstrong
Journal:  Med Decis Making       Date:  2008-06-12       Impact factor: 2.583

6.  Physician perspectives on the importance of facts men ought to know about prostate-specific antigen testing.

Authors:  Evelyn C Y Chan; Sally W Vernon; Michelle C Haynes; Frederick T O'Donnell; Chul Ahn
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2003-05       Impact factor: 5.128

7.  A national survey of medical students' beliefs and knowledge in screening for prostate cancer.

Authors:  Stephen Marcella; Cristine D Delnevo; Steven S Coughlin
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2007-01       Impact factor: 5.128

8.  Factors prompting PSA-testing of asymptomatic men in a country with no guidelines: a national survey of general practitioners.

Authors:  Frances J Drummond; Anne-Elie Carsin; Linda Sharp; Harry Comber
Journal:  BMC Fam Pract       Date:  2009-01-12       Impact factor: 2.497

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.