Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33023915›Full record

ArticleCancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.)2021

Assessment of and Interventions for Women at High Risk for Breast or Ovarian Cancer: A Survey of Primary Care Physicians.

Goli Samimi, Brandy M Heckman-Stoddard, Christine Holmberg, Bethany Tennant, Bonny Bloodgood Sheppard, Kisha I Coa, Shelley S Kay, Leslie G Ford, Eva Szabo, Lori M Minasian

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.), 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 20% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Report from an NCI Roundtable: Cancer Prevention in Primary Care.Cancer prevention research (Philadelphia, Pa.) · 2022
    Article
  9. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors at 3 institutions in 2 countries.

Goli SamimiDivision of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland. goli.samimi@nih.gov.
Brandy M Heckman-StoddardDivision of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland.
Christine HolmbergInstitute of Social Medicine and Epidemiology, Brandenburg Medical School Theodor Fontane, Brandenburg, Havel, Germany.
Bethany TennantICF, Fairfax, Virginia.
Bonny Bloodgood SheppardICF, Fairfax, Virginia.
Kisha I CoaICF, Fairfax, Virginia.
Shelley S KayICF, Fairfax, Virginia.
Leslie G FordDivision of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland.
Eva SzaboDivision of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland.
Lori M MinasianDivision of Cancer Prevention, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland.
National Cancer Institute · USUniversity of Fairfax · USMedizinische Hochschule Brandenburg Theodor Fontane · DE

Funding

Intramural NIH HHS Z99 CA999999NCI NIH HHS HHSN261201400002BNCI NIH HHS HHSN261201400002C
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

As clinical guidelines for cancer prevention refer individuals to primary care physicians (PCP) for risk assessment and clinical management, PCPs may be expected to play an increasing role in cancer prevention. It is crucial that PCPs are adequately supported to assess an individual's cancer risk and make appropriate recommendations. The objective of this study is to assess use, familiarity, attitude, and behaviors of PCPs regarding breast and ovarian cancer risk and prevention, to better understand the factors that influence their prescribing behaviors. We conducted a cross-sectional, web-based survey of PCPs in the United States, recruited from an opt-in healthcare provider panel. Invitations were sent in batches until the target sample size of 750 respondents (250 each for obstetrics/gynecology, internal medicine, and family medicine) was met. Self-reported use of breast/ovarian cancer risk assessments was low (34.7%-59.2%) compared with discussion of cancer family history (96.9%), breast exams (87.1%), and mammograms (92.8%). Although most respondents (48.0%-66.8%) were familiar with cancer prevention interventions, respondents who reported to be less familiar were more likely to report cautious attitudes. When presented with hypothetical cases depicting patients at different breast/ovarian cancer risks, up to 34.0% of respondents did not select any of the clinically recommended course(s) of action. This survey suggests that PCP use of breast/ovarian cancer risk assessment tools and ability to translate the perceived risks to clinical actions is variable. Improving implementation of cancer risk assessment and clinical management guidelines within primary care may be necessary to improve the appropriate prescribing of cancer prevention interventions.

Indexed as

AdultAgedBreast NeoplasmsClinical CompetenceCross-Sectional StudiesEarly Detection of CancerFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOvarian NeoplasmsPhysicians, Primary CarePractice Guidelines as TopicPractice Patterns, Physicians'Risk AssessmentRisk Factors

Identifiers

PMID33023915
PMCPMC8021601
OpenAlexW3092192283

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.