Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26129780›Full record

ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2016

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

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 and 8 more

Open access · bronzeAbstract readMulticenter Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 54 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
54citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.0field-weighted citation impact, top 3% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

54 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 95 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Multicenter Randomized Clinical Trial of a Mailed Outreach Strategy for Hepatocellular Carcinoma Surveillance.Clinical gastroenterology and hepatology : the official clinical practice journal of the American Gastroenterological Association · 2022
    Trial
  4. The Impact of 4 Risk Communication Interventions on Cancer Screening Preferences and Knowledge.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2022
    Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Mammography Compliance for Arizona and New Mexico Hispanic and American Indian Women 2016-2018.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

18 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.

Jennifer S HaasBrigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA. jhaas@partners.org.
Brian L SpragueUniversity of Vermont, Burlington, VT, USA.
Carrie N KlabundeOffice of Disease Prevention, Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Anna N A TostesonGeisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth and Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Lebanon, NH, USA.
Jane S ChenBrigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Asaf BittonBrigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Elisabeth F BeaberFred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA.
Tracy OnegaGeisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth and Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Lebanon, NH, USA.
Jane J KimHarvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA.
Charles D MacLeanUniversity of Vermont, Burlington, VT, USA.
Kimberly HarrisBrigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Phillip YamartinoUniversity of Pennsylvania and the Philadelphia VA Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Kathleen HoweUniversity of Vermont, Burlington, VT, USA.
Loretta PearsonGeisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth and Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Lebanon, NH, USA.
Sarah FeldmanBrigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Phyllis BrawarskyBrigham and Women's Hospital, Boston, MA, USA.
Marilyn M SchapiraUniversity of Pennsylvania and the Philadelphia VA Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
PROSPR (Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens) Consortium
Brigham and Women's Hospital · USUniversity of Vermont · USDartmouth College · USUniversity of Pennsylvania · USCotton (United States) · USFred Hutch Cancer Center · USHarvard University · USNational Institutes of Health · US

Funding

Translational Engineering in Cancer (TEC)P30CA023108 · NCI · DARTMOUTH COLLEGE · PI Steven D Leach · 1985 to 2026
$91.3M
Risk-based Imaging Strategies to Improve Breast Cancer Surveillance OutcomesP01CA154292 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA AT DAVIS · PI Diana L Miglioretti · 2011 to 2026
$52.9M
PROSPR Statistical Coordinating Center (PSCC)U01CA163304 · NCI · FRED HUTCHINSON CANCER RESEARCH CENTER · PI BARLOW, WILLIAM E, THORNQUIST, MARK · 2011 to 2017
$7.5M
Penn Center for Innovation in Personalized Breast ScreeningU54CA163313 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA · PI ARMSTRONG, KATRINA, SCHNALL, MITCHELL D. · 2011 to 2017
$7.4M
Vermont Screening Process Documentation UnitU54CA163303 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF VERMONT & ST AGRIC COLLEGE · PI SPRAGUE, BRIAN L · 2011 to 2017
$6.4M
Promoting personalized decisions for breast cancer screening for women AND theirU54CA163307 · NCI · DARTMOUTH COLLEGE · PI HAAS, JENNIFER S, ONEGA, TRACY · 2011 to 2017
$6.1M
Patient- and Practice-Centered Assessment of Self-CollectionU54CA164336 · NCI · UNIVERSITY OF NEW MEXICO HEALTH SCIS CTR · PI WHEELER, COSETTE MARIE · 2011 to 2017
$5.5M
NCI NIH HHS P01 CA154292NCI NIH HHS P30 CA023108NCI NIH HHS U01 CA163304NCI NIH HHS U01CA163304NCI NIH HHS U54 CA163303NCI NIH HHS U54 CA163307NCI NIH HHS U54 CA163313NCI NIH HHS U54CA 163313NCI NIH HHS U54 CA164336NCI NIH HHS U54CA164336
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundChanges to national guidelines for breast and cervical cancer screening have created confusion and controversy for women and their primary care providers.

objectiveTo 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,

participantsIn 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

resultsThe 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 %).

conclusionsPrimary care providers do not consistently follow recent USPSTF breast and cervical cancer screening recommendations, despite noting that these guidelines are influential.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelPractice Guidelines as TopicAdultBreast NeoplasmsEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMiddle AgedMorbidityRetrospective StudiesSurvival RateUnited StatesUterine Cervical Neoplasmsbreast cancer screeningcervical cancer screeningclinical practice guidelinesprimary careprovider practice patterns

Identifiers

PMID26129780
PMCPMC4700005
OpenAlexW785158101

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.