Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Journal of General Internal Medicine 4/2017

01-04-2017

Primary Care Providers’ Beliefs and Recommendations and Use of Screening Mammography by their Patients

Authors: Jennifer S. Haas, MD, MSc, William E. Barlow, PhD, Marilyn M. Schapira, MD, MPH, Charles D. MacLean, MD, Carrie N. Klabunde, PhD, Brian L. Sprague, PhD, Elisabeth F. Beaber, PhD, MPH, Jane S. Chen, Asaf Bitton, MD, Tracy Onega, PhD, MA, MS, Kimberly Harris, MM, Anna N. A. Tosteson, ScD, on behalf of the PROSPR (Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens) consortium

Published in: Journal of General Internal Medicine | Issue 4/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Revised breast cancer screening guidelines have fueled debate about the effectiveness and frequency of screening mammography, encouraging discussion between women and their providers.

Objective

To examine whether primary care providers’ (PCPs’) beliefs about the effectiveness and frequency of screening mammography are associated with utilization by their patients.

Design

Cross-sectional survey data from PCPs (2014) from three primary care networks affiliated with the Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens (PROSPR) consortium, linked with data about their patients’ mammography use (2011–2014).

Participants

PCPs (n = 209) and their female patients age 40–89 years without breast cancer (n = 30,233).

Main Measures

Outcomes included whether (1) women received a screening mammogram during a 2-year period; and (2) screened women had >1 mammogram during that period, reflecting annual screening. Principal independent variables were PCP beliefs about the effectiveness of mammography and their recommendations for screening frequency.

Key Results

Overall 65.2% of women received >1 screening mammogram. For women 40–48 years, mammography use was modestly lower for those cared for by PCPs who believed that screening was ineffective compared with those who believed it was somewhat or very effective (59.1%, 62.3%, and 64.7%; p = 0.019 after controlling for patient characteristics). Of women with PCPs who reported they did not recommend screening before age 50, 48.1% were nonetheless screened. For women age 49–74 years, the vast majority were cared for by providers who believed that screening was effective. Provider recommendations were not associated with screening frequency. For women ≥75 years, those cared for by providers who were uncertain about effectiveness had higher screening use (50.7%) than those cared for by providers who believed it was somewhat effective (42.8%). Patients of providers who did not recommend screening were less likely to be screened than were those whose providers recommended annual screening, yet 37.1% of patients whose providers recommended against screening still received screening.

Conclusions

PCP beliefs about mammography effectiveness and screening recommendations are only modestly associated with use, suggesting other likely influences on patient participation in mammography.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Nelson HD, Tyne K, Naik A, Bougatsos C, Chan BK, Humphrey L. Screening for breast cancer: an update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(10):727–737. W237-742.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Nelson HD, Tyne K, Naik A, Bougatsos C, Chan BK, Humphrey L. Screening for breast cancer: an update for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(10):727–737. W237-742.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
2.
go back to reference Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(10):716-726, W-236. Screening for breast cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151(10):716-726, W-236.
3.
go back to reference Siu AL, Force USPST. Screening for Breast Cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. Ann Intern Med. 2016. Siu AL, Force USPST. Screening for Breast Cancer: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendation Statement. Ann Intern Med. 2016.
4.
go back to reference Oeffinger KC, Fontham ET, Etzioni R, et al. Breast Cancer Screening for Women at Average Risk: 2015 Guideline Update From the American Cancer Society. JAMA. 2015;314(15):1599–1614.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Oeffinger KC, Fontham ET, Etzioni R, et al. Breast Cancer Screening for Women at Average Risk: 2015 Guideline Update From the American Cancer Society. JAMA. 2015;314(15):1599–1614.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
go back to reference Smith RA, Kerlikowske K, Miglioretti DL, Kalager M. Clinical decisions. Mammography screening for breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(21):e31.CrossRefPubMed Smith RA, Kerlikowske K, Miglioretti DL, Kalager M. Clinical decisions. Mammography screening for breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2012;367(21):e31.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Rabin RC. For Women, a More Complicated Choice on Mammograms. New York Times. February 11, 2014. Rabin RC. For Women, a More Complicated Choice on Mammograms. New York Times. February 11, 2014.
8.
go back to reference Dehkordy SF, Hall KS, Roach AL, Rothman ED, Dalton VK, Carlos RC. Trends in Breast Cancer Screening: Impact of U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendations. Am J Prev Med. 2015;49(3):419–422.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Dehkordy SF, Hall KS, Roach AL, Rothman ED, Dalton VK, Carlos RC. Trends in Breast Cancer Screening: Impact of U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendations. Am J Prev Med. 2015;49(3):419–422.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
9.
go back to reference Pace LE, He Y, Keating NL. Trends in mammography screening rates after publication of the 2009 US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations. Cancer. 2013;119(14):2518–2523.CrossRefPubMed Pace LE, He Y, Keating NL. Trends in mammography screening rates after publication of the 2009 US Preventive Services Task Force recommendations. Cancer. 2013;119(14):2518–2523.CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Sprague BL, Bolton KC, Mace JL, et al. Registry-based Study of Trends in Breast Cancer Screening Mammography before and after the 2009 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendations. Radiology. 2014;270(2):354–361.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Sprague BL, Bolton KC, Mace JL, et al. Registry-based Study of Trends in Breast Cancer Screening Mammography before and after the 2009 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Recommendations. Radiology. 2014;270(2):354–361.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
11.
go back to reference Haas JS, Sprague BL, Klabunde CN, et al. Provider Attitudes and Screening Practices Following Changes in Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening Guidelines. J Gen Intern Med. 2016;31(1):52–59.CrossRefPubMed Haas JS, Sprague BL, Klabunde CN, et al. Provider Attitudes and Screening Practices Following Changes in Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening Guidelines. J Gen Intern Med. 2016;31(1):52–59.CrossRefPubMed
12.
go back to reference Corbelli J, Borrero S, Bonnema R, et al. Physician adherence to U.S. Preventive Services Task Force mammography guidelines. Womens Health Issues. 2014;24(3):e313–319.CrossRefPubMed Corbelli J, Borrero S, Bonnema R, et al. Physician adherence to U.S. Preventive Services Task Force mammography guidelines. Womens Health Issues. 2014;24(3):e313–319.CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Onega T, Beaber EF, Sprague BL, et al. Breast cancer screening in an era of personalized regimens: a conceptual model and National Cancer Institute initiative for risk-based and preference-based approaches at a population level. Cancer. 2014;120(19):2955–2964.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Onega T, Beaber EF, Sprague BL, et al. Breast cancer screening in an era of personalized regimens: a conceptual model and National Cancer Institute initiative for risk-based and preference-based approaches at a population level. Cancer. 2014;120(19):2955–2964.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
14.
go back to reference Zapka JG, Taplin SH, Solberg LI, Manos MM. A framework for improving the quality of cancer care: the case of breast and cervical cancer screening. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2003;12(1):4–13.PubMed Zapka JG, Taplin SH, Solberg LI, Manos MM. A framework for improving the quality of cancer care: the case of breast and cervical cancer screening. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev. 2003;12(1):4–13.PubMed
15.
go back to reference Lurie N, Slater J, McGovern P, Ekstrum J, Quam L, Margolis K. Preventive care for women. Does the sex of the physician matter? N Engl J Med. 1993;329(7):478–482.CrossRefPubMed Lurie N, Slater J, McGovern P, Ekstrum J, Quam L, Margolis K. Preventive care for women. Does the sex of the physician matter? N Engl J Med. 1993;329(7):478–482.CrossRefPubMed
16.
go back to reference Kreuter MW, Strecher VJ, Harris R, Kobrin SC, Skinner CS. Are patients of women physicians screened more aggressively? A prospective study of physician gender and screening. J Gen Intern Med. 1995;10(3):119–125.CrossRefPubMed Kreuter MW, Strecher VJ, Harris R, Kobrin SC, Skinner CS. Are patients of women physicians screened more aggressively? A prospective study of physician gender and screening. J Gen Intern Med. 1995;10(3):119–125.CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Jensen LF, Mukai TO, Andersen B, Vedsted P. The association between general practitioners’ attitudes towards breast cancer screening and women’s screening participation. BMC Cancer. 2012;12:254.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Jensen LF, Mukai TO, Andersen B, Vedsted P. The association between general practitioners’ attitudes towards breast cancer screening and women’s screening participation. BMC Cancer. 2012;12:254.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
18.
go back to reference Beaber EF, Kim JJ, Schapira MM, et al. Unifying screening processes within the PROSPR consortium: a conceptual model for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015;107(6):djv120.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Beaber EF, Kim JJ, Schapira MM, et al. Unifying screening processes within the PROSPR consortium: a conceptual model for breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening. J Natl Cancer Inst. 2015;107(6):djv120.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
19.
go back to reference Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(5):373–383.CrossRefPubMed Charlson ME, Pompei P, Ales KL, MacKenzie CR. A new method of classifying prognostic comorbidity in longitudinal studies: development and validation. J Chronic Dis. 1987;40(5):373–383.CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Quan H, Sundararajan V, Halfon P, et al. Coding algorithms for defining comorbidities in ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 administrative data. Med Care. 2005;43(11):1130–1139.CrossRefPubMed Quan H, Sundararajan V, Halfon P, et al. Coding algorithms for defining comorbidities in ICD-9-CM and ICD-10 administrative data. Med Care. 2005;43(11):1130–1139.CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Sabatino SA, McCarthy EP, Phillips RS, Burns RB. Breast cancer risk assessment and management in primary care: provider attitudes, practices, and barriers. Cancer Detect Prev. 2007;31(5):375–383.CrossRefPubMed Sabatino SA, McCarthy EP, Phillips RS, Burns RB. Breast cancer risk assessment and management in primary care: provider attitudes, practices, and barriers. Cancer Detect Prev. 2007;31(5):375–383.CrossRefPubMed
22.
go back to reference Schapira MM, Sprague BL, Klabunde CN, et al. Inadequate Systems to Support Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening in Primary Care Practice. J Gen Intern Med. 2016;31:1148–55.CrossRefPubMed Schapira MM, Sprague BL, Klabunde CN, et al. Inadequate Systems to Support Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening in Primary Care Practice. J Gen Intern Med. 2016;31:1148–55.CrossRefPubMed
23.
go back to reference Schonberg MA, Walter LC. Talking about stopping cancer screening—not so easy. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(7):532–533.CrossRefPubMed Schonberg MA, Walter LC. Talking about stopping cancer screening—not so easy. JAMA Intern Med. 2013;173(7):532–533.CrossRefPubMed
24.
go back to reference Schonberg MA, Hamel MB, Davis RB, et al. Development and evaluation of a decision aid on mammography screening for women 75 years and older. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(3):417–424.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Schonberg MA, Hamel MB, Davis RB, et al. Development and evaluation of a decision aid on mammography screening for women 75 years and older. JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(3):417–424.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
25.
go back to reference Schonberg MA, Breslau ES, McCarthy EP. Targeting of mammography screening according to life expectancy in women aged 75 and older. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2013;61(3):388–395.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Schonberg MA, Breslau ES, McCarthy EP. Targeting of mammography screening according to life expectancy in women aged 75 and older. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2013;61(3):388–395.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
26.
go back to reference Seitz HH, Gibson L, Skubisz C, et al. Effects of a risk-based online mammography intervention on accuracy of perceived risk and mammography intentions. Patient Educ Couns. 2016. Seitz HH, Gibson L, Skubisz C, et al. Effects of a risk-based online mammography intervention on accuracy of perceived risk and mammography intentions. Patient Educ Couns. 2016.
28.
go back to reference Wee CC, Phillips RS, Burstin HR, et al. Influence of financial productivity incentives on the use of preventive care. Am J Med. 2001;110(3):181–187.CrossRefPubMed Wee CC, Phillips RS, Burstin HR, et al. Influence of financial productivity incentives on the use of preventive care. Am J Med. 2001;110(3):181–187.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Primary Care Providers’ Beliefs and Recommendations and Use of Screening Mammography by their Patients
Authors
Jennifer S. Haas, MD, MSc
William E. Barlow, PhD
Marilyn M. Schapira, MD, MPH
Charles D. MacLean, MD
Carrie N. Klabunde, PhD
Brian L. Sprague, PhD
Elisabeth F. Beaber, PhD, MPH
Jane S. Chen
Asaf Bitton, MD
Tracy Onega, PhD, MA, MS
Kimberly Harris, MM
Anna N. A. Tosteson, ScD
on behalf of the PROSPR (Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens) consortium
Publication date
01-04-2017
Publisher
Springer US
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine / Issue 4/2017
Print ISSN: 0884-8734
Electronic ISSN: 1525-1497
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-016-3973-y

Other articles of this Issue 4/2017

Journal of General Internal Medicine 4/2017 Go to the issue

Clinical Practice: Clinical Images

Carotid Cavernous Fistula

Healing Arts: Materia Medica

A Gay Couple Meets Their Mormon Doctor

Live Webinar | 27-06-2024 | 18:00 (CEST)

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

Live: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)

WHO estimates that half of all patients worldwide are non-adherent to their prescribed medication. The consequences of poor adherence can be catastrophic, on both the individual and population level.

Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.

Prof. Kevin Dolgin
Prof. Florian Limbourg
Prof. Anoop Chauhan
Developed by: Springer Medicine
Obesity Clinical Trial Summary

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.

Developed by: Springer Medicine

Highlights from the ACC 2024 Congress

Year in Review: Pediatric cardiology

Watch Dr. Anne Marie Valente present the last year's highlights in pediatric and congenital heart disease in the official ACC.24 Year in Review session.

Year in Review: Pulmonary vascular disease

The last year's highlights in pulmonary vascular disease are presented by Dr. Jane Leopold in this official video from ACC.24.

Year in Review: Valvular heart disease

Watch Prof. William Zoghbi present the last year's highlights in valvular heart disease from the official ACC.24 Year in Review session.

Year in Review: Heart failure and cardiomyopathies

Watch this official video from ACC.24. Dr. Biykem Bozkurt discusses last year's major advances in heart failure and cardiomyopathies.