Search

BACKGROUND: Studies have shown a mismatch between published cancer screening and genetic counseling referral recommendations and physician-reported screening and referral practices. Inaccurate cancer risk assessment is one potential cause of this mismatch. OBJECTIVE: To assess U.S. physicians' ability to accurately determine a woman's colon and ovarian cancer risk level. DESIGN, PARTICIPANTS: Cross-sectional survey of U.S. family physicians, general internists, and obstetrician-gynecologists. A twelve-page questionnaire with a vignette of a woman's annual examination included a question about the patient's level of colon and ovarian cancer risk. The final study sample included 1,555 physicians weighted to represent practicing U.S. physicians nationally. MAIN MEASURE: Accuracy of physicians' ovarian and colon cancer risk assessments. KEY RESULTS: Overall, most physicians accurately assessed women's risk of ovarian (57.0 %, CI 54.3, 59.6) and colon cancer (62.0 %, CI 59.4, 64.6). However, 27.1 % (CI 23.0, 31.6) of physicians overestimated the ovarian cancer risk among women at the same risk as the general population, and 65.1 % (CI 60.2, 69.7) underestimated ovarian cancer risk among women at much higher risk than the general population. Physicians overestimated colon more than ovarian cancer risk (38.0 %, CI 35.4, 40.6 vs. 27.1 %, CI 23.0, 31.6) for women at the same risk as the general population. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians' misestimation of patient ovarian and colon cancer risk may put average risk patients in jeopardy of unnecessary screening and higher risk patients in jeopardy of missed opportunities for prevention or early detection of cancers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Birth certificates are a major source of population-based data on maternal and perinatal health, but their value depends on the accuracy of the data. This study assesses the validity of information recorded on the birth certificates for women in Washington State who were considered to be low risk at entry into care. Methods: Birth certificates were matched to data abstracted from prenatal and intrapartum clinic and hospital records of a sample of 1937 Washington State obstetrical patients who were considered to be low risk at the beginning of their pregnancies. Accuracy of a variety of pregnancy characteristics (e.g., complications, procedures) on the birth certificate was analyzed using percentage agreement and sensitivity with record abstracts as the “gold standard.” Next, we weighted the data from each source to produce estimates of pregnancy characteristics in the population. We compared these estimates from the two data sources to see whether they provide similar pictures of this subpopulation. Results: Missing data for specific items on the birth certificates ranged from 0% to 24%. The birth certificate accurately captured gravidity and parity, but was less likely to report prenatal and intrapartum complications. The population estimates of the two data sources were significantly different. Conclusions: Because birth certificates significantly underestimated the complications of pregnancies, number of interventions, number of procedures, and prenatal visits, use of these data for health policy development or resource allocation should be tempered with caution. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Evaluates Pike Market Clinic (PMC), a multidisciplinary care center. Medical care for downtown low-income elderly in Seattle; Comparison between PMC users and users of other medical centers; Medical and social service use; Quality of care; Patient satisfaction; Mean annual charges/person; Similarity in demographic and health status characteristics of two groups; Utilization differences.

BeneFIT was a demonstration project that worked with a Medicaid/Medicare health plan to implement a mailed fecal immunochemical test (FIT) program. The goal was to reach age-eligible enrollees who were due for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and prompt them to complete a FIT. One health insurance plan collaborated with six federally qualified health centers (FQHCs) in Oregon. Reach was defined as the percent of eligible individuals overdue for CRC screening who were mailed a FIT in 2016. We examined patient-level factors associated with reach, using multivariable log binomial regression and FIT completion rates at 6 months. The health plan identified 3386 age-eligible members overdue for CRC screening. Of these, 2615 (77.2%) were reached (mailed FIT kits) and 771 (22.8%) were not; 478 (14.1%) because they were not considered to be clinic patients and 290 (8.6%) because of mailing issues. Patient-level factors associated with not being reached were: being male, being Medicaid-insured (vs. Medicare), and having no primary care visits (vs. 4+ visits) in the last year. Among all enrollees identified as overdue for CRC screening, FIT completion rates at 6 months were 14.8% overall and 18.5% in the subgroup reached. In a mailed FIT program, a health insurance plan attempted to reach as many enrollees overdue for CRC screening as possible, however 22.8% were not mailed a FIT. Additional efforts are needed to ensure that the hardest to reach enrollees can participate in CRC screening. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Professional organizations have issued guidelines recommending breast cancer screening for women 50 years of age. OBJECTIVE: This study examines the percent of U.S. primary care physicians who report breast cancer screening practices that are not consistent with guidelines, and the characteristics of physicians who reported offering extra test modalities. DESIGN: We analyzed a subset of a 2008 cross-sectional Women's Health Care survey sent to primary care physicians randomly selected from the national American Medical Association (AMA) Physician Masterfile. A subset of physicians received a survey that presented a vignette of a health maintenance visit for an asymptomatic 51-year-old woman who was not at high risk for breast cancer. Responses were weighted to represent physicians nationally. PARTICIPANTS: 1,654 U.S. family physicians, general internists, and obstetrician-gynecologists under age 65, who practiced in office or hospital based settings (62.8 % response rate). After exclusions, 553 study physicians remained for analysis. MAIN MEASURE: Physician self-report of breast cancer screening practices that are not consistent with the recommendations of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF), the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG), and the American Cancer Society (ACS), defined as almost always offering mammography. KEY RESULTS: 36.0 % (95 % CI: 31.8 %-40.5 %) of physicians reported offering breast cancer screening tests inconsistent with national guidelines, with most offering extra tests (magnetic resonance imaging [MRI] and/or ultrasound) (33.2 %, 95 % CI 29.1 %-37.6 %). In adjusted analysis, risk-averse physicians and those who believed in the clinical effectiveness of MRI were more likely to offer extra breast cancer screening tests. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians often report offering breast cancer screening test modalities beyond those recommended for a 51-year-old woman. Strategies, such as academic detailing regarding appropriate use of technology and provision of clinical decision support for breast cancer screening, could decrease overuse of resources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVES:Early repeat colonoscopy after an index examination may be justifiable, but may also reflect quality issues during the first examination. The aims of this study were to examine the use of second colonoscopy within 1 year of an index colonoscopy, and to examine patient and provider factors associated with use of early repeat colonoscopy.METHODS:We performed a retrospective cohort study using a 20% nationally representative sample of 2003 Medicare claims. Patients aged ≥66 years undergoing colonoscopy were included in this study. We identified the use of second colonoscopy and barium enema within 1 year of the index procedure. We used logistic regression analyses to examine the independent predictors of these procedures.RESULTS:We included 328,167 outpatient colonoscopies. In all, 5% had second colonoscopy and 2.2% had barium enema within 1 year of the index examination. Early repeat colonoscopy was more common if the index examination was performed by a family physician (odds ratio 1.39, 95% confidence interval 1.23-1.56), general surgeon (odds ratio 1.18, 95% confidence interval 1.10-1.27) or internist (odds ratio 1.12, 95% confidence interval 1.02-1.23) compared with a gastroenterologist, or after colonoscopies by an endoscopist in the lower quartiles of colonoscopy volume compared with endoscopists in the highest quartile. Increasing patient age and comorbidity, polyp detection, biopsy, polyp removal, incomplete index examination, and site of service were also significantly associated with early repeat colonoscopy.CONCLUSIONS:Early repeat colonoscopy is not unusual. The association of specialty and colonoscopy volume with early repeat colonoscopy suggests that there are modifiable processes of care or training that may prevent some of these repeat procedures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]