Cancer screening and prevention practices of inner-city physicians

INTRODUCTION: Effective preventive services are needed most in underserved, inner-city settings that suffer disproportionately from morbidity and mortality. Primary care physicians can play an important role in the provision of efficacious cancer prevention and screening services to patients in these communities. METHOD: We surveyed 122 primary care physicians about their cancer prevention and screening knowledge, attitudes, and practices. RESULTS: Relative to the findings from national and local surveys, sample physicians were not as knowledgeable about national guidelines for preventive care, were less likely to counsel on smoking cessation, and were less likely to advise diet modification. Although physician practices reflected national cancer prevention and screening guidelines in general, a significant proportion of physicians suggested lung and prostate cancer screening tests that were inconsistent with national recommendations. CONCLUSIONS: Systematic efforts are needed to increase the knowledge and practices of inner-city physicians concerning cancer prevention and screening.     

Survey of acute low back pain management by specialty group and practice experience

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to explore concurrence with evidence-based management of acute back pain by primary care specialty and years in practice groups. METHODS: Participants randomly selected from five American Medical Association physician groups were surveyed asking their initial care recommendations for case scenarios with and without sciatica. Response differences were compared among groups and with the Agency for Health Research Quality's guideline. RESULTS: Response rate was 25%. Emergency physicians were least likely to order diagnostic studies for both cases but more often made recommendations likely to promote inactivity. Occupational physicians were less likely to order diagnostic studies and more likely choose treatments conducive to increasing activity. The longer physicians were in practice, the less likely they were to follow recommendations. All specialty groups selected more nonevidence-based interventions for the patient with sciatica. General practitioners were least likely to follow the guidelines in either case. CONCLUSIONS: Despite widespread dissemination of acute low back pain guidelines, the study suggests a lack of adherence by certain primary care groups, physicians with more practice experience, and in specific areas of management.     

Revisiting Prostate Cancer Screening Practices Among Vermont Primary Care Physicians

The objective of this study was to assess the prostate cancer screening practices of Vermont primary care physicians and compare them with a prior study in 2001. An electronic survey was created and emailed to all currently practicing primary care physicians in Vermont. Data was stratified by practice length, practice location, university affiliation, and internal medicine versus family practice. Surveys were received from 123 (27.2%) primary care physicians. 27.7% of physicians in practice?<10 years recommended prostate specific antigen (PSA) testing, compared with 55.9% of those practicing ≥10 years (p?=?0.006). Of those who modified their recommendations in the past 5 years, 96.1% reported that the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) 2012 statement influenced them. Respondents who continued to use PSA testing were less likely to stop screening after age 80 compared with those surveyed in 2001 (51% in 2014 vs. 74% in 2001; p?<0.001). Primary care physicians in practice for 10 or more years were more likely to recommend PSA-based screening than those in practice for less time. The USPSTF statement discouraging PSA-based screening for prostate cancer has had significant penetrance among Vermont primary care physicians.     

Peer Reviewed: Association of Regional Variation in Primary Care Physicians’ Colorectal Cancer Screening Recommendations with Individual Use of Colorectal Cancer Screening

Introduction

Studies show that the recommendations of a primary care physician for colorectal cancer screening may be one important influence on an individual''s use of screening. However, another possible influence, the effect of regional differences in physicians'' beliefs and recommendations on screening use, has not been assessed.

Methods

We linked data from the National Health Interview Survey on the use of colorectal cancer screening by respondents aged 50 years or older, by hospital-referral region, with data from the Survey of Colorectal Cancer Screening Practices on the colorectal cancer screening recommendations of primary care physicians, by region. Our principal independent variables were the proportion of physicians in a region who recommended screening at age 50 and continuing screening at the recommended frequency.

Results

On average, 53.3% of physicians in a region correctly recommended initiating colorectal cancer screening, and 64.8% advised screening at the recommended frequency. Of adults who lived in regions where less than 30% of physicians correctly recommended initiating screening, 47.3% had been screened, in contrast to 54.8% in areas where 70% or more of physicians made correct recommendations. Seventy-one percent of respondents living in regions where less than 30% of physicians advised screening at the recommended frequency were current on screening, in contrast to 79.9% of respondents living in regions where 70% or more of physicians made this recommendation. These differences were statistically significant after adjustment for individual characteristics.

Conclusion

Strategies to improve colorectal cancer screening recommendations of primary care physicians may improve the use of screening for millions of Americans.     

Breast cancer screening: effect of physician specialty, practice setting, year of medical school graduation, and sex.

We surveyed physicians of different specialties in a large metropolitan area to determine how their characteristics affected their performance and beliefs about breast cancer screening. Of 664 general internists, obstetrician-gynecologists, and cardiologists surveyed, we received 298 responses (45%). We found significant differences in reported performance of breast cancer screening and physicians' beliefs about mammography screening among practicing obstetrician-gynecologists, internists, and cardiopulmonary specialists. Cardiopulmonary specialists performed the fewest breast examinations and screening mammograms and were most likely to believe annual mammography screening unnecessary even for women in their 50s. We observed no difference between physicians graduating before 1960 and those graduating afterward and no differences according to physician sex. We found similar screening practices and beliefs in the three types of practice settings examined: community-based, private practices, a large health maintenance organization (HMO), and academic medical centers. Obstetrician-gynecologists and internists differed only in the frequency with which they performed breast examinations. Physicians graduating before 1960 in these two groups reported somewhat poorer performance and knowledge of breast cancer screening than those graduating more recently. A majority of all respondents disagreed with American Cancer Society guidelines for mammography screening. Physicians of all specialties reported performing far more breast examinations than screening mammograms on women of all ages, even for those 50-59 years of age. We conclude that all physicians need to improve their screening rates. However, intervention programs should first target those physicians with the greatest deficiencies in breast cancer screening performance and knowledge; these include medical specialists and older physicians in primary care specialties.     

Factors associated with the use of screening mammography in a primary care setting

Despite consensus recommendations the usse of screening mammography remins low. We examined physician and patient related variables associated with requests to undergo screening mammography in a primary care setting, in order to assess current barriers to screening mammography at the level of the physician-patient interaction. A sample of 261 women over the age of 50, whose primary care was provided by resident physician in a large, urban, academic medical center were examined. Data concerning patients and physicians demographic and clinical chracteristics were abstracted. The data were analyzed by Chi-square and stepwise logistic regression. Forty-five percent of the patients were offered screening mammography within the study year and 53% were offered mammography over the preceding two years. Variables significantly associated with a request for screening included a previous history of breast disease (p<.001) and the severity of the patient's overall medical conditoin. Patients with an overall medical condition rated as mild were more likely to be requested to undergo screening than patients rated as moderately or severely ill (p<.01). Patients with higher educational levels were also more likely to be offered screening (P=.06). First year popstgraduate (PGY 1) physicians requested more mammograms than PGY 2 or PGY 3 physicians (P<.05). A multivariable model utilizing logistic regression confirmed the association of the significant variables above with screening requests. Physicians were more likely to request mammography in patients at higher risk for developing breast cancer and less likely to request it in patients who had co-morbid illness. Increasing physician understanding of the importance and benefits of mammography and further investigation of strategies to ensure ophysician compliance with mammography recommendations are necessary to increase utilization.     

Physicians’ recommendations for colon cancer screening in women: Too much of a good thing?

Background:Expert groups support periodic colorectal cancer (CRC) screening for persons aged 50 and older but not for persons younger than 50. We were interested in community primary care physicians’ recommendations to women for fecal occult blood tests (FOBT), flexible sigmoidoscopy (SIG), and colonoscopy (COL).Methods:In a mailed survey of 1,292 community primary care physicians in North Carolina, we queried physicians regarding their recommendations to women for CRC screening.Results:Analysis was performed on 508 respondents (39%). Recommendation for FOBT (96%) and SIG (69%) for women >50 years old was high among all subgroups of physicians. Recommendation for women < 50 years old was high for FOBT (82%) but lower for SIG (28%). Overall, 19% of physicians recommended COL. Recommendation for FOBT, SIG, and COL varied by physician specialty, physician age, perceived patient demand, physician need for additional CRC screening information, practice size, and location.Conclusions:Although increasing physician recommendation for CRC screening is important, primary care physicians report recommending earlier and more aggressive screening than that supported by national guidelines.     

Pairing Physician Education With Patient Activation to Improve Shared Decisions in Prostate Cancer Screening: A Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial

BACKGROUND

Most expert groups recommend shared decision making for prostate cancer screening. Most primary care physicians, however, routinely order a prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test with little or no discussion about whether they believe the potential benefits justify the risk of harm. We sought to assess whether educating primary care physicians and activating their patients to ask about prostate cancer screening had a synergistic effect on shared decision making, rates and types of discussions about prostate cancer screening, and the physician’s final recommendations.

METHODS

Our study was a cluster randomized controlled trial among primary care physicians and their patients, comparing usual education (control), with physician education alone (MD-Ed), and with physician education and patient activation (MD-Ed+A). Participants included 120 physicians in 5 group practices, and 712 male patients aged 50 to 75 years. The interventions comprised a Web-based educational program for all intervention physicians and MD-Ed+A patients compared with usual education (brochures from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). The primary outcome measure was patients’ reported postvisit shared decision making regarding prostate cancer screening; secondary measures included unannounced standardized patients’ reported shared decision making and the physician’s recommendation for prostate cancer screening.

RESULTS

Patients’ ratings of shared decision making were moderate and did not differ between groups. MD-Ed+A patients reported that physicians had higher prostate cancer screening discussion rates (MD-Ed+A = 65%, MD-Ed = 41%, control=38%; P <.01). Standardized patients reported that physicians seeing MD-Ed+A patients were more neutral during prostate cancer screening recommendations (MD-Ed+A=50%, MD-Ed=33%, control=15%; P <.05). Of the male patients, 80% had had previous PSA tests.

CONCLUSIONS

Although activating physicians and patients did not lead to significant changes in all aspects of physician attitudes and behaviors that we studied, interventions that involved physicians did have a large effect on their attitudes toward screening and in the discussions they had with patients, including their being more likely than control physicians to engage in prostate cancer screening discussions and more likely to be neutral in their final recommendations.     

Flexible sigmoidoscopy training and its impact on colorectal cancer screening by primary care physicians

BACKGROUND: Colorectal cancer is an ideal disease for prevention with screening programs. Efforts to increase compliance with screening recommendations have included training primary care physicians to perform flexible sigmoidoscopy. OBJECTIVE: To assess the impact of flexible sigmoidoscopy training on compliance with current screening recommendations. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional study of 232 patients cared for by physicians in a primary care network. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rates of screening for colorectal cancer and rates of undergoing flexible sigmoidoscopy were compared across patient groups according to the physician's training and whether the physician performs flexible sigmoidoscopy in his or her practice. RESULTS: Among 217 patients included in the analysis, 122 (56%) were cared for by physicians who were trained in flexible sigmoidoscopy, of whom 79 (36%) were cared for by physicians who perform flexible sigmoidoscopy in their practice. Patients cared for by physicians trained in flexible sigmoidoscopy were not significantly more likely to receive any colorectal cancer screening than were patients cared for by physicians not trained in flexible sigmoidoscopy (odds ratio, 1.16; 95% confidence interval, 0.67-2.01). However, patients cared for by physicians who perform flexible sigmoidoscopy in their practice were more likely to have undergone any colorectal cancer screening (odds ratio, 1.73; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-2.95) and flexible sigmoidoscopy (odds ratio, 2.69; 95% confidence interval, 1.14-6.36). CONCLUSION: Performance of flexible sigmoidoscopy by primary care physicians has the potential to increase the rate of colorectal cancer screening with flexible sigmoidoscopy.     

Cancer education among primary care physicians in an underserved community

INTRODUCTION: Urban minority groups, such as those living in north Manhattan, are generally underserved with regard to cancer prevention and screening practices. Primary care physicians are in a critical position to counsel their patients on these subjects and to order screening tests for their patients. METHODS: Eighty-four primary care physicians in two intervention communities who received educational visits about cancer screening and prevention were compared with 38 physicians in a nearby community who received no intervention. With pre- and post-test interviews over an 18-month period, the physicians were asked about their attitudes toward, knowledge of (relative to American Cancer Society guidelines), and likelihood of counseling and screening for breast, cervical, colorectal, and prostate cancers. RESULTS: Comparison of the two surveys of physicians indicated no statistically significant differences in knowledge of cancer prevention or screening. At post-test, however, intervention group physicians identified significantly fewer barriers to practice than control physicians (p<0.05). While overall, the educational visits to inner-city primary care physicians did not appear to significantly alter cancer prevention practices, there was a positive dose-response relationship among the subgroup of participants who received three or more project contacts. CONCLUSIONS: We uncovered significant changes in attitude due to academic detailing among urban primary care physicians practicing in north Manhattan. A significant pre-test sensitization effect and small numbers may have masked overall changes in cancer prevention and screening behaviors among physicians due to the intervention.     

The influence of cost-effectiveness information on physicians' cancer screening recommendations

Physicians are increasingly faced with choices in which one screening strategy is both more effective and more expensive than another. One way to make such choices is to examine the cost-effectiveness of the more costly strategy over the less costly one. However, little is known about how cost-effectiveness information influences physicians' screening decisions. We surveyed 900 primary care US physicians, and presented each with a hypothetical cancer-screening scenario. We created three familiar screening scenarios, involving cervical, colon, and breast cancer. We also created three unfamiliar screening scenarios. Physicians were randomized to receive one of nine questionnaires, each containing one screening scenario. Three questionnaires posed one of the familiar screening scenarios without cost-effectiveness information, three posed one of the familiar scenarios with cost-effectiveness information, and three posed one of the unfamiliar scenarios with cost-effectiveness information. The cost-effectiveness information for familiar scenarios was drawn from the medical literature. The cost-effectiveness information for unfamiliar scenarios was fabricated to match that of a corresponding familiar scenario. In all questionnaires, physicians were asked what screening alternative they would recommend. A total of 560 physicians responded (65%). For familiar scenarios, providing cost-effectiveness information had at most a small influence on physicians' screening recommendations; it reduced the proportion of physicians recommending annual Pap smears (p=0.003), but did not significantly alter the aggressiveness of colon cancer and breast cancer screening (both p's<0.1). For all three unfamiliar scenarios, physicians were significantly less likely to recommend expensive screening strategies than in corresponding familiar scenarios (all p's<0.001). Physicians' written explanations revealed a number of factors that moderated the influence of cost-effectiveness information on their screening recommendations. Providing physicians with cost-effectiveness information had only a moderate influence on their screening recommendations for cervical, colon, and breast cancer. Significantly, fewer physicians recommended aggressive screening for unfamiliar cancers than for familiar ones, despite similar cost-effectiveness. Physicians are relatively reluctant to abandon common screening strategies, even when they learn that they are expensive, and are hesitant to adopt unfamiliar screening strategies, even when they learn that they are inexpensive.     

Use of nonphysician health care providers for skin cancer screening in the primary care setting

BACKGROUND: Nonphysician health care providers are in an optimal position to provide cancer prevention and screening services. METHODS: We conducted a survey of primary care physicians to determine physician use and amenability to use of nonphysician health care providers to perform skin cancer screening in comparison with other cancer screening examinations. RESULTS: A total of 1,363 eligible physicians completed the survey. Of these, 631 physicians (46%) reported a nurse practitioner or physician assistant performing at least one type of cancer screening examination on their patients. Twenty-nine and 22% of all physicians reported nurse practitioners or physician assistants performing skin cancer screening, respectively. Family physicians were more likely to use nurse practitioners and physician assistants to perform these cancer screening examinations than internists (chi(2) test, P = 0.001 for each examination). Skin examinations were performed less frequently by nurse practitioners and physician assistants than all other cancer screening examinations. A total of 73-79% of family physicians and 60-70% of internists were amenable to having a nonphysician health care provider perform one or more of these examinations. CONCLUSIONS: Primary care physicians are currently utilizing nonphysician health care providers to perform cancer screening examinations and the majority of those surveyed are amenable to the use of these providers for such examinations. This suggests that one possible strategy for increasing skin cancer screening is through an expanded role of nonphysician health care providers.     

Physician recommendations for screening mammography: results of a survey using clinical vignettes

BACKGROUND. Although experts estimate that 30% of breast cancer deaths could be prevented if women were screened according to published guidelines, fewer than 50% of physicians follow screening mammography guidelines, and fewer than 30% of women are screened with mammography. METHODS. Physician recommendations for screening mammography were examined in a questionnaire mailed to 300 randomly selected physicians of the Ohio Academy of Family Physicians. Physicians responded with their likelihood of recommending screening mammography to 24 clinical vignettes that high-lighted patient, mammographic, and encounter characteristics. RESULTS. Seventy-one percent responded. Ninety-one percent reported almost always recommending screening mammography to a 55-year-old woman at her yearly examination. They were significantly less likely to recommend mammography to women who were young (40 years old), were old (70 years old), were poor, had small breasts, had painful mammograms, did not want the doctor to look for cancer, lived in a nursing home, or were retarded. Physicians recommended mammography less often when the mammography unit was far away or produced poor quality films or ambiguous interpretations. When physicians ran behind schedule, perceived a more urgent medical problem during the encounter, or saw a woman for an acute visit, they recommended mammography significantly less often. CONCLUSIONS. Patient, mammographic, and encounter characteristics significantly limit physician recommendations for screening mammography as assessed by clinical vignettes. These characteristics must be addressed if breast cancer mortality is to be reduced with early screening.     

Lung cancer screening practices of primary care physicians: results from a national survey

PURPOSE

Although current practice guidelines do not recommend screening asymptomatic patients for lung cancer, physicians may still order lung cancer screening tests. No recent national survey of health care professionals has focused on lung cancer screening. In this study, we examined the lung cancer screening practices of US primary care physicians and characteristics of those who order lung cancer screening tests.

METHODS

We conducted a nationally representative survey of practicing primary care physicians in 2006–2007. Mailed questionnaires assessed the physicians’ knowledge of lung cancer screening guidelines, beliefs about the effectiveness of screening tests, and ordering of screening chest radiograph, low-dose spiral computed tomography, or sputum cytology in the past 12 months. Clinical vignettes were used to assess the physicians’ intentions to screen asymptomatic 50-year-old patients with varying smoking histories for lung cancer.

RESULTS

A total of 962 family physicians, general practitioners, and general internists completed questionnaires (cooperation rate = 76.8%). Overall, 38% had ordered no lung cancer screening tests; 55% had ordered chest radiograph, 22% low-dose spiral computed tomography, and less than 5% sputum cytology. In multivariate modeling, physicians were more likely to have ordered lung cancer screening tests if they believed that expert groups recommend lung cancer screening or that screening tests are effective; if they would recommend screening for asymptomatic patients, including patients without substantial smoking exposure; and if their patients had asked them about screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Primary care physicians in the United States frequently order lung cancer screening tests for asymptomatic patients, even though expert groups do not recommend it. Primary care physicians and patients need more information about lung cancer screening’s evidence base, guidelines, potential harms, and costs to avert inappropriate ordering.     

Primary care physicians' views on screening and management of alcohol abuse: inconsistencies with national guidelines

BACKGROUND: The effects of patients' abuse of and dependence on alcohol are well known, but screening for problem drinking by primary care physicians has been limited. The National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) recommends that all patients be screened for alcohol use, all users be screened with the CAGE questionnaire, and all nondependent problem drinkers be counseled. We evaluated primary care physicians' screening methods for alcohol use and their management of problem drinkers to determine if they were following the NIAAA guidelines. METHODS: We mailed a questionnaire to 210 internists and family physicians to assess their alcohol screening and management methods. RESULTS: Only 64.9% of the respondents reported screening 80% to 100% of their patients for alcohol abuse or dependence during the initial visit; even less (34.4%) screened that many patients during an annual visit. Nearly all respondents (95%) reported "frequently" or "always" using quantity-frequency questions to screen for alcohol abuse, but only 35% "frequently" or "always" used the CAGE questionnaire. Only 20% of the respondents rated treatment resources as adequate for early problem drinkers, and 72% preferred not to counsel these patients themselves. A belief that a primary care physician could have a positive impact on an alcohol abuser was less likely to be held by respondents who were older, in a nonurban setting, or had more years in practice (P = .05). CONCLUSIONS: A substantial proportion of the physicians in our survey sample were not following NIAAA recommendations. Most physicians preferred not to do the counseling of nondependent problem drinkers themselves, but to refer those patients to a nurse trained in behavioral interventions.     

Differences in physician prevention practice patterns for white and minority patients

A telephone survey of 120 randomly selected primary care physicians in New York City was completed in October, 1984 (response rate =90%) concerning physicians' recommendations for health promotion and disease prevention. Responses from physicians with 50% or more Black and Hispanic patients were compared with responses from physicians with 50% or more White patients. The former were found to be less likely to follow guidelines from nationally recognized organizations for health promotion and disease prevention, although they were just as likely to value the importance of prevention in primary care. For example, physicians with predominantly Black and Hispanic patient populations were significantly less likely to recommend screening mammography (7% versus 23%) or recommend influenza vaccination for patients 65 or older (48% versus 74%) when compared with physicians with predominantly White patient populations. Factors that appeared to contribute to the difference in prevention practice patterns include physician training and education, the socioeconomic status of the patients, and the time physicians spend with patients. Differences in quality of preventive care provided to minority patients may be an additional factor in the disparity between the health status of White and non-White Americans.Donald H. Gemson, M.D., M.P.H. is Assistant Professor of Clinical Public Health, Jack Elinson, Ph.D. is Professor Emeritus, and Peter Messeri, Ph.D. is Assistant Professor at the Columbia University School of Public Health, Division of Sociomedical Sciences, 600 West 168th Street, New York, New York 10032.We are grateful to the New York City Division of the American Cancer Society, and to Don Charbonneau, former Director of Professional Education at the Division, for their gracious support. We are indebted to Mrs. Raie Bauman and Ms. Lesley Field, R.N., for their expert interviewing skills, and to Athilia Siegmann, M. Phil., for technical assistance.     

Identifying opportunities for improved colorectal cancer screening in primary care

BACKGROUND: Although current recommendations advocate screening persons 50 years of age or older for colorectal cancer (CRC), actual screening practice is highly variable among primary care physicians (PCPs). Knowledge of the factors that influence whether or not screening is offered during a clinic visit is essential to develop effective screening strategies. METHODS: A cross-sectional telephone survey of one in four randomly selected patients aged 50 years or older (n = 400) attending a primary care clinic within an integrated health care system in central Texas was conducted. A survey of all PCPs (n = 32) at the practice sites was also administered. RESULTS: The visit type was an important determinant of whether CRC screening was discussed, with most discussion occurring during visits for physicals (P < 0.0001). This finding was corroborated by the physician survey. Patient age and education were also associated with a higher likelihood of having been offered CRC screening (P = 0.009 and 0.014, respectively). Patient race, gender, primary language, PCP, or clinics attended were not significantly associated with the discussion of CRC screening. CONCLUSIONS: Discussions regarding CRC screening are most likely to occur during preventive care visits. Thus, facilitating preventive visits especially for the elderly represents an opportunity to improve CRC screening rates in primary care practice.     

Variations in CRC Screening Practice: Would This Patient Be Screened?

PurposeScreening rates for colorectal cancer (CRC) in the United States were below the goal of 50% outlined in Healthy People 2010. Physician recommendation is an important predictor of patient compliance. We compared physician CRC screening decision processes (as depicted in decision trees) and examined how variations in decision processes affected decision outcomes. Further, we examined whether those variations could be attributed to physicians’ characteristics and guidelines’ utilization.MethodsWe conducted semi-structured interviews with primary care physicians, developed decision trees, compared trees, used trees to predict the recommendation for 8 sample patients, and used regression analysis to identify predictors of variation.ResultsMost of the physicians (77.3%) self-reported following clinical guidelines for CRC screening. Physicians considered an average of 5.9 decision criteria (range 2-12) in making their screening recommendations. Frequently cited criteria included patient age and family history. We documented variation for 3 of 8 sample patients. Regression analysis indicated that complexity of decision process, gender, age, and experience of physicians contributed to recommendations on screening. In addition, the self-report adherence to guidelines did not influence whether a physician would recommend CRC screening.ConclusionsThis study supports the notion that variation in practice is a function of decision processes. Therefore, studying decision processes may facilitate efforts to improve patient outcomes.     

Primary care physicians' awareness and adherence to cervical cancer screening guidelines in Texas

BACKGROUND: Cervical cancer screening guidelines were created to help healthcare professionals in appropriate screening utilizing the PAP test. However, significant variation in cervical cancer screening among primary care physicians has been noted. Knowledge of the awareness of and adherence to cervical cancer screening guidelines by primary care physicians will help determine how best to disseminate and educate these physicians regarding the guidelines in hopes of reducing unnecessary screening and improving screening for under screened populations. METHODS: A cross-sectional, mailed survey involving Family Medicine (FP), Community Internal Medicine (CIM), and Obstetrics/Gynecology (OB) physicians practicing in a large University-affiliated, multi-specialty group practice associated with an 186,000-member HMO in Central Texas (n = 177) was conducted in 2001-2002. RESULTS: Most physicians performed PAP testing (50.4%). PAP screening was noted to vary significantly by specialty (P < 0.0001). All OBs were aware of at least one published guideline, compared to 96% of FPs and 91% of CIMs (P < 0.05). A wide variation was reported regarding adherence to published guidelines. In addition, there was significant intraspecialty variation regarding adherence to the physicians' own specialty's guidelines. CONCLUSIONS: While most physicians in the primary care setting perform PAP tests and are aware of published guidelines for PAP screening, adherence to the published guidelines varies considerably even in the same clinical setting.