The role of primary care physicians in cancer care.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Klabunde CN
PROVIDER: S-EPMC2726889 | biostudies-other | 2009 Sep
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Similar Datasets
Project description:Introduction/objectivesThis study aimed to clarify what primary care physicians (PCPs) in Japan understand of the role of physical therapists (PTs) through the experience of working with PTs in hospitals, and what roles PCPs expect for PTs in future primary care.MethodsSemi-structured interviews were conducted individually with 9 purposively sampled PCPs with sufficient experience of collaboration with PTs. Interview data were analyzed by theme analysis focusing on "What does the PCP understand about the role of PTs through the experience of working with PTs in hospitals?" and "What roles and purposes does the PCP wish for PTs in primary care settings?"ResultsPCPs viewed PTs as providers of rehabilitation in the traditional medical model, and understood their role as an occupation having a mono-causal viewpoint, namely a specific and well-defined outcome for individual patients, and intervening with patients within a short clinical course with the aim of improvement or maintenance of the patient's condition. With regard to future primary care, PCPs expected that PTs would interpret various factors related to patient lives from the viewpoint of causal interactions; become important stakeholders in the community; and respond flexibly to patients and the environmental factors around them with continued support to the individual.ConclusionsPCPs understood the role of PTs in hospitals as "Rehabilitation in the traditional medical model," and expected the future role of PTs in primary care as "Rehabilitation in integrated community care."
| S-EPMC9647272 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Current prostate cancer risk calculators are limited in impact because only a probability of having prostate cancer is provided. We developed the next generation of prostate cancer risk calculator that incorporates life expectancy in order to better evaluate prostate cancer risk in context to a patient's age and comorbidity.We combined two cohorts to develop the new risk calculator. The first was 5638 subjects who all underwent a prostate biopsy for prostate cancer detection. The second was 979 men diagnosed with prostate cancer with long-term survival data. Two regression models were used to create multivariable nomograms and an online prostate cancer risk calculator was developed.Of the 5638 patients who underwent a prostate biopsy, 629 (11%) were diagnosed with aggressive prostate cancer (Gleason Score 7[4+3] or more). Of the 979 patients who underwent treatment for prostate cancer, the 10-year overall survival (OS) was 49.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 46.6-52.9). The first multivariable nomogram for cancer risk had a concordance index of 0.74 (95% CI 0.72, 0.76), and the second nomogram to predict survival had a concordance index of 0.71 (95% CI 0.69-0.72). The next-generation prostate cancer risk calculator was developed online and is available at: http://riskcalc.org/ProstateCA_Screen_Tool.We have developed the next-generation prostate cancer risk calculator that incorporates a patient's life expectancy based on age and comorbidity. This approach will better evaluate prostate cancer risk. Future studies examining other populations will be needed for validation.
| S-EPMC5937391 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundSince 2000, Israel has had a national program for ongoing monitoring of the quality of the primary care services provided by the country's four competing non-profit health plans. Previous research has demonstrated that quality of care has improved substantially since the program's inception and that the program enjoys wide support among health plan managers. However, prior to this study there were anecdotal and journalistic reports of opposition to the program among primary care physicians engaged in direct service delivery; these raised serious questions about the extent of support among physicians nationally.GoalsTo assess how Israeli primary care physicians experience and rate health plan efforts to track and improve the quality of care.MethodThe study population consisted of primary care physicians employed by the health plans who have responsibility for the quality of care of a panel of adult patients. The study team randomly sampled 250 primary-care physicians from each of the four health plans. Of the 1,000 physicians sampled, 884 met the study criteria. Every physician could choose whether to participate in the survey by mail, e-mail, or telephone. The anonymous questionnaire was completed by 605 physicians - 69% of those eligible. The data were weighted to reflect differences in sampling and response rates across health plans.Main findingsThe vast majority of respondents (87%) felt that the monitoring of quality was important and two-thirds (66%) felt that the feedback and subsequent remedial interventions improved medical care to a great extent. Almost three-quarters (71%) supported continuation of the program in an unqualified manner. The physicians with the most positive attitudes to the program were over age 44, independent contract physicians, and either board-certified in internal medicine or without any board-certification (i.e., residents or general practitioners). At the same time, support for the program was widespread even among physicians who are young, board-certified in family medicine, and salaried.Many physicians also reported that various problems had emerged to a great or very great extent: a heavier workload (65%), over-competitiveness (60%), excessive managerial pressure (48%), and distraction from other clinical issues (35%). In addition, there was some criticism of the quality of the measures themselves. Respondents also identified approaches to addressing these problems.ConclusionsThe findings provide perspective on the anecdotal reports of physician opposition to the monitoring program; they may well accurately reflect the views of the small number of physicians directly involved, but they do not reflect the views of primary care physicians as a whole, who are generally quite supportive of the program. At the same time, the study confirms the existence of several perceived problems. Some of these problems, such as excess managerial pressure, can probably best be addressed by the health plans themselves; while others, such as the need to refine the quality indicators, are probably best addressed at the national level. Cooperation between primary care physicians and health plan managers, which has been an essential component of the program's success thus far, can also play an important role in addressing the problems identified.
| S-EPMC3472172 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundFamily history (FH) assessment is useful in identifying and managing patients at increased risk for cancer. This study assessed reported FH quality and associations with physician perceptions.MethodsPrimary care physicians practicing in two northeastern U.S. states were surveyed (n = 880; 70% response rate). Outcome measures of FH quality were extent of FH taken and ascertaining age at cancer diagnosis for affected family members. Predictors of quality measured in this survey included: perceived advantages and disadvantages of collecting FH information, knowledge of management options, access to supportive resources, and confidence in ability to interpret FH.ResultsReported collection of information regarding second degree blood relatives and age of diagnosis among affected relatives was low. All hypothesized predictors were associated with measures of FH quality, but not all were consistent independent predictors. Perceived advantages of taking a family history, access to supportive resources, and confidence in ability to identify and manage higher risk patients were independent predictors of both FH quality measures. Perceived disadvantages of taking a family history was independently associated one measure of FH quality. Knowledge of management options was not independently associated with either quality measure.ConclusionsModifiable perception and resource factors were independently associated with quality of FH taking in a large and diverse sample of primary care physicians. Improving FH quality for identification of high risk individuals will require multi-faceted interventions.
| S-EPMC2898682 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionLung 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).MethodsWe 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.ResultsThe 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.ConclusionsAlthough 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:ObjectiveTo examine whether having a primary care physician (PCP) is associated with reduced ethnic disparities for colorectal cancer (CRC) screening and whether clustering of minorities within PCPs contributes to the disparities.Data sources/study settingRetrospective cohort study of Medicare beneficiaries age 66-75 in 2009 in Texas.Study designThe percentage of beneficiaries up to date in CRC screening in 2009 was stratified by race/ethnicity. Multilevel models were used to study the effect of having a PCP and PCP characteristics on the racial and ethnic disparities on CRC screening.Data collection/extraction methodsMedicare data from 2000 to 2009 were used to assess prior CRC screening.Principal findingsOdds of undergoing CRC screening were more than twice as high in patients with a PCP (OR = 2.05, 95 percent CI 2.03-2.07). After accounting for clustering and PCP characteristics, the black-white disparity in CRC screening rates almost disappears and the Hispanic-white disparity decreases substantially.ConclusionsEthnic disparities in CRC screening in the elderly are mostly explained by decreased access to PCPs and by clustering of minorities within PCPs less likely to screen any of their patients.
| S-EPMC3480966 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Building strong relationships among physicians and staff improves the practice's ability to deal with the uncertainties of a rapidly changing environment. Interacting proactively with the economic, social, political, and cultural environment-the practice landscape-provides opportunities for adaptation and ongoing learning.
| S-EPMC3140165 | biostudies-other
Project description:ObjectiveWe aimed to identify the factors that are most important for community-dwelling older individuals (i.e., users) and primary care (PC) providers to enhance PC services.MethodsDiscrete choice experiment surveys were administered to 747 individuals aged ≥ 60 years and 242 PC physicians in Singapore between December 2020 and August 2021. Participants were asked to choose between two hypothetical PC clinics and their current clinic. Latent class models were used to estimate the relative attribute importance (RAI) and to calculate the predicted uptake for enhanced PC services.ResultsBased on the attributes and levels used in this study, the out-of-pocket cost (RAI: 47%) and types of services offered (RAI: 25%) were the most important attributes for users while working hours (RAI: 28%) and patient load (RAI: 25%) were the most important for providers. For out-of-pocket visit costs ranging from Singapore dollars (S)$100 to S$5, users' predicted uptake for enhanced PC services ranged from 46 to 84%. For daily patient loads ranging from 60 to 20 patients, providers' predicted uptake ranged from 64 to 91%, assuming their income remains unchanged.ConclusionsOur study provides timely insights for the development of strategies to support the government's new health care initiative (HealthierSG), which places PC at the center of Singapore's healthcare system. The ability to choose their preferred clinic, low out-of-pocket costs and types of services offered (for users), and reasonable working conditions (for providers) were the key factors for users and providers to participate in enhanced PC services.
| S-EPMC10169155 | biostudies-literature
Project description:To explore the relationship between degree of rurality and glucose (hemoglobin A1c), blood pressure (BP), and lipid (LDL) control among patients with diabetes.Descriptive study; 1,649 patients in 205 rural practices in the United States. Patients' residence ZIP codes defined degree of rurality (Rural-Urban Commuting Areas codes). Outcomes were measures of acceptable control (A1c < = 9%, BP < 140/90 mmHg, LDL < 130 mg/dL) and optimal control (A1c < 7%, BP < 130/80 mmHg, LDL < 100 mg/dL). Statistical significance was set at P < .008 (Bonferroni's correction).Although the proportion of patients with reasonable A1c control worsened by increasing degree of rurality, the differences were not statistically significant (urban 90%, large rural 88%, small rural 85%, isolated rural 83%; P = .10); mean A1c values also increased by degree of rurality, although not statistically significant (urban 7.2 [SD 1.6], large rural 7.3 [SD 1.7], small rural 7.5 [SD 1.8], isolated rural 7.5 [SD 1.9]; P = .16). We observed no differences between degree of rural and reasonable BP or LDL control (P = .42, P = .23, respectively) or optimal A1c or BP control (P = .52, P = .65, respectively). Optimal and mean LDL values worsened as rurality increased (P = .08, P = .029, respectively).In patients with diabetes who seek care in the rural Southern United States, we observed no relationship between degree of rurality of patients' residence and traditional measures of quality of care. Further examination of the trends and explanatory factors for relative worsening of metabolic control by increasing degree of rurality is warranted.
| S-EPMC3481192 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveThis study examined the likelihood that U.S. primary care physicians (PCPs) discuss and recommend prostate cancer screening with their patients and physician-related and practice-related factors associated with this behavior.MethodsWe analyzed data from the 2007-2008 National Survey of Primary Care Physician Practices Regarding Prostate Cancer Screening (N = 1,256), the most recent and comprehensive survey specifically designed to address issues concerning prostate cancer screening and representing nearly 95,000 PCPs. We evaluated the relationship between PCP behavior regarding prostate cancer screening discussions and covariates, including PCP demographic and practice-related factors. Weighted percentages and Chi-square tests were used to compare use of screening discussions by PCP characteristics. Adjusted odds of discussing screening and recommending the PSA test were determined from logistic regression.ResultsEighty percent of PCPs reported that they routinely discuss prostate cancer screening with all of their male patients, and 64.1% of PCPs who discussed screening with any patients reported that they attempted to talk their patients into getting the PSA test. In multivariate analyses, encouraging PSA testing was more likely among non-Hispanic black PCPs (OR = 2.80, 95% CI [1.88, 4.16]), PCPs serving 100 or more patients per week (OR = 2.16, 95% CI [1.38, 3.37]), and PCPs spending longer hours per week in direct patient care (31-40 hours: OR = 1.90, 95% CI [1.13, 3.20]; 41 or more hours: OR = 2.09, 95% CI [1.12, 3.88]), compared to their referents. PCPs in multi-specialty group practice were more likely to remain neutral or discourage PSA testing compared to PCPs in solo practice.ConclusionsBoth individual and practice-related factors of PCPs were associated with the use of prostate cancer screening discussions by U.S. PCPs. Results from this study may prove valuable to researchers and clinicians and help guide the development and implementation of future prostate cancer screening interventions in the U.S.
| S-EPMC3181308 | biostudies-literature