ArticleClinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico2008
Responsibilities in cancer preventive care in Greece. A physicians' survey.
Article in Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed, 2 citations in OpenAlex.
- Screening practice and misplaced priorities.Clinical & translational oncology : official publication of the Federation of Spanish Oncology Societies and of the National Cancer Institute of Mexico · 2009Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundColorectal cancer is the second leading cause of cancer death in European countries. Differences in screening implementation may explain USA vs. European survival differences. The proportion of European primary care physicians advising colorectal screening has been reported to be inconsistent. We therefore hypothesised the presence of a belief-related bias among European physicians regarding who is responsible for cancer screening delivery.
objectivesTo index beliefs in cancer screening implementation among a wide sample of Greek physicians. Study design Cross-sectional survey.
methodsThree hundred and sixty-six physicians involved in primary care activities in 15 provinces answered a questionnaire about responsibility in cancer screening delivery. Results 22.4% and 7.6% of physicians declared that the health system and the patients, respectively, have the main responsibility for cancer screening implementation, while 70 % advocated patient-health system co-responsibility. Beliefs were statistically correlated to age (p=0.039) and specialisation category (p=0.002). Patients' will was mainly indicated by internists, trainee internists and physicians older than 30, while GPs, trainee GPs and house officers were mainly health system-oriented. Worryingly, when physicians were asked about which specialty should inform the population, 81% indicated family doctor (for-fee-service) while the involvement of free-from-fee specialities was inconsistent.
conclusionA considerable disorientation about responsibilities in cancer screening delivery was observed in our study sample. Continual medical education and clear redefinition of primary care physicians' activities are required.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.