Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42888341›Full record

ArticleJournal of general internal medicine2026

Understanding Low Breast Cancer Screening Rates by Resident Physicians.

Saul N Weingart, Katrina S Kufer, Meghan I Short, Joseph Gillis, Kinjalika Sathi, Prianka Chawla, Kimberly Schelling, Kristin T L Huang, Julie Tishler

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of general internal medicine, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

9 authors.

Saul N WeingartTufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA. sweingart@tuftsmedicalcenter.org.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3262-9957
Katrina S KuferTufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
Meghan I ShortTufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
Joseph GillisTufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
Kinjalika SathiTufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
Prianka ChawlaTufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
Kimberly SchellingTufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
Kristin T L HuangTufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.
Julie TishlerTufts Medical Center, Boston, MA, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhile research has shown that medical residents often achieve poorer cancer screening rates than faculty in the same practice, residents' disadvantages in experience and continuity may be overcome in high-functioning primary care practices. To explore this observation, we compared breast cancer screening rates of resident and faculty physicians at an academic primary care practice with robust practice support.

methodsWe measured breast cancer screening compliance in CY2025 using tools embedded in EPIC. Patients were considered compliant if they were women age 40-74 with a mammogram within 2 years and no disqualifying characteristics. We abstracted patient data from the electronic medical record and collected physician data on gender, language facility, and years in practice. We compared breast cancer screening rates by physician type in bivariate and multivariable logistic regression models.

resultsResident patients comprised 1024 (12%) of the 8825 patients eligible for breast cancer screening. Faculty panels included a higher percentage of patients who were white, English speakers, on commercial insurance, and with more medical comorbidities. The resident panel had more patients with serious mental illness and fewer primary care encounters. Faculty physician exceeded resident performance overall (83% vs. 66%, p < 0.001). The odds ratio of a resident patient having up-to-date breast cancer screening was 0.41 (95% confidence interval 0.35-0.47) in the unadjusted model. The adjusted odds ratios improved from 0.5 (0.40-0.62) in model 1 (patient sociodemographic only) to 0.59 (0.48-0.74) in model 2 (clinical and utilization variables) to 0.73 (0.54-0.98) in model 3 (physician attributes).

conclusionIn a teaching practice with a robust primary care infrastructure, disparities in breast cancer screening between faculty and resident panels improved with rigorous adjustment. However, residency training programs may need to be redesigned to eliminate remaining disparities in care.

Indexed as

breast cancer screeningcare disparitiesgraduate medical educationinterns and residentsmammographyquality of care

Identifiers

PMID42888341

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.