No abstract

eLife is changing its editorial process to emphasize public reviews and assessments of preprints by eliminating accept/reject decisions after peer review.

Physician-scientists have epitomized the blending of deep, rigorous impactful curiosity with broad attention to human health for centuries. While we aspire to prepare all physicians with an appreciation for these skills, those who apply them to push the understanding of the boundaries of human physiology and disease, to advance treatments, and to increase our knowledge base in the arena of human health can fulfill an essential space for our society, economies, and overall well-being. Working arm in arm with basic and translational scientists as well as expert clinicians, as peers in both groups, this career additionally serves as a bridge to facilitate the pace and direction of research that ultimately impacts health. Globally, there are remarkable similarities in challenges in this career path, and in the approaches employed to overcome them. Herein, we review how different countries train physician-scientists and suggest strategies to further bolster this career path.

Background:Women 50–65 years of age have the lowest cervical and colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates among ages recommended for screening. The primary aim of this work is to determine how cancer risk perceptions and provider communication behaviors, in addition to known demographic factors, influence the uptake of both cervical and CRC screening or a single screen among women in southeast Michigan.Methods:Fourteen health services and communication behavior questions were adapted from the Health Information National Trends Survey (HINTS) and administered to a multiethnic sample of adults in southeast Michigan. The outcome variable was self-reported up-to-date cervical cancer and/or CRC screening as defined by the United States Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Demographic and cancer risk/communication behavior responses of the four screening populations (both tests, one test, no tests) were analyzed with multinomial regression for all comparisons.Results:Of the 394 respondents, 54% were up to date for both cervical and CRC screening, 21% were up to date with only cervical cancer screening and 12% were up to date for only CRC screening. Of the 14 risk perception and communication behavior questions, only ‘Did your primary care physician (PCP) involve you in the decisions about your health care as much as you wanted?’ was significantly associated with women having both screens compared to only cervical cancer screening (aOR 1.67; 95% CI: 1.08, 2.57). The multivariate model showed age, and Middle East and North African (MENA) ethnicity and Black race, in addition to PCP-patient dyad decision-making to be associated with the cancer screenings women completed.Conclusions:Optimizing PCP-patient decision-making in health care may increase opportunities for both cervical cancer and CRC screening either in the office or by self-sampling. Understanding the effects of age and the different interventional strategies needed for MENA women compared to Black women will inform future intervention trials aimed to increase both cancer screenings.Funding:This work was supported by NIH through the Michigan Institute for Clinical and Health Research UL1TR002240 and by NCI through The University of Michigan Rogel Cancer Center P30CA046592-29-S4 grants.

Background:Using screen counts, women 50–64 years old have lower cancer screening rates for cervical and colorectal cancers (CRC) than all other age ranges. This paper aims to present woman-centric cervical cancer and CRC screenings to determine the predictor of being up-to-date for both.Methods:We used the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS), an annual survey to guide health policy in the United States, to explore the up-to-date status of dual cervical cancer and CRC screening for women 50–64 years old. We categorized women into four mutually exclusive categories: up-to-date for dual-screening, each single screen, or neither screen. We used multinomial multivariate regression modeling to evaluate the predictors of each category.Results:Among women ages 50–64 years old, dual-screening was reported for 58.2% (57.1–59.4), cervical cancer screening alone (27.1% (26.0–28.2)), CRC screening alone (5.4% (4.9–5.9)), and neither screen (9.3% (8.7–9.9)). Age, race, education, income, and chronic health conditions were significantly associated with dual-screening compared to neither screen. Hispanic women compared to non-Hispanic White women were more likely to be up-to-date with cervical cancer screening than dual-screening (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.39 (1.10, 1.77)). Compared to younger women, those 60–64 years are significantly more likely to be up-to-date with CRC screening than dual-screening (aOR = 1.75 (1.30, 2.35)).Conclusions:Screening received by each woman shows a much lower rate of dual-screening than prior single cancer screening rates. Addressing dual-screening strategies rather than single cancer screening programs for women 50–64 years may increase both cancer screening rates.Funding:This work was supported by NIH through the Michigan Institute for Clinical and61 Health Research UL1TR002240 and by NCI through The University of Michigan Rogel Cancer62 Center P30CA046592 grants.