Primary care provider perspectives on screening mammography in older women: A qualitative study

Oshima, Sachi; Tait, Sarah; Fish, Laura J.; Greenup, Rachel A.; Grimm, Lars J.

doi:10.1016/j.pmedr.2021.101380

Cited by 5 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 39 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This adds to the gender-gap challenge such that menopausal women aged <55 years may not traditionally be at risk for CVD, but the presence of BAC on mammograms may be predictive [27]; interestingly, screening mammograms begin as early as 40 years of age. Therefore, if a radiologist finds that their patient has a BAC+ finding on her mammogram, they may consider notifying the primary care physician (PCP) of the patient [28]; however, this may only be feasible if a cause-and-effect is clear with BAC and CVD. Regardless, we consider that emerging evidence directs physicians to take a more holistic approach and screen women for CVD, especially those women who are not in the conventional age group for CVD, e.g.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Breast Arterial Calcifications as A Predictor of Cardiovascular Risk: A Systematic Review

Lawson

Batti²,

Singh³

et al. 2022

CLINICMED

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Breast arterial calcification (BAC) is considered a prediction tool for cardiovascular disease (CVD) screening as it has shown some association. The current systematic review reports the evidence on BAC detected on screening mammography and occurrence risk or likelihood of CVD among women. Methods: Three databases, including PubMed, Cochrane, and Google Scholar, were searched by three independent reviewers. Results: A total of 34,887 patients across six studies were assessed in the systematic review. The incidence of BAC on the mammogram was 10.3%. The odds or likelihood of developing CVD was higher among BAC+ women. Hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, and family history of CVD were more prevalent in BAC+ women and menopause. Conclusion: Further studies are required to develop a semi-quantitative index of BAC for CVD screening to establish BAC as a predictor of CVD further.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Breast Arterial Calcifications as A Predictor of Cardiovascular Risk: A Systematic Review

Lawson

Batti²,

Singh³

et al. 2022

CLINICMED

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…An a priori sample size of approximately 10–15 participants was selected was selected based on previous studies and the anticipated complexity for our research questions ( Lewis et al, 2009 , Oshima et al, 2021 ). Data were analyzed after 12 interviews were conducted ( Fusch and Ness, 2015 , Saunders et al, 2018 ), and it was decided that inductive thematic saturation was indeed reached ( Saunders et al, 2018 ).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A qualitative study of primary care clinician’s approach to ending cervical cancer screening in older women in the United States

Holt,

Flores,

James

et al. 2023

Preventive Medicine Reports

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Factors Influencing Primary Care Practitioners’ Cancer Screening Recommendations for Older Adults: a Systematic Review

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Primary care practitioners (PCPs) play a key role in cancer screening decisions for older adults (≥ 65 years), but recommendations vary by cancer type and jurisdiction. Purpose To examine the factors influencing PCPs’ recommendations for breast, cervical, prostate, and colorectal cancer screening for older adults. Data Sources MEDLINE, Pre-Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL, searched from 1 January 2000 to July 2021, and citation searching in July 2022. Study Selection Assessed factors influencing PCPs’ breast, prostate, colorectal, or cervical cancer screening decisions for older adults’ (defined either as ≥ 65 years or < 10-year life expectancy). Data Extraction Two authors independently conducted data extraction and quality appraisal. Decisions were crosschecked and discussed where necessary. Data Synthesis From 1926 records, 30 studies met inclusion criteria. Twenty were quantitative, nine were qualitative, and one used a mixed method design. Twenty-nine were conducted in the USA, and one in the UK. Factors were synthesized into six categories: patient demographic characteristics, patient health characteristics, patient and clinician psycho-social factors, clinician characteristics, and health system factors. Patient preference was most reported as influential across both quantitative and qualitative studies. Age, health status, and life expectancy were also commonly influential, but PCPs held nuanced views about life expectancy. Weighing benefits/harms was also commonly reported with variation across cancer screening types. Other factors included patient screening history, clinician attitudes/personal experiences, patient/provider relationship, guidelines, reminders, and time. Limitations We could not conduct a meta-analysis due to variability in study designs and measurement. The vast majority of included studies were conducted in the USA. Conclusions Although PCPs play a role in individualizing cancer screening for older adults, multi-level interventions are needed to improve these decisions. Decision support should continue to be developed and implemented to support informed choice for older adults and assist PCPs to consistently provide evidence-based recommendations. Registration PROSPERO CRD42021268219. Funding Source NHMRC APP1113532.

show abstract

Primary care provider perspectives on screening mammography in older women: A qualitative study

Cited by 5 publications

References 39 publications

Breast Arterial Calcifications as A Predictor of Cardiovascular Risk: A Systematic Review

Breast Arterial Calcifications as A Predictor of Cardiovascular Risk: A Systematic Review

A qualitative study of primary care clinician’s approach to ending cervical cancer screening in older women in the United States

Factors Influencing Primary Care Practitioners’ Cancer Screening Recommendations for Older Adults: a Systematic Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About