Search

Background: No professional society or group recommends routine ovarian cancer screening, yet physicians' enthusiasm for several cancer screening tests before benefit has been proven suggests that some women may be exposed to potential harms. Objective: To provide nationally representative estimates of physicians' reported nonadherence to recommendations against ovarian cancer screening. Design: Cross-sectional survey of physicians offering women's primary care. The 12-page questionnaire contained a woman's annual examination vignette and questions about offers or orders for transvaginal ultrasonography (TVU) and cancer antigen 125 (CA-125). Setting: United States. Participants: 3200 physicians randomly sampled equally from the 2008 American Medical Association Physician Masterfile lists of family physicians, general internists, and obstetrician-gynecologists; 61.7% responded. After exclusions, 1088 respondents were included; their responses were weighted to represent the specialty distribution of practicing U.S. physicians nationally. Measurements: Reported nonadherence to screening recommendations (defined as sometimes or almost always ordering screening TVU or CA-125 or both). Results: Twenty-eight percent (95% CI, 24.5% to 32.9%) of physicians reported nonadherence to screening recommendations for women at low risk for ovarian cancer; 65.4% (CI, 61.1% to 69.4%) did so for women at medium risk for ovarian cancer. Six percent (CI, 4.4% to 8.9%) reported routinely ordering or offering ovarian cancer screening for low-risk women, as did 24.0% (CI, 20.5% to 28.0%) for medium-risk women (P ≤0.001). Thirtythree percent believed TVU or CA-125 was an effective screening test. In adjusted analysis, actual and physician-perceived patient risk, patient request for ovarian cancer screening, and physician belief that TVU or CA-125 was an effective screening test were the strongest predictors of physician-reported nonadherence to published recommendations. Limitation: The results are limited by their reliance on survey methods; there may be respondent-nonrespondent bias. Conclusion: One in 3 physicians believed that ovarian cancer screening was effective, despite evidence to the contrary. Substantial proportions of physicians reported routinely offering or ordering ovarian cancer screening, thereby exposing women to the documented risks of these tests. Primary Funding Source: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Cancer Institute. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUND: Genetic counseling and testing is recommended for women at high but not average risk of ovarian cancer. National estimates of physician adherence to genetic counseling and testing recommendations are lacking. METHODS: Using a vignette-based study, we surveyed 3200 United States family physicians, general internists, and obstetrician/gynecologists and received 1878 (62%) responses. The questionnaire included an annual examination vignette asking about genetic counseling and testing. The vignette varied patient age, race, insurance status, and ovarian cancer risk. Estimates of physician adherence to genetic counseling and testing recommendations were weighted to the United States primary care physician population. Multivariable logistic regression identified independent patient and physician predictors of adherence. RESULTS: For average-risk women, 71% of physicians self-reported adhering to recommendations against genetic counseling or testing. In multivariable modeling, predictors of adherence against referral/testing included black versus white race (relative risk [RR], 1.16; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03-1.31), Medicaid versus private insurance (RR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.02-1.29), and rural versus urban location. Among high-risk women, 41% of physicians self-reported adhering to recommendations to refer for genetic counseling or testing. Predictors of adherence for referral/testing were younger patient age [35 vs 51 years [RR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.41-2.24]), physician sex (female vs male [RR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.07-1.64]), and obstetrician/gynecologist versus family medicine specialty (RR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.31-2.05). For both average-risk and high-risk women, physician-estimated ovarian cancer risk was the most powerful predictor of recommendation adherence. CONCLUSION: Physicians reported that they would refer many average-risk women and would not refer many high-risk women for genetic counseling/testing. Intervention efforts, including promotion of accurate risk assessment, are needed. Cancer 2011;. © 2011 American Cancer Society. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article provides information on a study which evaluated the surgical treatment received by patients with ovarian cancer in nine U.S. states. The study identified the patient, physician, ecologic and hospital-based factors associated with receipt of comprehensive surgical treatment. The research also addressed the issue concerning the absence of published information on the percentage of patients with ovarian cancer in the U.S. who receive surgical care from physicians who perform high volumes of ovarian cancer surgery.

Objectives: Title VII of the Health Professions Educational Assistance Act of 1976 was created to encourage the production of primary care physicians. This study explored recent trends in the proportion of US medical school graduates entering primary care in relationship to Title VII funding. Methods. The American Medical Association Physician Masterfile was used to determine the specialty choice of all students graduating from American medical schools between 1960 and 1985. Results. The proportion of graduates entering primary care rose from 19.7% in 1967 to 31.1% in 1976 and remained stable for the subsequent decade. The increase occurred before implementation of Title VII. Rural, state-owned medical schools with departments of family medicine tend to produce a proportion of primary care physicians than urban private schools without family medicine departments. Conclusions. The values of American medical school and the reward structure of American medical practice favor the production of specialists over primary care physicians. Although Title VII helped to encourage and sustain the development of primary care educational programs at both the medical student and graduate levels, an increase in the proportion of primary care physicians will require fundamental changes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses a study on the factors associated with the decision by physicians to refer patients with a suspected ovarian mass to gynecologic oncologists in the U.S. The study involved 3,200 physicians whose ages ranged between 64 and younger. They were asked to respond to a vignette-based survey that examined their approach to managing care for women's health. The study found that physicians in small and remote rural practice locations were more likely to issue referral.

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.

Objective: To describe the primary surgical procedures and procedures for intraoperative and postoperative complications, and factors associated with these procedures, in women with ovarian cancer., Methods: Using hospital discharge data from nine states, obtained from the Heath Care Cost and Utilization Project from 1999 to 2002, we evaluated 10,432 women with a primary diagnosis of ovarian cancer who underwent at least an oophorectomy for additional procedural ICD-9 codes during their initial hospitalization., Results: Surgical procedures performed in addition to oophorectomy included: omentectomy/debulking 81.9%, hysterectomy 73.4%, lymph node dissection 41.4%, appendectomy 23.8%, bowel procedures 19.8%, laparoscopy 5.6%, diaphragmatic procedures 4.9%, colostomy 3.5%, and splenectomy 1.2%. Transfusions were given to 15.5% of patients. Intraoperative and postoperative procedures for complications were coded in 7.4% of patients, including repair of surgical injury 3.5%, procedures for cardiopulmonary complications 2.8%, reoperation 1.1%, and infection treatment 0.3%. In early stage disease 21.4% of women received no additional staging procedures and 46.8% did not have nodal sampling. In bivariate analysis of crude rates, factors associated with lymph node dissection were patient age, race, payer, teaching hospital status, hospital and surgeon volume, and surgeon specialty, p<.01. for all observations. Colostomies were performed by general surgeons in 23.1% of cases, by gynecologic oncologists in 2.7% of cases, and by obstetrician/gynecologists in no cases, p<.001. Complications were associated with age, payer, median household income, and stage, p<.001 for all observations. Complication rates were similar for low- and high-volume hospitals and surgeons. However, in higher volume settings, significantly more patients received debulking procedures, lymph node dissections, and additional surgical procedures, p<.001 for all observations., Conclusions: A significant percentage of women with ovarian cancer did not receive recommended surgical procedures. Almost 50% of women with early stage disease were not adequately staged and in women with advanced disease, the percentage who had additional surgical procedures such as bowel resections was much lower than in institutions that report high optimal cytoreduction rates.

The term "rural" suggests many things to many people, such as agricultural landscapes, isolation, small towns, and low population density.However, defining "rural" for health policy and research purposes requires researchers and policy analysts to specify which aspects of rurality are most relevant to the topic at hand and then select an appropriate definition. Rural and urban taxonomies often do not discuss important demographic, cultural, and economic differences across rural places-differences that have major implications for policy and research. Factors such as geographic scale and region also must be considered. Several useful rural taxonomies are discussed and compared in this article. Careful attention to the definition of "rural" is required for effectively targeting policy and research aimed at improving the health of rural Americans.