View in EDS

Primary care providers' concerns and recommendations regarding mammography screening for older women.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Primary care providers' concerns and recommendations regarding mammography screening for older women.
Authors: Sharp PC (AUTHOR), Michielutte R (AUTHOR), Spangler JG (AUTHOR), Cunningham L (AUTHOR), Freimanis R (AUTHOR)
Source: Journal of Cancer Education. Spring2005, Vol. 20 Issue 1, p34-38. 5p.
Abstract: BACKGROUND: Morbidity and mortality from breast cancer increase with age; however, mammography screening does not reflect this increased risk for older women. Lack of provider recommendation is a major barrier to screening. METHODS: This is a descriptive study of mammography screening recommendations of community primary care providers in North Carolina (N = 96) participating in a National Cancer Institute funded research project. Providers self-reported screening recommendations for typical patients of different ages and issues and concerns that might influence the decision. Chart reviews compared actual practices with policies stated. RESULTS: Of the providers, 51% recommended biannual, 45% annual for women ages 50 through 74; 4% recommended biannual, 80% annual, 5% did not recommend screening, and 10% had no general policy for women over 75. Cost, inconsistent guidelines, comorbidity, functional status, value of mammography, and patient resistance influenced screening recommendations. Chart review showed even lower rates of recommendation than self-reported figures. CONCLUSIONS: Although the use of screening mammography has increased over the past decade, older women are one of the last subgroups to derive benefit from this screening test. Our survey revealed lower rates for mammography referral in older women. The primary care provider appears to be essential to increasing participation for these older women in breast cancer screening. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Journal of Cancer Education is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
URL: 16953603
Database: Education Research Complete
Description
Abstract:BACKGROUND: Morbidity and mortality from breast cancer increase with age; however, mammography screening does not reflect this increased risk for older women. Lack of provider recommendation is a major barrier to screening. METHODS: This is a descriptive study of mammography screening recommendations of community primary care providers in North Carolina (N = 96) participating in a National Cancer Institute funded research project. Providers self-reported screening recommendations for typical patients of different ages and issues and concerns that might influence the decision. Chart reviews compared actual practices with policies stated. RESULTS: Of the providers, 51% recommended biannual, 45% annual for women ages 50 through 74; 4% recommended biannual, 80% annual, 5% did not recommend screening, and 10% had no general policy for women over 75. Cost, inconsistent guidelines, comorbidity, functional status, value of mammography, and patient resistance influenced screening recommendations. Chart review showed even lower rates of recommendation than self-reported figures. CONCLUSIONS: Although the use of screening mammography has increased over the past decade, older women are one of the last subgroups to derive benefit from this screening test. Our survey revealed lower rates for mammography referral in older women. The primary care provider appears to be essential to increasing participation for these older women in breast cancer screening. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:08858195
DOI:10.1207/s15430154jce2001_11