Cancer screening in France: subjects' and physicians' attitudes.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Eisinger F
PROVIDER: S-EPMC2323031 | biostudies-other | 2008 May
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectivesDespite a sharp increase in e-cigarette use, there is debate about whether e-cigarettes are a viable alternative for harm reduction, and the forms that regulation should take. Healthcare providers can be effective in offering guidance to patients and their families and shaping regulatory policy. We described lung cancer specialists' attitudes toward e-cigarettes and its regulation.MethodsWe undertook a nationwide survey of pulmonologists, thoracic surgeons, medical and radiological oncologists who are members of Korean Association for Lung Cancer. Survey items included beliefs and attitudes toward e-cigarettes, attitudes toward e-cigarette regulation and preparedness on discussing e-cigarettes with their patients.ResultsMost respondents believed that e-cigarettes are not safer than conventional tobacco cigarettes (75.7%) or smokeless tobacco (83.2%), and feared that discussing e-cigarettes with the patients would encourage use (65.4%). They did not consider it a smoking cessation treatment (78.3%), and thus would not recommend it to smokers who do not want to quit (82.2%) or who failed to quit with conventional smoking cessation treatment (74.1%). Most respondents supported all examples of e-cigarette regulations, including the safety and quality check (97.8%), warning label (97.8%), advertisement ban (95.1%), restriction of flavoring (78.4%), minimum purchasing age (99.5%), and restriction of indoor use (94.6%). Most learned about e-cigarettes from media and advertisements, or conversation with patients rather than through professional scientific resources, and reported discomfort when discussing e-cigarette with patients.ConclusionLung cancer specialist physicians in Korea doubt the safety of e-cigarette and use of e-cigarette as smoking cessation treatment, and supported strict regulation. However, only 20% reported that they obtained information on e-cigarettes from the scientific literature and many lacked adequate knowledge based on scientific evidence, suggesting the need for better preparedness. Nevertheless, the views of professionals revealed from our study could help to develop clinical guidelines and regulatory guidance.
| S-EPMC5325291 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeAlthough predictive multiplex somatic genomic tests hold the potential to transform care by identifying targetable alterations in multiple cancer genes, little is known about how physicians will use such tests in practice.Participants and methodsBefore the initiation of enterprise-wide multiplex testing at a major cancer center, we surveyed all clinically active adult cancer physicians to assess their current use of somatic testing, their attitudes about multiplex testing, and their genomic confidence.ResultsA total of 160 physicians participated (response rate, 61%): 57% were medical oncologists; 29%, surgeons; 14% radiation oncologists; 37%, women; and 83%, research principal investigators. Twenty-two percent of physicians reported low confidence in their genomic knowledge. Eighteen percent of physicians anticipated testing patients infrequently (≤ 10%), whereas 25% anticipate testing most patients (≥ 90%). Higher genomic confidence was associated with wanting to test a majority of patients (adjusted odds ratio [OR], 6.09; 95% CI, 2.1 to 17.5) and anticipating using actionable (adjusted OR, 2.46; 95% CI, 1.2 to 5.2) or potentially actionable (adjusted OR, 2.89; 95% CI, 1.1 to 7.9) test results to inform treatment recommendations. Forty-two percent of physicians endorsed disclosure of uncertain genomic findings to patients.ConclusionPhysicians at a tertiary-care National Cancer Institute-designated comprehensive cancer center varied considerably in how they planned to incorporate predictive multiplex somatic genomic tests into practice and in their attitudes about the disclosure of genomic information of uncertain significance. Given that many physicians reported low genomic confidence, evidence-based guidelines and enhanced physician genomic education efforts may be needed to ensure that genomically guided cancer care is adequately delivered.
| S-EPMC3992721 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To evaluate whether obese patients overestimate or underestimate the level of respect that their physicians hold toward them.We performed a cross-sectional analysis of data from questionnaires and audio-recordings of visits between primary care physicians and their patients. Using multilevel logistic regression, we evaluated the association between patient BMI and accurate estimation of physician respect. Physician respectfulness was also rated independently by assessing the visit audiotapes.Thirty-nine primary care physicians and 199 of their patients were included in the analysis. The mean patient BMI was 32.8 kg/m2 (SD 8.2). For each 5 kg/m2 increase in BMI, the odds of overestimating physician respect significantly increased [OR 1.32, 95% CI 1.04-1.68, p=0.02]. Few patients underestimated physician respect. There were no differences in ratings of physician respectfulness by independent evaluators of the audiotapes.We consider our results preliminary. Patients were significantly more likely to overestimate physician respect as BMI increased, which was not accounted for by increased respectful treatment by the physician.Among patients who overestimate physician respect, the authenticity of the patient-physician relationship should be questioned.
| S-EPMC3340528 | biostudies-other
Project description:Extremely obese women are less likely than nonobese women to receive breast and cervical cancer screening examinations. Reasons for this disparity are unclear and may stem from patient and/or physician barriers. This sequential mixed-methods study used individual in-depth interviews of 15 family physicians followed by a mail survey of 255 family physicians (53% response rate) to understand the barriers they faced in performing cancer screening examinations in extremely obese women. Barriers fell into three main areas: (i) difficulty doing pelvic and breast exams; (ii) inadequate equipment; and (iii) challenges overcoming patient barriers and refusal. This led some physicians to avoid performing breast and pelvic examinations on extremely obese women. Having more knowledge about specific examination techniques was associated with less difficulty in palpating lumps on breast and pelvic examinations (P < 0.005). Physicians perceived that embarrassment, aversion to undressing, and avoidance of discussions related to their weight were the most frequent barriers extremely obese women had with getting physical examinations. Educating and/or motivating patients and addressing fears were strategies used most frequently when patients refused mammograms or Pap smears. Interventions focusing on physician barriers, such as educating them on specific examination techniques, obtaining adequate equipment and supplies, and providing resources to assist physicians in dealing with patient barriers and refusal, may be fruitful in increasing cancer screening rates in extremely obese patients. Future research studies testing the effectiveness of these strategies are needed to improve cancer outcomes in this high-risk population.
| S-EPMC2953250 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMortality associated with colorectal cancer can be reduced by early detection. However, the participation of eligible people in colorectal cancer screening is thought to be inadequate. We examined the frequency of colorectal cancer screening in 4 Canadian provinces and the influence of patient contact with a family physician on the uptake of cancer screening.MethodsWe performed analyses using data from the 2003 Canadian Community Health Survey. The study population included 12,776 people at average risk for colon cancer living in British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Ontario, and Newfoundland and Labrador who were aged 50 years or older and who were eligible for colorectal cancer screening. We assessed the proportion of respondents who reported having previous colorectal cancer screening tests and the degree of contact with a family physician.ResultsThe provincial response rates for the survey were 78.5%-87.0%. The proportion of respondents who reported any history of colorectal cancer screening was 23.5%. This value dropped to 17.6% when only up-to-date screening was considered (screening within the time frame recommended in guidelines). The proportion of people with up-to-date colorectal cancer screening varied significantly among provinces, but it was low in all provinces sampled. Contact with a family physician was associated with increased colorectal cancer screening. Compared with no physician contact, the odds of screening associated with 1-2 physician contacts in the 12 months before the survey was 1.97 (95% confidence interval [CI] 1.56-2.48], and the odds of screening associated with more than 4 contacts was 2.75 (95% CI 2.14-3.53).InterpretationSelf-reported colorectal cancer screening falls well below acceptable levels. People with increased contact with a family physician are more likely than those without contact to report a history of up-to-date colorectal cancer screening.
| S-EPMC1963385 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveAccording to the third cancer plan, organised screening (OS) of cervical cancer (CC) among women aged 25-65 years should be implemented in France in the forthcoming years. The most efficient way to implement OS in the French healthcare system is yet to be determined.MethodsA microsimulation model was developed adopting a collective 'all payers' perspective. A closed cohort of women eligible for CC screening and representative in terms of age and participation in individual screening (IndScr) by annual Papanicolaou (Pap) testing every 3 years was modelled on a lifetime horizon. Different OS strategies, additive to IndScr with a 61.9% participation rate based on mailed invitations to non-participant women to perform OS were assessed. Similar modalities were applied to OS and IndScr participants. Strategies implied different screening tests (Papanicolaou (Pap) test, human papillomavirus (HPV) test and p16/Ki67 double staining) and OS periodicity.ResultsCompared with IndScr only, all OS strategies were associated with decreased cancer incidence/mortality (from 14.2%/13.5% to 22.9%/25.8%). Most strategies generated extra costs ranging from €37.9 to €1607 per eligible woman. HPV testing every 10 and 5 years were cost saving. HPV tests every 10 and 5 years were the most efficient strategies, generating more survival at lower costs than Pap-based strategies. Compared to IndScr only, an HPV test every 10 years was cost saving. The most effective strategies were p16/Ki67 as primary or HPV positive confirmation tests, with respective incremental cost-effectiveness ratios of €6 541 250 and €101 391 per life year. Pap-based strategies generated intermediary results.ConclusionOS strategies based on the HPV test appear highly efficient. However, our results rely on the assumption that women and practitioners comply with the recommended OS periodicities (3, 5, 10 years). Implementing these OS modalities will require major adaptations to the current CC screening organisation. Pap test-based strategies might be simpler to setup while preparing an appropriate implementation of more efficient OS screening modalities.
| S-EPMC5640017 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Lung cancer screening (LCS) with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) is effective at reducing lung cancer mortality in high-risk current and former smokers. Despite the fact that screening is recommended by the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force (USPSTF), few eligible patients are screened. We set out to study the barriers to LCS by surveying primary care physicians (PCPs).We surveyed a randomly selected sample of 1384 eligible PCPs between January and October 2015, using the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile, though surveys sent by mail, fax, and e-mail. The survey included questions regarding knowledge of LCS guidelines, utilization of LCS over the prior 12 months, and perceptions of barriers to LCS. Training background, years in practice, practice type, and demographics were also collected.The survey response rate was 18%. Responders and nonresponders did not differ by practice or demographic characteristics. Of the respondents, 47% indicated that LCS was recommended by the USPSTF, 52% had referred at least one patient for LDCT, and 12% had referred at least one patient to a LCS program over the prior 12 months. Perceived barriers to LCS included uncertainty regarding ther benefit of LCS, concern regarding insurance coverage, and the harm of LCS.Although LCS is recommended by the USPSTF, LDCT is utilized in a minority of eligible patients, as reported by surveyed PCPs. Approximately half of PCPs are familiar with USPSTF recommendations for LCS and a number of physician barriers to adherence to guidelines exist. Additional study of physician- and system-based interventions to improve adherence to LCS recommendations is needed.
| S-EPMC5075492 | biostudies-literature
Project description:We investigated what factors may foster or hinder physicians' cancer screening risk literacy-specifically the ability to understand evidence regarding screening effectiveness and make evidence-based recommendations to patients. In an experiment, physicians in training (interns and residents) read statistical information about outcomes from screening for cancer, and had to decide whether to recommend it to a patient. We manipulated the effectiveness of the screening (effective vs. ineffective at reducing mortality) and the demand of the patient to get screened (demand vs. no demand). We assessed participants' comprehension of the presented evidence and recommendation to the patient, as well as a-priori screening beliefs (e.g., that screening is always a good choice), numeracy, science literacy, knowledge of screening statistics, statistical education, and demographics. Stronger positive a-priori screening beliefs, lower knowledge of screening statistics, and lower numeracy were related to worse comprehension of the evidence. Physicians recommended against the ineffective screening but only if they showed good comprehension of the evidence. Physicians' recommendations were further based on the perceived benefits from screening but not on perceived harms, nor the patient's demands. The current study demonstrates that comprehension of cancer screening statistics and the ability to infer the potential benefits for patients are essential for evidence-based recommendations. However, strong beliefs in favor of screening fostered by promotion campaigns may influence how physicians evaluate evidence about specific screenings. Fostering physician numeracy skills could help counteract such biases and provide evidence-based recommendations to patients.
| S-EPMC6608976 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Kidney cancer is often asymptomatic, leading to proposals for a screening programme. The views of the public towards introducing a new screening programme for kidney cancer are unknown. The aim of this study was to explore attitudes towards kidney cancer screening and factors influencing intention to attend a future screening programme. METHODS:We conducted an online population-based survey of 1021 adults aged 45-77 years. The main outcome measure was intention to attend four possible screening tests (urine, blood, ultrasound scan, low-dose CT) as well as extended low-dose CT scans within lung cancer screening programmes. We used multivariable regression to examine the association between intention and each screening test. RESULTS:Most participants stated that they would be 'very likely' or 'likely' to undergo each of the screening tests [urine test: n = 961 (94.1%); blood test: n = 922 (90.3%); ultrasound: n = 914 (89.5%); low-dose CT: n = 804 (78.8%); lung CT: n = 962 (95.2%)]. Greater intention to attend was associated with higher general cancer worry and less perceived burden/inconvenience about the screening tests. Less worry about the screening test was also associated with higher intention to attend, but only in those with low general cancer worry (cancer worry scale ? 5). Compared with intention to take up screening with a urine test, participants were half as likely to report that they intended to undergo blood [OR 0.56 (0.43-0.73)] or ultrasound [OR 0.50 (0.38-0.67)] testing, and half as likely again to report that they intended to take part in a screening programme featuring a low dose CT scan for kidney cancer screening alone [OR 0.19 (0.14-0.27)]. CONCLUSION:Participants in this study expressed high levels of intention to accept an invitation to screening for kidney cancer, both within a kidney cancer specific screening programme and in conjunction with lung cancer screening. The choice of screening test is likely to influence uptake. Together these findings support on-going research into kidney cancer screening tests and the potential for combining kidney cancer screening with existing or new screening programmes.
| S-EPMC7592501 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted health care delivery of cancer screenings. The primary aim of our work was to evaluate the degree to which populations were accepting of home-based screenings for colorectal cancer (CRC) and cervical cancer (ie, primary human papillomavirus [HPV] testing). Three groups of adults having distinct health burdens that may affect acceptance of home-based cancer screening were identified through outpatient electronic medical records: those having survived a COVID-19 hospitalization; those having been positive for a non-COVID-19 respiratory illness; or those having type 2 diabetes. A total of 132 respondents (58% female) completed an online survey with hypothetical cases about their acceptance of home-based CRC or cervical cancer screening. Among women respondents, urine and vaginal screening for primary HPV testing was acceptable to 64% and 59%, respectively. Among both men and women, at-home CRC screening with fecal immunochemical test or Cologuard® was acceptable to 60% of the respondents. When adjusting for education, women with a positive attitude toward home-based urine and vaginal screening were 49 times and 23 times more likely, respectively, to have a positive attitude toward CRC screening. These findings indicate that home-based cancer screens for CRC and primary HPV testing are acceptable to men and women and may allow for greater compliance with screening in the future.
| S-EPMC8530243 | biostudies-literature