↓ Skip to main content

Primary Care Providers’ Beliefs and Recommendations and Use of Screening Mammography by their Patients

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of General Internal Medicine, January 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
21 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
44 Mendeley
Title
Primary Care Providers’ Beliefs and Recommendations and Use of Screening Mammography by their Patients
Published in
Journal of General Internal Medicine, January 2017
DOI 10.1007/s11606-016-3973-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Jennifer S. Haas, William E. Barlow, Marilyn M. Schapira, Charles D. MacLean, Carrie N. Klabunde, Brian L. Sprague, Elisabeth F. Beaber, Jane S. Chen, Asaf Bitton, Tracy Onega, Kimberly Harris, Anna N. A. Tosteson, on behalf of the PROSPR (Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens) consortium

Abstract

Revised breast cancer screening guidelines have fueled debate about the effectiveness and frequency of screening mammography, encouraging discussion between women and their providers. To examine whether primary care providers' (PCPs') beliefs about the effectiveness and frequency of screening mammography are associated with utilization by their patients. Cross-sectional survey data from PCPs (2014) from three primary care networks affiliated with the Population-based Research Optimizing Screening through Personalized Regimens (PROSPR) consortium, linked with data about their patients' mammography use (2011-2014). PCPs (n = 209) and their female patients age 40-89 years without breast cancer (n = 30,233). Outcomes included whether (1) women received a screening mammogram during a 2-year period; and (2) screened women had >1 mammogram during that period, reflecting annual screening. Principal independent variables were PCP beliefs about the effectiveness of mammography and their recommendations for screening frequency. Overall 65.2% of women received >1 screening mammogram. For women 40-48 years, mammography use was modestly lower for those cared for by PCPs who believed that screening was ineffective compared with those who believed it was somewhat or very effective (59.1%, 62.3%, and 64.7%; p = 0.019 after controlling for patient characteristics). Of women with PCPs who reported they did not recommend screening before age 50, 48.1% were nonetheless screened. For women age 49-74 years, the vast majority were cared for by providers who believed that screening was effective. Provider recommendations were not associated with screening frequency. For women ≥75 years, those cared for by providers who were uncertain about effectiveness had higher screening use (50.7%) than those cared for by providers who believed it was somewhat effective (42.8%). Patients of providers who did not recommend screening were less likely to be screened than were those whose providers recommended annual screening, yet 37.1% of patients whose providers recommended against screening still received screening. PCP beliefs about mammography effectiveness and screening recommendations are only modestly associated with use, suggesting other likely influences on patient participation in mammography.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 44 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 44 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 8 18%
Student > Bachelor 6 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 11%
Student > Master 4 9%
Other 2 5%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 16 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 10 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 9%
Psychology 4 9%
Social Sciences 2 5%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 2%
Other 3 7%
Unknown 20 45%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 10 January 2017.
All research outputs
#19,440,618
of 23,911,072 outputs
Outputs from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#6,622
of 7,806 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#318,859
of 427,326 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of General Internal Medicine
#49
of 68 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,911,072 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 10th percentile – i.e., 10% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,806 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 21.8. This one is in the 7th percentile – i.e., 7% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 427,326 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 14th percentile – i.e., 14% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 68 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.