Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28070772›Full record

ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2017

Primary Care Providers' Beliefs and Recommendations and Use of Screening Mammography by their Patients.

Jennifer S Haas, William E Barlow, Marilyn M Schapira, Charles D MacLean, Carrie N Klabunde, Brian L Sprague, Elisabeth F Beaber, Jane S Chen, Asaf Bitton, Tracy Onega and 3 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
21citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

21 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Rising to the De-escalation Challenge: Multilevel Change Needed to Align Clinical Practice with Cancer Screening Guidelines.Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making · 2022
    Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

13 authors.

Jennifer S HaasDivision of General Medicine and Primary Care, Brigham and Women's Hospital, 1620 Tremont Street, Boston, MA, 02120, USA. jhaas@partners.org.
William E BarlowFred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA.
Marilyn M SchapiraUniversity of Pennsylvania and the Philadelphia VA Medical Center, Philadelphia, PA, USA.
Charles D MacLeanUniversity of Vermont, Burlington, VT, USA.
Carrie N KlabundeOffice of Disease Prevention, Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA.
Brian L SpragueUniversity of Vermont, Burlington, VT, USA.
Elisabeth F BeaberFred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center, Seattle, WA, USA.
Jane S ChenDivision of General Medicine and Primary Care, Brigham and Women's Hospital, 1620 Tremont Street, Boston, MA, 02120, USA.
Asaf BittonDivision of General Medicine and Primary Care, Brigham and Women's Hospital, 1620 Tremont Street, Boston, MA, 02120, USA.
Tracy OnegaGeisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth and Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Lebanon, NH, USA.
Kimberly HarrisDivision of General Medicine and Primary Care, Brigham and Women's Hospital, 1620 Tremont Street, Boston, MA, 02120, USA.
Anna N A TostesonGeisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth and Norris Cotton Cancer Center, Lebanon, NH, USA.
PROSPR (Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens) consortium

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
NCI NIH HHS P01 CA154292NCI NIH HHS P30 CA023108NCI NIH HHS U01 CA163304NCI NIH HHS U54 CA163303NCI NIH HHS U54 CA163307NCI NIH HHS U54 CA163313
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRevised breast cancer screening guidelines have fueled debate about the effectiveness and frequency of screening mammography, encouraging discussion between women and their providers.

objectiveTo examine whether primary care providers' (PCPs') beliefs about the effectiveness and frequency of screening mammography are associated with utilization by their patients.

designCross-sectional survey data from PCPs (2014) from three primary care networks affiliated with the Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens (PROSPR) consortium, linked with data about their patients' mammography use (2011-2014).

participantsPCPs (n = 209) and their female patients age 40-89 years without breast cancer (n = 30,233). MAIN MEASURES: Outcomes included whether (1) women received a screening mammogram during a 2-year period; and (2) screened women had >1 mammogram during that period, reflecting annual screening. Principal independent variables were PCP beliefs about the effectiveness of mammography and their recommendations for screening frequency. KEY

resultsOverall 65.2% of women received >1 screening mammogram. For women 40-48 years, mammography use was modestly lower for those cared for by PCPs who believed that screening was ineffective compared with those who believed it was somewhat or very effective (59.1%, 62.3%, and 64.7%; p = 0.019 after controlling for patient characteristics). Of women with PCPs who reported they did not recommend screening before age 50, 48.1% were nonetheless screened. For women age 49-74 years, the vast majority were cared for by providers who believed that screening was effective. Provider recommendations were not associated with screening frequency. For women ≥75 years, those cared for by providers who were uncertain about effectiveness had higher screening use (50.7%) than those cared for by providers who believed it was somewhat effective (42.8%). Patients of providers who did not recommend screening were less likely to be screened than were those whose providers recommended annual screening, yet 37.1% of patients whose providers recommended against screening still received screening.

conclusionsPCP beliefs about mammography effectiveness and screening recommendations are only modestly associated with use, suggesting other likely influences on patient participation in mammography.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelAdultAgedAged, 80 and overAge FactorsBreast NeoplasmsCross-Sectional StudiesEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMammographyMiddle AgedPhysician-Patient RelationsPhysicians, Primary CarePrimary Health CareProfessional Practicemammographyprovider beliefsvariation in care

Identifiers

PMID28070772
PMCPMC5377895

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.