ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2020
Variation in Breast Cancer Screening Recommendations by Primary Care Providers Surveyed in Wisconsin.
Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- When Covering and Discovering Are at Odds: How the Logic of US Health Insurance Undercuts the Promise and Equity of Precision Medicine for People with Hereditary Cancer Risks.Journal of health politics, policy and law · 2026Article
- Delayed mammography screening and advanced breast cancer: variation across age and income groups.BMC public health · 2026Article
- Implementing mobile mammography in primary care: a community-based Reach, Effectiveness, Adoption, Implementation, and Maintenance (RE-AIM) evaluation.Translational behavioral medicine · 2026Article
- Knowledge, attitudes, and practice in breast cancer early detection: evidence from a nationally stratified study of healthcare providers in Jordan.Frontiers in public health · 2026Article
- Factors associated with receipt of surveillance breast MRI among racially and ethnically diverse women with operable breast cancer.Breast cancer research and treatment · 2025Article
- Provider beliefs in effectiveness and recommendations for primary HPV testing in 3 health-care systems.JNCI cancer spectrum · 2023Article
- Racial Disparities Persist in Cancer Screening: New USPSTF Colorectal Cancer Screening Guidelines Illuminate Inadequate Breast Cancer Screening Guidelines for Black Women.Journal of general internal medicine · 2022Article
- Patient and Clinician Characteristics That Predict Breast Cancer Screening Behavior in 40-49-Year-Old Women.Journal of patient-centered research and reviews · 2021Article
- An Exploratory Study of Primary Care Clinicians' Perspectives on 2021 New and Updated Cancer Screening Guidelines.Journal of primary care & community healthArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundCancer screening is chiefly performed by primary care providers (PCPs) who rely on organizational screening guidelines. These guidelines provide evidence-based recommendations; however, they are often without unanimity leading to divergent screening recommendations.
objectiveDue to the high incidence of breast cancer, the availability of screening methods, and the presence of multiple incongruent guideline recommendations, we sought to understand breast cancer screening practices in Wisconsin to identify patterns that would allow us to improve evidence-based screening adherence.
methodsA 46-question survey on breast cancer screening beliefs and practices for average-risk women was sent to healthcare providers in Wisconsin in 2018, who provided cancer screening services to women. Providers included physicians, nurse practitioners (NPs), physician assistants (PAs), and midwives.
resultsA total of 295 people responded to the survey, for a response rate of 28.6%. Most respondents were physicians (64.1%), followed by NPs (25.7%), PAs (5.3%), and midwives (1.5%). Of physicians, most practiced family medicine (65.3%), followed by internal medicine (25.3%) and gynecology (9.4%). The United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) was reported as being "very influential" for 60.5% of providers, followed by the American Cancer Society at 46.8%. For patients 40-49 years old, 75.6% of providers performed clinical breast exams and 58.5% recommended self-breast exams; these numbers increased for women 50+ years old to 78.7% and 61.2%, respectively. Mammography was more likely to be recommended annually for women aged 40-49 rather than biennially by non-physician clinicians compared to physicians (p < .001).
conclusionsPCPs in Wisconsin continue to overestimate the efficacy of clinical and self-breast exams as well as overuse these in clinical practice. Providers find multiple screening guidelines influential but favor the USPSTF; however, these guidelines are frequently not being followed. Further research needs to be done to investigate the lack of national guideline adherence by providers to improve compliance with evidence-based screening recommendations.
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.