Multicenter Study
doi: 10.1007/s11606-015-3449-5. Provider Attitudes and Screening Practices Following Changes in Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening Guidelines Jennifer S Haas 1 2 3 4 , Carrie N Klabunde 6 , Anna N A Tosteson 7 , Jane S Chen 8 , Asaf Bitton 8 9 , Elisabeth F Beaber 10 , Tracy Onega 7 , Jane J Kim 11 , Charles D MacLean 5 , Kimberly Harris 8 , Phillip Yamartino 12 , Kathleen Howe 5 , Loretta Pearson 7 , Sarah Feldman 8 9 , Phyllis Brawarsky 8 , Marilyn M Schapira 12 ; PROSPR (Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens) ConsortiumAffiliations
AffiliationsItem in Clipboard
Multicenter Study
Provider Attitudes and Screening Practices Following Changes in Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening GuidelinesJennifer S Haas et al. J Gen Intern Med. 2016 Jan.
doi: 10.1007/s11606-015-3449-5. Authors Jennifer S Haas 1 2 3 4 , Brian L Sprague 5 , Carrie N Klabunde 6 , Anna N A Tosteson 7 , Jane S Chen 8 , Asaf Bitton 8 9 , Elisabeth F Beaber 10 , Tracy Onega 7 , Jane J Kim 11 , Charles D MacLean 5 , Kimberly Harris 8 , Phillip Yamartino 12 , Kathleen Howe 5 , Loretta Pearson 7 , Sarah Feldman 8 9 , Phyllis Brawarsky 8 , Marilyn M Schapira 12 ; PROSPR (Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens) Consortium AffiliationsItem in Clipboard
AbstractBackground: Changes to national guidelines for breast and cervical cancer screening have created confusion and controversy for women and their primary care providers.
Objective: To characterize women's primary health care provider attitudes towards screening and changes in practice in response to recent revisions in guidelines for breast and cervical cancer screening.
Design, setting, participants: In 2014, we distributed a confidential web and mail survey to 668 women's health care providers affiliated with the four clinical care networks participating in the three PROSPR (Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens) consortium breast cancer research centers (385 respondents; response rate 57.6 %).
Main measures: We assessed self-reported attitudes toward breast and cervical cancer screening, as well as practice changes in response to the most recent revisions of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations.
Key results: The majority of providers believed that mammography screening was effective for reducing cancer mortality among women ages 40-74 years, and that Papanicolaou (Pap) testing was very effective for women ages 21-64 years. While the USPSTF breast and cervical cancer screening recommendations were widely perceived by the respondents as influential, 75.7 and 41.2 % of providers (for mammography and cervical cancer screening, respectively) reported screening practices in excess of those recommended by USPSTF. Provider-reported barriers to concordance with guideline recommendations included: patient concerns (74 and 36 % for breast and cervical, respectively), provider disagreement with the recommendations (50 and 14 %), health system measurement of a provider's screening practices that use conflicting measurement criteria (40 and 21 %), concern about malpractice risk (33 and 11 %), and lack of time to discuss the benefits and harms with their patients (17 and 8 %).
Conclusions: Primary care providers do not consistently follow recent USPSTF breast and cervical cancer screening recommendations, despite noting that these guidelines are influential.
Keywords: breast cancer screening; cervical cancer screening; clinical practice guidelines; primary care; provider practice patterns.
FiguresFig. 1
Provider report of cancer screening…
Fig. 1
Provider report of cancer screening efficacy by modality and age group
Fig. 1Provider report of cancer screening efficacy by modality and age group
Fig. 2
Self-reported changes in screening recommendations…
Fig. 2
Self-reported changes in screening recommendations since revised USPSTF recommendations. 2009 breast cancer screening…
Fig. 2Self-reported changes in screening recommendations since revised USPSTF recommendations. 2009 breast cancer screening recommendations; 2012 cervical cancer screening recommendations
Fig. 3
Report of patient request to…
Fig. 3
Report of patient request to receive screening in excess of USPSTF recommendations. 2009…
Fig. 3Report of patient request to receive screening in excess of USPSTF recommendations. 2009 breast cancer screening recommendations; 2012 cervical cancer screening recommendations i ‘Excess’ defined as any mammography before 50 ii ‘Excess’ defined as annual screening iii ‘Excess’ defined as continuation of screening iv ‘Excess’ defined as more than Pap testing every 3 years v ‘Excess’ defined as more than Pap and HPV co-testing every 5 years. vi ‘Excess’ defined as continuation of Pap testing
Similar articlesSchapira MM, Sprague BL, Klabunde CN, Tosteson AN, Bitton A, Chen JS, Beaber EF, Onega T, MacLean CD, Harris K, Howe K, Pearson L, Feldman S, Brawarsky P, Haas JS; PROSPR consortium. Schapira MM, et al. J Gen Intern Med. 2016 Oct;31(10):1148-55. doi: 10.1007/s11606-016-3726-y. Epub 2016 Jun 1. J Gen Intern Med. 2016. PMID: 27251058 Free PMC article.
Tosteson AN, Beaber EF, Tiro J, Kim J, McCarthy AM, Quinn VP, Doria-Rose VP, Wheeler CM, Barlow WE, Bronson M, Garcia M, Corley DA, Haas JS, Halm EA, Kamineni A, Rutter CM, Tosteson TD, Trentham-Dietz A, Weaver DL; PROSPR consortium. Tosteson AN, et al. J Gen Intern Med. 2016 Apr;31(4):372-9. doi: 10.1007/s11606-015-3552-7. J Gen Intern Med. 2016. PMID: 26658934 Free PMC article.
Somerall DW. Somerall DW. Nurs Womens Health. 2013 Aug-Sep;17(4):331-5. doi: 10.1111/1751-486X.12052. Nurs Womens Health. 2013. PMID: 23957799
Onega T, Beaber EF, Sprague BL, Barlow WE, Haas JS, Tosteson AN, D Schnall M, Armstrong K, Schapira MM, Geller B, Weaver DL, Conant EF. Onega T, et al. Cancer. 2014 Oct 1;120(19):2955-64. doi: 10.1002/cncr.28771. Epub 2014 May 15. Cancer. 2014. PMID: 24830599 Free PMC article. Review.
Plourde N, Brown HK, Vigod S, Cobigo V. Plourde N, et al. Women Health. 2016 Nov-Dec;56(8):906-25. doi: 10.1080/03630242.2016.1145169. Epub 2016 Jan 26. Women Health. 2016. PMID: 26812962 Review.
Townsend JS, Puckett M, Gelb CA, Whiteside M, Thorsness J, Stewart SL. Townsend JS, et al. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2018 Aug;27(8):955-964. doi: 10.1089/jwh.2018.7289. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2018. PMID: 30129896 Free PMC article.
Hunleth J, Steinmetz E. Hunleth J, et al. Med Anthropol. 2022 Feb-Mar;41(2):228-242. doi: 10.1080/01459740.2021.2015347. Epub 2022 Jan 20. Med Anthropol. 2022. PMID: 35050816 Free PMC article.
Schoenborn NL, Massare J, Park R, Pollack CE, Choi Y, Boyd CM. Schoenborn NL, et al. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2020 Jul;68(7):1462-1468. doi: 10.1111/jgs.16415. Epub 2020 Mar 31. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2020. PMID: 32232838 Free PMC article.
Afseth S, Bowe A, Mjølstad BP, Vie GÅ, Baasland I. Afseth S, et al. Scand J Prim Health Care. 2022 Sep;40(3):385-394. doi: 10.1080/02813432.2022.2139481. Epub 2022 Oct 31. Scand J Prim Health Care. 2022. PMID: 36314584 Free PMC article.
Martin K, Vogel RI, Nagler RH, Wyman JF, Raymond N, Teoh D, Allen AM, Talley KMC, Mason S, Blaes AH. Martin K, et al. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2020 Jan;29(1):91-99. doi: 10.1089/jwh.2018.7436. Epub 2019 Jul 16. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2020. PMID: 31314684 Free PMC article.
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.3