ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2016
Inadequate Systems to Support Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening in Primary Care Practice.
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 17 papers.
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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 23 citations in OpenAlex.
- Interprofessional team-based primary care practice and preventive cancer screening: evidence from Family Health Teams in Ontario, Canada.The European journal of health economics : HEPAC : health economics in prevention and care · 2025Article
- Clinician-perceived barriers to cervical cancer screening before and during the COVID-19 pandemic at three US healthcare systems.Preventive medicine reports · 2024Article
- Implementation of Health IT for Cancer Screening in US Primary Care: Scoping Review.JMIR cancer · 2024Article
- Clinicians' perceptions of barriers to cervical cancer screening for women living with behavioral health conditions: a focus group study.BMC cancer · 2022Article
- Patient, provider, and clinic factors associated with the use of cervical cancer screening.Preventive medicine reports · 2021Article
- Engaging Women with Limited Health Literacy in Mammography Decision-Making: Perspectives of Patients and Primary Care Providers.Journal of general internal medicine · 2021Article
- Discussions of Potential Mammography Benefits and Harms among Patients with Limited Health Literacy and Providers: "Oh, There are Harms?"Journal of health communication · 2020Article
- Evaluating Screening Participation, Follow-up, and Outcomes for Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancer in the PROSPR Consortium.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2020Article
- Multi-level Influences on Breast Cancer Screening in Primary Care.Journal of general internal medicine · 2018Article
- Primary Care Provider Experience with Breast Density Legislation in Massachusetts.Journal of women's health (2002) · 2018Article
- Impact of Patient Reminders on Papanicolaou Test Completion for High-Risk Patients Identified by a Clinical Decision Support System.Journal of women's health (2002) · 2018Article
- The Next Generation of Cervical Cancer Screening: Should Guidelines Focus on Best Practices for the Future or Current Screening Capacity?Journal of lower genital tract disease · 2018Article
- Primary Care Providers' Beliefs and Recommendations and Use of Screening Mammography by their Patients.Journal of general internal medicine · 2017Article
- The Complexity of Achieving the Promise of Precision Breast Cancer Screening.Journal of the National Cancer Institute · 2017Article
- Capsule Commentary on Schapira et al., Inadequate Systems to Support Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening in Primary Care Practice.Journal of general internal medicine · 2016Article
- Health Reform in Minnesota: An Analysis of Complementary Initiatives Implementing Electronic Health Record Technology and Care Coordination.Online journal of public health informatics · 2016Article
- Determining Patient Panel Size in Primary Care: A Meta-Narrative Review.Journal of primary care & community healthReview
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
16 authors at 7 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundDespite substantial resources devoted to cancer screening nationally, the availability of clinical practice-based systems to support screening guidelines is not known.
objectiveTo characterize the prevalence and correlates of practice-based systems to support breast and cervical cancer screening, with a focus on the patient-centered medical home (PCMH).
designWeb and mail survey of primary care providers conducted in 2014. The survey assessed provider (gender, training) and facility (size, specialty training, physician report of National Committee for Quality Assurance (NCQA) PCMH recognition, and practice affiliation) characteristics. A hierarchical multivariate analysis clustered by clinical practice was conducted to evaluate characteristics associated with the adoption of practice-based systems and technology to support guideline-adherent screening.
participantsPrimary care physicians in family medicine, general internal medicine, and obstetrics and gynecology, and nurse practitioners or physician assistants from four clinical care networks affiliated with PROSPR (Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens) consortium research centers. MAIN MEASURES: The prevalence of routine breast cancer risk assessment, electronic health record (EHR) decision support, comparative performance reports, and panel reports of patients due for routine screening and follow-up. KEY
resultsThere were 385 participants (57.6 % of eligible). Forty-seven percent (47.0 %) of providers reported NCQA recognition as a PCMH. Less than half reported EHR decision support for breast (48.8 %) or cervical cancer (46.2 %) screening. A minority received comparative performance reports for breast (26.2 %) or cervical (19.7 %) cancer screening, automated reports of patients overdue for breast (18.7 %) or cervical (16.4 %) cancer screening, or follow-up of abnormal breast (18.1 %) or cervical (17.6 %) cancer screening tests. In multivariate analysis, reported NCQA recognition as a PCMH was associated with greater use of comparative performance reports of guideline-adherent breast (OR 3.23, 95 % CI 1.58-6.61) or cervical (OR 2.56, 95 % CI 1.32-4.96) cancer screening and automated reports of patients overdue for breast (OR 2.19, 95 % CI 1.15-41.7) or cervical (OR. 2.56, 95 % CI 1.26-5.26) cancer screening.
conclusionsProviders lack systems to support breast and cervical cancer screening. Practice transformation toward a PCMH may support the adoption of systems to achieve guideline-adherent cancer screening in primary care settings.
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.