Provider Attitudes and Screening Practices Following Changes in Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening Guidelines

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Changes to national guidelines for breast and cervical cancer screening have created confusion and controversy for women and their primary care providers. OBJECTIVE: To characterize women's primary health care provider attitudes towards screening and changes in practice in response to recent revisions in guidelines for breast and cervical cancer screening. DESIGN, SETTING, PARTICIPANTS: In 2014, we distributed a confidential web and mail survey to 668 women's health care providers affiliated with the four clinical care networks participating in the three PROSPR (Populationbased Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens) consortium breast cancer research centers (385 respondents; response rate 57.6 %). MAIN MEASURES:We assessed self-reported attitudes toward breast and cervical cancer screening, as well as practice changes in response to the most recent revisions of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) recommendations. KEY RESULTS: The majority of providers believed that mammography screening was effective for reducing cancer mortality among women ages 40-74 years, and that Papanicolaou (Pap) testing was very effective for women ages 21-64 years. While the USPSTF breast and cervical cancer screening recommendations were widely perceived by the respondents as influential, 75.7 and 41.2 % of providers (for mammography and cervical cancer screening, respectively) reported screening practices in excess of those recommended by USPSTF. Provider-reported barriers to concordance with guideline recommendations included: patient concerns (74 and 36 % for breast and cervical, respectively), provider disagreement with the recommendations (50 and 14 %), health system measurement of a provider's screening practices that use conflicting measurement criteria (40 and 21 %), concern about malpractice risk (33 and 11 %), and lack of time to discuss the benefits and harms with their patients (17 and 8 %). CONCLUSIONS: Primary care providers do not consistently follow recent USPSTF breast and cervical cancer screening recommendations, despite noting that these guidelines are influential.KEY WORDS: breast cancer screening; cervical cancer screening; provider practice patterns; primary care; clinical practice guidelines.

Physician Breast Cancer Screening Recommendations Following Guideline Changes

“…Our findings are largely consistent with a 2014 survey of PCPs from 4 clinical networks where similar proportions of physicians recommended screening with higher rates noted among gynecologists. 5 We also found sharp differences in recommendations based on which guidelines physicians trusted most, which may suggest that current practices reflect both varying adherence to guidelines as well as differences in which guidelines are trusted. The results provide an important benchmark as guidelines continue evolving and underscore the need to delineate barriers and facilitators to implementing guidelines in clinical practice.…”

Impact of provider-patient communication on cancer screening adherence: A systematic review

“…For the years 2013–2016, 13 of the 18 findings included in the review examined colorectal cancer screening. One possible explanation for this shift is that recommendations for breast cancer and cervical screening have become controversial in recent years (49) while colorectal cancer screening has become more accepted and utilized (50). Within the last decade, there have been programs introduced to increase colorectal cancer screening, as it has historically lagged behind rates for other types of cancer screening (51).…”

Inadequate Systems to Support Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening in Primary Care Practice

“…Setting, Participants, and Recruitment Protocol Study methods have been described previously 20 . In brief, women's primary health care providers who practiced in the clinical care networks affiliated with Brigham and Women's Hospital (BWH), Boston, MA; Dartmouth-Hitchcock health system (DH), Lebanon, NH; the University of Pennsylvania (PENN), Philadelphia, PA; and those practicing in the state of Vermont (VT) were the target population.…”