ArticleInternational journal of general medicine2018
Exploring factors that might influence primary-care provider discussion of and recommendation for prostate and colon cancer screening.
Article in International journal of general medicine, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Factors Influencing Primary Care Practitioners' Cancer Screening Recommendations for Older Adults: a Systematic Review.Journal of general internal medicine · 2023Pooled it
- Factors Associated With Low-Value Cancer Screenings in the Veterans Health Administration.JAMA network open · 2021Article
- Clinician Perspectives on Overscreening for Cancer in Older Adults With Limited Life Expectancy.Journal of the American Geriatrics Society · 2020Article
- Assessment of Clinician Decision-making on Cancer Screening Cessation in Older Adults With Limited Life Expectancy.JAMA network open · 2020Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPrimary-care providers may contribute to the use of low-value cancer screening.
objectiveWe sought to examine circumstances under which primary-care providers would discuss and recommend two types of cancer screening services across a spectrum of net benefit and other factors known to influence screening. PATIENTS AND
methodsThis was a cross sectional survey of 126 primary-care providers in 24 primary-care clinics in the US. Participants completed surveys with two hypothetical screening scenarios for prostate or colorectal cancer (CRC). Patients in the scenarios varied by age and screening-request status. For each scenario, providers indicated whether they would discuss and recommend screening. Providers also reported on their screening attitudes and the influence of other factors known to affect screening (short patient visits, worry about lawsuits, clinical reminders/performance measures, and screening guidelines). We examined associations between providers' attitudes and their screening recommendations for hypothetical 90-year-olds (the lowest-value screening).
resultsProviders reported they would discuss cancer screening more often than they would recommend it ( DISCUSSION: While most providers' reported practice patterns aligned with net benefit, some providers would discuss and recommend low-value cancer screening, particularly when faced with a patient request.
conclusionMore work appears to be needed to help providers to discuss and recommend screening that aligns with value.
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.