Use of a Web-based Risk Appraisal Tool for Assessing Family History and Lifestyle Factors in Primary Care

BACKGROUND

Primary care clinicians can play an important role in identifying individuals at increased risk of cancer, but often do not obtain detailed information on family history or lifestyle factors from their patients.

OBJECTIVE

We evaluated the feasibility and effectiveness of using a web-based risk appraisal tool in the primary care setting.

DESIGN

Five primary care practices within an academic care network were assigned to the intervention or control group.

PARTICIPANTS

We included 15,495 patients who had a new patient visit or annual exam during an 8-month period in 2010–2011.

INTERVENTION

Intervention patients were asked to complete a web-based risk appraisal tool on a laptop computer immediately before their visit. Information on family history of cancer was sent to their electronic health record (EHR) for clinicians to view; if accepted, it populated coded fields and could trigger clinician reminders about colon and breast cancer screening.

MAIN MEASURES

The main outcome measure was new documentation of a positive family history of cancer in coded EHR fields. Secondary outcomes included clinician reminders about screening and discussion of family history, lifestyle factors, and screening.

KEY RESULTS

Among eligible intervention patients, 2.0 % had new information on family history of cancer entered in the EHR within 30 days after the visit, compared to 0.6 % of eligible control patients (adjusted odds ratio = 4.3, p = 0.03). There were no significant differences in the percent of patients who received moderate or high risk reminders for colon or breast cancer screening.

CONCLUSIONS

Use of this tool was associated with increased documentation of family history of cancer in the EHR, although the percentage of patients with new family history information was low in both groups. Further research is needed to determine how risk appraisal tools can be integrated with workflow and how they affect screening and health behaviors.     

Breast cancer screening in older women: practices and barriers reported by primary care physicians

Annual mammography, in combination with clinical breast examinations, can reduce mortality from breast cancer. However, surveys of both patients and physicians suggest that mammography is underutilized. This study examined whether physicians' reported breast cancer screening practices and barriers to mammography varied with patients' age. Data from 576 primary care physicians (internal medicine, family/general practice, and obstetrics/gynecology) who participated in a mailed statewide survey were analyzed. Physicians reported screening elderly women significantly less often than younger women, regardless of family history of breast cancer. With the exception of medical specialty, physicians' demographic and practice characteristics were not associated with reported screening practices. However, physicians' knowledge and beliefs about breast cancer in older women were associated with reported screening practices. When analyzing barriers to ordering mammography, cost to the patient was viewed as a barrier for women of all ages, and pain was viewed as a greater barrier for younger women; otherwise, physicians consistently believed that their elderly patients faced considerably more barriers compared with younger women. Further investigation is required to examine why primary care physicians report age-related differences in both breast screening and barriers to mammography.     

Do physicians tailor their recommendations for breast cancer risk reduction based on patient’s risk?

OBJECTIVE: To investigate how physicians tailor their recommendations for breast cancer prevention and risk reduction. DESIGN: Cross-sectional, mail survey. PARTICIPANTS: Random sample of primary care physicians in California (N = 822). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Six standardized patient scenarios were used to assess how women's breast cancer risk factors influence physicians' recommendations for screening mammography, counseling about lifestyle behaviors, genetic testing, the use of tamoxifen, prophylactic surgery, and referral to a breast specialist. Over 90% of physicians endorsed mammography for all of the scenarios. Similarly, approximately 80% of physicians endorsed counseling about lifestyle factors for all of the scenarios. Five-year risk of developing breast cancer and family history were both strongly associated with each of the 6 recommendations. Importantly, however, physicians were more likely to endorse the discussion of genetic testing, the use of tamoxifen, and prophylactic surgery for women with a family history of breast cancer compared with women at a higher risk of developing breast cancer but without a family history. Obstetrician-gynecologists were more likely to endorse most of these practices compared with internists. CONCLUSIONS: Mammography and counseling about lifestyle behaviors are widely endorsed by physicians for breast cancer prevention and risk reduction. Whereas physicians are generally able to tailor their recommendations for prevention and risk reduction based on risk, they may perhaps underutilize genetic evaluation and newer therapeutic options for primary prevention for women who are at high risk of developing breast cancer but do not have a family history.     

Determinants of colorectal cancer screening in women undergoing mammography

OBJECTIVES: Women who participate in screening for breast cancer are more likely to participate in screening for colorectal cancer. We studied such a motivated group of women to identify predictors of, and barriers to, participation in colorectal cancer screening by endoscopy. METHODS: We distributed surveys to 551 women > or = 50 yr of age while they were awaiting mammography at four sites in and around Boston, MA from June to September, 2000. The 40-question survey assessed knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about, and behaviors toward, breast and colorectal cancer screening. Regression models were used to determine factors associated with having had sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy. RESULTS: Seventy-nine percent of the women completed all or part of the survey. Half (221/438) reported ever having had sigmoidoscopy or colonoscopy. Of these, 93% did so at the recommendation of their primary care provider. Factors associated with participation in endoscopic screening included compliance with annual fecal occult blood testing, a family history of colorectal cancer, and indifference toward the gender of the doctor performing the endoscopy. CONCLUSIONS: Women undergoing mammography overwhelmingly cite the recommendation of their primary care provider as the reason for participating in colorectal cancer screening by endoscopy. Women who preferred a female endoscopist were less likely to have been screened. Whenever possible, primary care providers should offer women the choice of a female endoscopist for colorectal cancer screening.     

Breast cancer screening for older women in a primary care practice

OBJECTIVE: To determine rates of breast cancer screening for older women cared for in a primary care practice and to identify associations between patient and physician characteristics and breast cancer screening. STUDY DESIGN: A retrospective cohort study of older women. SETTING: An urban hospital-based academic general medicine practice. This practice uses a computerized medical record and office procedures that facilitate tracking and ordering of mammograms. PARTICIPANTS: A random sample of 130 women aged 65 to 80 who receive primary care at a hospital-based general medicine practice. MEASUREMENTS: Data were collected from the hospital's computerized medical record. We recorded all clinical breast exams and mammograms performed or recommended during the 2-year study period. RESULTS: The median age of the 130 women studied was 71, and 21% of the women were black. Most patients had no serious comorbid illness (69%) and were independent in their activities of daily living (92%). During the 2-year study period, mammography was recommended for 95% of women and completed for 84%, and clinical breast exam was performed on 75%. Patients of male physicians had higher rates of mammography than patients of female physicians (89% vs. 75%, P = .045). Patients of faculty physicians had higher rates of clinical breast exam than patients of house officers or fellows (83% vs. 56%, P = .001). CONCLUSIONS: We report a very high rate of mammography for women cared for at a hospital-based primary care practice. The systems in place to facilitate ordering and tracking of mammograms probably contributed to the unusually high rate of mammography observed.     

Beliefs and expectations of women under 50 years old regarding screening mammography

OBJECTIVE: Because shared decision making has been recommended for screening mammography by women under age 50, we studied women's decision-making process regarding the procedure. DESIGN: Qualitative research design using in-depth semi-structured interviews. PATIENTS: Sixteen white and African-American women aged 38 to 45 receiving care at a large New England medical practice. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We identified the following content areas in women's decision-making process: intentions for screening, motivating factors to undergo screening, attitudes toward screening mammography, attitudes toward breast cancer, and preferences for information and shared decision making. In our sample, all women had or intended to have a screening mammogram before age 50. They were motivated by the awareness of the recommendation to begin screening at age 40, knowing others with breast cancer, and a sense of personal responsibility for their health. Participants feared breast cancer and thought the benefits of screening mammography far outweighed its risks. Women's preferences for involvement in decision making varied from wanting full responsibility for screening decisions to deferring to their medical providers. All preferred the primary care provider to be the main source of information, yet the participants stated that their own providers played a limited role in educating them about the risks and benefits of screening and the mammography procedure itself. Most of their information was derived from the media. CONCLUSIONS: The women in this study demonstrated little ambivalence in their desire for mammography screening prior to age 50. They reported minimal communication with their medical providers about the risks and benefits of screening. Better information flow regarding mammography screening is necessary. Given the lack of uncertainty among women's perceptions regarding screening mammography, shared decision making in this area may be difficult to achieve.     

Black-white differences in risk perceptions of breast cancer survival and screening mammography benefit

BACKGROUND: Given differences in cancer survival by race, black women may differ from white women in breast cancer risk perceptions. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate black-white differences in risk perceptions of breast cancer survival and screening mammography benefit. DESIGN: A written survey was administered to a random sample of women attending general internal medicine clinics. PARTICIPANTS: Black and white women, ages 40 to 69. MEASUREMENTS: Risk perceptions were measured regarding (1) average 5-year survival after a breast cancer diagnosis and (2) relative risk reduction of screening mammography. Women's risk perceptions were defined as being accurate, as well as more or less pessimistic. Measured patient characteristics included race, age, family history of breast cancer, income, insurance, education, and numeracy. Unadjusted Pearson chi(2) tests and adjusted multivariable regression analyses were done. RESULTS: Black women were more likely than white women to accurately perceive breast cancer survival in both unadjusted (48% vs 26%, P<.001) and adjusted analyses (adjusted odds ratio (AOR)=3.58; 95% confidence interval (CI)=1.56 to 8.21). Black women were also more likely to accurately perceive the benefit of screening mammography in unadjusted (39% vs 15%, P<.001) and adjusted analyses (AOR=2.70; 95% CI=1.09 to 6.69). Black women were more likely to have a more pessimistic perception of mammography benefit in unadjusted (47% vs 15%, P<.0001) and adjusted analyses (AOR=3.94; 95% CI=1.62 to 9.56). CONCLUSIONS: Awareness of risk perceptions can help physicians to tailor patient education. Physician acknowledgment of more accurate risk perceptions among black women may serve as a basis to improve patient-physician communication.     

Breat cancer risk and provider recommendation for mammography among recently unscreened women in the United States

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Many women with increased breast cancer risk have not been screened recently. Provider recommendation for mammography is an important reason many women undergo screening. We examined the association between breast cancer risk and reported provider recommendation for mammography in recently unscreened women. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study using 2000 National Health Interview Survey. PARTICIPANTS: In all, 1673 women ages 40 to 75 years without cancer who saw a health care provider in the prior year and had no mammogram within 2 years. MEASUREMENTS AND ANALYSIS: We assessed breast cancer risk by Gail score and risk factors. We used multivariable logistic regression models in SUDAAN adjusted for age, race and illness burden, to examine the association between risk and reported recommendation for mammography within 1 year for all women and women ages 50 to 75 years. RESULTS: Of 1673 recently unscreened women, 29% reported a recommendation. Twelve percent of women had increased Gail risk and of these recently unscreened, high-risk women, 25% reported a recommendation. After adjustment, high-risk women were not more likely to report a recommendation than average-risk women. Results were similar for women 50 to 75 years old. No individual breast cancer factors other than age were associated with reporting a recommendation. CONCLUSIONS: Approximately 70% of recently unscreened women seen by a health care provider in the prior year reported no recommendation for mammography, regardless of breast cancer risk. This did not include women who received a recommendation and were screened. Increasing reported recommendation rates may represent an opportunity to increase screening participation among recently unscreened women, particularly for women with increased breast cancer risk.     

Adherence of low-income women to cancer screening recommendations

BACKGROUND: African-American and low-income women have lower rates of cancer screening and higher rates of late-stage disease than do their counterparts. OBJECTIVE: To examine the effects of primary care, health insurance, and HMO participation on adherence to regular breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening. DESIGN: Random-digit-dial and targeted household telephone survey of a population-based sample. SETTING: Washington, D.C. census tracts with > or =30% of households below 200% of federal poverty threshold. PARTICIPANTS: Included in the survey were 1,205 women over age 40, 82% of whom were African American. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Adherence was defined as reported receipt of the last 2 screening tests within recommended intervals for age. RESULTS: The survey completion rate was 85%. Overall, 75% of respondents were adherent to regular Pap smears, 66% to clinical breast exams, 65% to mammography, and 29% to fecal occult blood test recommendations. Continuity with a single primary care practitioner, comprehensive service delivery, and higher patient satisfaction with the relationships with primary care practitioners were associated with higher adherence across the 4 screening tests, after considering other factors. Coordination of care also was associated with screening adherence for women age 65 and over, but not for the younger women. Compared with counterparts in non-HMO plans, women enrolled in health maintenance organizations were also more likely to be adherent to regular screening (e.g., Pap, odds ratio [OR] 1.89, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.11 to 3.17; clinical breast exam, OR 2.04, 95% CI 1.21 to 3.44; mammogram, OR 1.95, 95% CI 1.15 to 3.31; fecal occult blood test, OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.83.) CONCLUSIONS: Organizing healthcare services to promote continuity with a specific primary care clinician, a comprehensive array of services available at the primary care delivery site, coordination among providers, and better patient-practitioner relationships are likely to improve inner-city, low-income women's adherence to cancer screening recommendations.     

Family history and colorectal cancer screening: a survey of physician knowledge and practice patterns

OBJECTIVES: Risk stratification is essential to effective implementation of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening strategies. The objectives of this study were to assess and compare the current knowledge and practice patterns of gastroenterologists and primary care physicians regarding familial risk of CRC. METHODS: We conducted a survey of regional gastroenterologists and a sample of university- and community-based primary care physicians. The survey instrument assessed physician knowledge of screening recommendations and current practices for individuals with family histories of CRC, adenomatous polyps (APs), familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP), and hereditary nonpolyposis cancer (HNPCC). The instrument also elicited data about familial risk assessment, documentation, and notification of at-risk family members. RESULTS: Thirty-five gastroenterologists (65%) and 58 primary care physicians (92%) completed the survey. Most gastroenterologists and primary care physicians (85% vs 72%) chose age 40 as the appropriate age to begin screening for a family history of CRC, but relatively few (37% vs 36%) recommended screening at age 40 for a family history of APs. Gastroenterologists were significantly more likely to recommend screening for FAP at puberty (80% vs 27%, p < 0.001) and for HNPCC at age 25 (73% vs 50%, p = 0.04). Colonoscopy was the preferred screening strategy by both groups for family histories of CRC (97%), HNPCC (97%), and APs (77%); primary care physicians also preferred colonoscopy for family histories of CRC (72%) and HNPCC (76%) but flexible sigmoidoscopy plus fecal occult blood testing for a family history of APs (38%). Gastroenterologists were more likely to recommend genetic testing for persons at risk of FAP (91% vs 71%, p = 0.03) and HNPCC (72% vs 57%, p = 0.18), routinely inquire about a family history of CRC or APs (93% vs 63%, p < 0.001), and recommend notification of at-risk first-degree relatives with family histories of CRC (94% vs 55%, p < 0.001) or AP (53% v.s 6%, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Although gastroenterologists are more likely than primary care physicians to elicit a family history of colorectal neoplasia and implement appropriate screening strategies, overall compliance with recommended guidelines and notification of at-risk relatives are suboptimal. Novel approaches for improving awareness of the available screening guidelines are needed.     

Reconsidering the family history in primary care

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this paper is to review the role of the family history in predictive genetic testing, describe how family history taking is practiced in adult primary care, identify the current barriers to appropriate application of the family history, and outline the requirements for a new family history tool for primary care. DESIGN: We reviewed current perspectives on the family history, identifying key references in the medical literature and web-based family history tools through discussions with multiple content experts in clinical genetics, family medicine, and internal medicine. We conducted a Medline query using the search terms family history and primary care to identify references from the past 10 years. To illustrate the usefulness of family history information, we calculated the predictive value of family history and genetic information for familial adenomatous polyposis using current references and standard formulas. We identified paper and web-based family history tools through discussions with content experts. We also conducted a search on the World Wide Web to identify resources for electronic medical record and family history. RESULTS: The family history is the most important tool for diagnosis and risk assessment in medical genetics, and promises to serve as a critical element in the use of predictive genetic testing in primary care. Traditional medical education about family history has often been unsophisticated and use of family history in adult primary care has been limited, compounded by multiple substantive barriers. Although there are numerous paper and computer-based aides for taking the family history, none currently meets all the needs of adult primary care. CONCLUSIONS: The patient's family history remains a critical element in risk assessment for many conditions, but substantive barriers impede application in primary care practice, and evidence for its contribution to improved health outcomes is limited in this setting. Short of radical changes in reimbursement, new tools will be required to aid primary care physicians in the efficient collection and application of patient family history in the era of genetic testing.     

Breast,Colorectal and Prostate Cancer Screening for Cancer Survivors and Non-Cancer Patients in Community Practices

BACKGROUND

Cancer survivors have cancer surveillance and preventive screening needs that require monitoring. Little is known regarding their patterns of care in community primary care practices.

METHODS

Secondary analysis of 750 baseline patient surveys and medical record audits for patients ages 50+ years in 25 community-based primary care practices (

RESULTS

Patient self-reported screening rates for breast cancer (72%), colorectal cancer (81%) and prostate cancer (77%) were higher for cancer survivors compared to noncancer patients (69%, 67%, 53%, respectively). Screening rates documented in the primary care records were lower for all cancers. Cancer survivors were more likely than others to report having been screened for colorectal cancer (P?=?0.034). Male cancer survivors were more likely to report being screened for prostate cancer than those without cancer (P?=?0.020). There were no significant differences in either self-reported or medical record report of breast cancer screening rates among cancer survivors and noncancer patients.

CONCLUSIONS

Cancer survivors were more likely to self-report receipt of cancer screening than noncancer patients. Medical record reports of cancer screening were lower than self-reports for cancer survivors and noncancer patients. Identifying factors that affect cancer screening among cancer survivors is important and has implications for intervention design.

     

Why Do Patients of Female Physicians Have Higher Rates of Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening?

OBJECTIVE: Women are more likely to receive breast and cervical cancer screening if they see female physicians. We studied whether this is due to differences between male and female physicians, or to differences in their patients. SETTING: Large midwestern, independent practice association style of health plan. DESIGN: We surveyed male and female primary care physicians matched for age and specialty and a stratified random sample of three of each physician's women patients. Physicians reported on their practice setting, their attitudes and practices regarding prevention, and their comfort and skill with various examinations. Patients reported on their sociodemographic characteristics, their attitudes and practices regarding prevention, and their preferences for physician gender. Claims data were used to calculate mammography and Pap smear screening rates for the physicians PARTICIPANTS: We studied 154 female and 190 male internists and family physicians and 794 of their patients. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We compared the responses of male and female physicians and their patients and used multivariable analysis to identify the patient and physician factors that accounted for the differences in screening rates between male and female physicians. Female physicians were more likely to ask new patients about components of prevention, to believe in the effectiveness of mammography, to feel more personal responsibility for ensuring that their patients received screening, and to report more comfort in performing Pap smears and breast examinations. Patients of female physicians were more educated and less likely to be married, but did not differ in other sociodemographic characteristics. They had similar attitudes and practices regarding prevention, except that patients of male physicians were more likely to smoke. Significantly more patients of female physicians preferred a female for some component of care. In multivariable analyses, practice organization, patient preference for a female physician, and prevention orientation of female physicians accounted for up to 40% of screening rate differences between female and male physicians for Pap smears, and 33% for mammography. CONCLUSIONS: Differences in beliefs of male and female physicians and patient preference for a female provider contribute independently to the higher rate of breast and cervical cancer screening by female physicians.     

Missed Opportunities: Family History and Behavioral Risk Factors in Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Among a Multiethnic Group of Women

Background Clinician’s knowledge of a woman’s cancer family history (CFH) and counseling about health-related behaviors (HRB) is necessary for appropriate breast cancer care. Objective To evaluate whether clinicians solicit CFH and counsel women on HRB; to assess relationship of well visits and patient risk perception or worry with clinician’s behavior. Design Cross-sectional population-based telephone survey. Participants Multiethnic sample; 1,700 women from San Francisco Mammography Registry with a screening mammogram in 2001–2002. Measurements Predictors: well visit in prior year, self-perception of 10-year breast cancer risk, worry scale. Outcomes: Patient report of clinician asking about CFH in prior year, or ever counseling about HRB in relation to breast cancer risk. Multivariate models included age, ethnicity, education, language of interview, insurance/mammography facility, well visit, ever having a breast biopsy/follow-up mammography, Gail-Model risk, Jewish heritage, and body mass index. Results 58% reported clinicians asked about CFH; 33% reported clinicians ever discussed HRB. In multivariate analysis, regardless of actual risk, perceived risk, or level of worry, having had a well visit in prior year was associated with increased odds (OR = 2.3; 95% CI 1.6, 3.3) that a clinician asked about CFH. Regardless of actual risk of breast cancer, a higher level of worry (OR = 1.9; 95% CI 1.4, 2.6) was associated with increased odds that a clinician ever discussed HRB. Conclusions Clinicians are missing opportunities to elicit family cancer histories and counsel about health-related behaviors and breast cancer risk. Preventive health visits offer opportunities for clinicians to address family history, risk behaviors, and patients’ worries about breast cancer. This research was presented in part at the Society of General Internal Medicine meeting, May 2005, New Orleans.     

Are Physicians Discussing Prostate Cancer Screening with Their Patients and Why or Why Not? A Pilot Study

BACKGROUND Prostate cancer screening (PCS) is controversial. Ideally, patients should understand the risks and benefits of screening before undergoing PSA testing. This study assessed whether primary care physicians routinely discuss PCS and explored the barriers to and facilitators of these discussions. METHODS Qualitative pilot study involving in-depth, semistructured interviews with 18 purposively sampled, academic and community-based primary care physicians. Barriers and facilitators of PCS discussions were ascertained using both interviews and chart-stimulated recall—a technique utilizing patient charts to probe recall and provide context to physician decision-making during clinic encounters. Analysis was performed using consensus conferences based on grounded theory techniques. RESULTS All 18 participating physicians reported that they generally discussed PCS with patients, though 6 reported sometimes ordering PSA tests without discussion. A PCS discussion occurred in only 16 (36%) of the 44 patient–physician encounters when patients were due for PCS that also met criteria for chart-stimulated recall. Barriers to PCS discussion were patient comorbidity, limited education/health literacy, prior refusal of care, physician forgetfulness, acute-care visits, and lack of time. Facilitators of PCS discussion included patient-requested screening, highly educated patients, family history of prostate cancer, African-American race, visits for routine physicals, review of previous PSA results, extra time during encounters, and reminder systems. CONCLUSIONS PCS discussions sometimes do not occur. Important barriers to discussion are inadequate time for health maintenance, physician forgetfulness, and patient characteristics. Future research should explore using educational and decision support interventions to involve more patients in PCS decisions.     

Information and involvement preferences of women in their 40s before their first screening mammogram

BACKGROUND: Informed decision making regarding screening mammography is recommended for women in their 40s; however, what information women want and how much involvement in decision making they prefer are not known. METHODS: Surveys were mailed to women aged 40 to 44 scheduled for their first screening mammogram. Women were members of a large New England health maintenance organization and received medical care at a multispecialty practice in the greater Boston area. Outcome measures included information needs and decisional control preferences. RESULTS: Ninety-six women responded. Of 93 identifying their ethnicity, 62 (67%) were white, 18 (19%) were black, 10 (11%) were Asian, 2 (2%) were Hispanic, and 1 (1%) was other. Most (91% [85/93]) wanted their primary care provider to be the source of information regarding screening mammography. Information needs included the next steps to take if the mammogram result was abnormal (89%), how the woman would be contacted (75%), and how quickly (71%). Women also wanted to know about the harms of false-positive (84%) and false-negative (82%) results, benefits of screening in prolonging life (73%), and risk of getting breast cancer (69%). Most women preferred to make the screening decision after considering their medical provider's opinion (38%) or together with their medical provider (46%); fewer than 10% preferred that the decision be made by the woman or her provider alone. CONCLUSIONS: Women cited specific information needs before initiating screening mammography, including screening logistics and potential harms and benefits of screening. They also wanted to participate in the decision-making process. Effective methods should be developed for communicating desired information before screening.     

Variation in Primary Care Physicians’ Colorectal Cancer Screening Recommendations by Patient Age and Comorbidity

BACKGROUND

Screening patterns among primary care physicians (PCPs) may be influenced by patient age and comorbidity. Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening has little benefit among patients with limited life expectancy.

OBJECTIVE

To characterize the extent to which PCPs modify their recommendations for CRC screening based upon patients’ increasing age and/or worsening comorbidity

DESIGN

Cross-sectional, nationally representative survey.

PARTICIPANTS

The study comprised primary care physicians (n = 1,266) including general internal medicine, family practice, and obstetrics-gynecology physicians.

MAIN MEASURES

Physician CRC screening recommendations among patients of varying age and comorbidity were measured based upon clinical vignettes. Independent variables in adjusted models included physician and practice characteristics.

KEY RESULTS

For an 80-year-old patient with unresectable non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), 25 % of PCPs recommended CRC screening. For an 80-year-old patient with ischemic cardiomyopathy (New York Heart Association, Class II), 71 % of PCPs recommended CRC screening. PCPs were more likely to recommend fecal occult blood testing than colonoscopy as the preferred screening modality for a healthy 80-year-old, compared to healthy 50- or 65-year-old patients (19 % vs. 5 % vs. 2 % p < 0.001). For an 80-year-old with unresectable NSCLC, PCPs who were an obstetrics-gynecology physician were more likely to recommend CRC screening, while those with a full electronic medical record were less likely to recommend screening.

CONCLUSIONS

PCPs consider comorbidity when screening older patients for CRC and may change the screening modality from colonoscopy to FOBT. However, a sizable proportion of PCPs would recommend screening for patients with advanced cancer who would not benefit. Understanding the mechanisms underlying these patterns will facilitate the design of future medical education and policy interventions to reduce unnecessary care.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s11606-012-2093-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.KEY WORDS: cancer screening, health services, colorectal cancer, primary care physicians     

Effect of false-positive mammograms on interval breast cancer screening in a health maintenance organization.

BACKGROUND: Despite the mortality benefits of breast cancer screening, not all women receive regular mammography. Such factors as age, socioeconomic status, and physician recommendation have been associated with greater use of screening. However, we do not know whether having an abnormal mammogram affects future screening. OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect of a false-positive mammogram on adherence to the next recommended screening mammogram. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: The breast cancer screening program at Group Health Cooperative, a health maintenance organization in Washington state. PATIENTS: 5059 women 40 years of age or older with no history of breast cancer or breast surgery who had false-positive (n = 813) or true-negative (n = 4246) index screening mammograms between 1 August 1990 and 31 July 1992. MEASUREMENTS: Screening rates and odds ratios for recommended interval screening up to 42 months after the index mammogram. RESULTS: After adjustment for differences in age; previous use of mammography; family history of breast cancer; exogenous hormone use; and age at menarche, first childbirth, and menopause, women with false-positive index mammograms were more likely than those with true-negative index mammograms to obtain their next recommended screening mammogram (odds ratio, 1.21 [95% CI, 1.01 to 1.45]). The relation between a false-positive mammogram and the likelihood of adherence to screening in the next recommended interval was strongest among women who had not previously undergone mammography (odds ratio, 1.66 [CI, 1.26 to 2.17]). CONCLUSIONS: Having a false-positive mammogram did not adversely affect screening behavior in the next recommended interval. Women with false-positive mammograms, especially those without previous mammography, were more likely to return for the next scheduled screening.