ArticleJournal of primary care & community health
An Exploratory Study of Primary Care Clinicians' Perspectives on 2021 New and Updated Cancer Screening Guidelines.
Article in Journal of primary care & community health. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Lung cancer screening knowledge, opinions and attitudes among healthcare professionals in Estonia prior to national program initiation.Journal of public health research · 2026Article
- Knowledge and Practice Behaviors of Community-Based Resident Physicians Surrounding Cancer Screening.AJPM focus · 2026Article
- Inadequate Uptake of USPSTF-Recommended Low Dose CT Lung Cancer Screening.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
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
objectiveCancer screening rates remain low in rural, racial and ethnic minority, low-income, and uninsured populations. Prior studies showed that cancer screening recommendations vary based on clinicians' factors. We conducted an exploratory study on primary care clinicians' beliefs about new or updated cancer screening guidelines according to clinician demographics.
methodsThis cross-sectional study involved administering a web-based survey in July and August of 2021 to primary care clinicians practicing in diverse ambulatory settings in the Pacific Northwest belonging to the same health system. The survey assessed clinician demographics, attitudes about the impact of cancer screening on mortality, and how clinicians stay up-to-date with guidelines.
resultsOf the 191 clinicians, 81 responded (42.4%), after removing 13 incomplete surveys, we analyzed 68 (35.6%). The majority agreed/strongly agreed that breast (76.1%), colorectal (95.5%), and cervical (90.9%) cancer screening, and HPV vaccination (85.1%) prevent early cancer mortality: there were no differences according to clinician gender or years in practice. Female compared to male clinicians were more likely to agree/strongly agree that tobacco smoking cessation (female: 100% vs male: 86.4%,
conclusionsThis study suggests that clinicians' attitudes are not likely the primary factor affecting low cancer screening rates in some populations and that few differences exist in beliefs based on gender, and none based on years in practice.
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.