Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36334011›Full record

ArticleFamily practice2024

General practitioners' views and experiences of communicating with older people about cancer screening: a qualitative study.

Jenna Smith, Rachael H Dodd, Katharine A Wallis, Vasi Naganathan, Erin Cvejic, Jesse Jansen, Kirsten J McCaffery

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Family practice, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
0.6field-weighted citation impact, top 30% 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

2 citing papers in PubMed, 6 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
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

7 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Jenna SmithWiser Healthcare, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0480-8125
Rachael H DoddWiser Healthcare, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-8080-6359
Katharine A WallisGeneral Practice Clinical Unit, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2580-9362
Vasi NaganathanCentre for Education and Research on Ageing, Department of Geriatric Medicine, Concord Repatriation Hospital, Concord, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-7243-0796
Erin CvejicSydney Health Literacy Lab, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6043-6071
Jesse JansenWiser Healthcare, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7739-0049
Kirsten J McCafferyWiser Healthcare, Sydney School of Public Health, Faculty of Medicine and Health, The University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-2696-5006
The University of Sydney · AUThe University of Queensland · AU

Funding

National Health and Medical Research Council APP1113532
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOlder adults should be supported to make informed decisions about cancer screening. However, it is unknown how general practitioners (GPs) in Australia communicate about cancer screening with older people.

aimTo investigate GPs' views and experiences of communicating about cancer screening (breast, cervical, prostate, and bowel) with older people (≥70 years). DESIGN AND

settingQualitative, semi-structured interviews, Australia.

methodInterviews were conducted with GPs practising in Australia (n = 28), recruited through practice-based research networks, primary health networks, social media, and email invitation. Interviews were audio-recorded and analysed thematically using Framework Analysis.

resultsFindings across GPs were organized into 3 themes: (i) varied motivation to initiate cancer screening discussions; some GPs reported that they only initiated screening within recommended ages (<75 years), others described initiating discussions beyond recommended ages, and some experienced older patient-initiated discussions; (ii) GPs described the role they played in providing screening information, whereby detailed discussions about the benefits/risks of prostate screening were more likely than other nationally funded screening types (breast, cervical, and bowel); however, some GPs had limited knowledge of recommendations and found it challenging to explain why screening recommendations have upper ages; (iii) GPs reported providing tailored advice and discussion based on personal patient preferences, overall health/function, risk of cancer, and previous screening.

conclusionsStrategies to support conversations between GPs and older people about the potential benefits and harms of screening in older age and rationale for upper age limits to screening programmes may be helpful. Further research in this area is needed.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelCommunicationEarly Detection of CancerGeneral PractitionersPhysician-Patient RelationsQualitative ResearchAdultAgedAustraliaFemaleHumansInterviews as TopicMaleMiddle AgedNeoplasmsProstatic Neoplasmsagingcancerdoctor–patient relationshipprimary carescreening

Identifiers

PMID36334011
PMCPMC11324317
OpenAlexW4308256204

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.