ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2016
Provider Attitudes and Screening Practices Following Changes in Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening Guidelines.
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.
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
54 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 95 citations in OpenAlex.
- Impact of provider-patient communication on cancer screening adherence: A systematic review.Preventive medicine · 2016Pooled it
- A pragmatic randomized trial to compare strategies for implementing primary HPV testing for routine cervical cancer screening in a large healthcare system.Implementation science : IS · 2025Trial
- 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 · 2022Trial
- 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 · 2022Trial
- Socioeconomic and Geographic Differences in Mammography Trends Following the 2009 USPSTF Policy Update.JAMA network open · 2025Article
- Association Between Clinician Confidence and Making Guideline-Recommended Decisions in the Management of Abnormal Cervical Cancer Screening Results.Journal of general internal medicine · 2024Article
- Community Pharmacists' Readiness for Breast Cancer Mammogram Promotion: A National Survey from Jordan.Journal of multidisciplinary healthcare · 2024Article
- Mammography Compliance for Arizona and New Mexico Hispanic and American Indian Women 2016-2018.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- Factors associated with shorter-interval cervical cancer screening for young women in three United States healthcare systems.Preventive medicine reports · 2023Article
- Reallocating Cervical Cancer Preventive Service Spending from Low- to High-Value Clinical Scenarios.Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2023Article
- Provider beliefs in effectiveness and recommendations for primary HPV testing in 3 health-care systems.JNCI cancer spectrum · 2023Article
- Do they cope or mope? A survey of GPs' experiences with the changes in the Norwegian Cervical Cancer Screening Programme.Scandinavian journal of primary health care · 2022Article
- Associations of Obesity, Physical Activity, and Screening With State-Level Trends and Racial and Ethnic Disparities of Breast Cancer Incidence and Mortality in the US.JAMA network open · 2022Article
- Changes in Cancer Screening in the US During the COVID-19 Pandemic.JAMA network open · 2022Article
- Screening for colorectal cancer in people ages 45-49: research gaps, challenges and future directions for research and practice.Translational behavioral medicine · 2022Article
- Awareness and Support of Clinician- and Patient-Collected Human Papillomavirus Testing for Cervical Cancer Screening Among Primary Care Clinicians.Women's health reports (New Rochelle, N.Y.) · 2022Article
- The Impact of Mammography Screening Guideline Changes in a Universally Insured Population.Journal of women's health (2002) · 2021Article
- Patient, provider, and clinic factors associated with the use of cervical cancer screening.Preventive medicine reports · 2021Article
- Improving physician compliance with mammography screening by implementing a breast cancer screening guideline at a hospital in Bahrain.BMJ open quality · 2021Review
- Engaging Women with Limited Health Literacy in Mammography Decision-Making: Perspectives of Patients and Primary Care Providers.Journal of general internal medicine · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
18 authors at 8 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
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
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.