Center for Research Health Equity and Promotion

Pittsburgh, PA, United States

Center for Research Health Equity and Promotion

Pittsburgh, PA, United States

Time filter

Source Type

Corbelli J.,University of Pittsburgh | Borrero S.,University of Pittsburgh | Borrero S.,Center for Research Health Equity and Promotion | Bonnema R.,University of Nebraska Medical Center | And 6 more authors.
Journal of Women's Health | Year: 2014

Background: Breast cancer is an issue of serious concern among women of all ages. The extent to which providers across primary care specialties assess breast cancer risk and discuss chemoprevention is unknown. Methods: Cross-sectional web-based survey completed by 316 physicians in internal medicine (IM), family medicine (FM), and gynecology (GYN) from February to April of 2012. Survey items assessed respondents' frequency of use of the Gail model and chemoprevention, and their attitudes behind practice patterns. Descriptive statistics were used to generate response distributions, and chi-squared tests were used to compare responses among specialties. Results: The response rate was 55.0 % (316/575). Only 40% of providers report having used the Gail model (37% IM, 33% FM, 60% GYN) and 13% report having recommended or prescribed chemoprevention (9% IM, 8% FM, 30% GYN). Among providers who use the Gail model, a minority use it regularly in patients who may be at increased breast cancer risk. Among providers who have prescribed chemoprevention, most have done so five times or fewer. Lack of both time and familiarity were commonly cited barriers to use of the Gail score and chemoprevention. Conclusions: An overall minority of providers, most notably in FM and IM, use the Gail model to assess, and chemoprevention to decrease, breast cancer risk. Until providers are more consistent in their use of the Gail model (or other breast cancer risk calculator) and chemoprevention, opportunities to intervene in women at increased risk will likely continue to be missed. © Copyright 2014, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. 2014.


Corbelli J.,University of Pittsburgh | Borrero S.,University of Pittsburgh | Borrero S.,Center for Research Health Equity and Promotion | Bonnema R.,University of Nebraska Medical Center | And 6 more authors.
Women's Health Issues | Year: 2014

Background: In 2009, the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) guidelines for screening mammography changed significantly, and are now in direct conflict with screening guidelines of other major national organizations. The extent to which physicians in different primary care specialties adhere to current USPSTF guidelines is unknown. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional web-based survey completed by 316 physicians in internal medicine, family medicine (FM), and gynecology (GYN) from February to April 2012. Survey items assessed respondents' breast cancer screening recommendations in women of different ages at average risk for breast cancer. We used descriptive statistics to generate response distribution for survey items, and logistic regression models to compare responses among specialties. Findings: The response rate was 55.0% (316/575). A majority of providers in internal medicine (65%), FM (64%), and GYN (92%) recommended breast cancer screening starting at age 40 versus 50. A majority of providers in internal medicine (77%), FM (74%), and GYN (98%) recommended annual versus biennial screening. Gynecologists were significantly more likely than both internists and family physicians to recommend initial mammography at age 40 (p ≤ .0001) and yearly mammography (p= .0003). There were no other differences by respondent demographic. Conclusions: Primary care providers, especially gynecologists, have not implemented USPSTF guidelines. The extent to which these findings may be driven by patient versus provider preferences should be explored. These findings suggest that patients are likely to receive conflicting breast cancer screening recommendations from different providers. © 2014 Jacobs Institute of Women's Health.


Corbelli J.,University of Pittsburgh | Borrero S.,University of Pittsburgh | Borrero S.,Center for Research Health Equity and Promotion | Bonnema R.,University of Nebraska Medical Center | And 6 more authors.
Journal of Women's Health | Year: 2014

Background: In 2009, the American Congress of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG) guidelines for cervical cancer screening changed significantly, to recommend less frequent screening than prior guidelines. The extent to which physicians in different specialties implemented these guidelines in the years following publication is unknown. Methods: Cross-sectional survey completed by 316 physicians in internal medicine, family medicine, and gynecology. Survey items assessed respondents' cervical cancer screening practices in women of different ages and medical histories. We used descriptive statistics to generate response distribution for survey items, and logistic regression models to compare responses among specialties. Results: Our response rate was 55% (316/575). Thirty-four percent of respondents' screening practices were inconsistent with ACOG guidelines for women under age 21, and 49% were inconsistent with guidelines for women over age 30. Internists (50%) were less likely than family medicine (89%, p<0.001) and gynecology (80%, p=0.02) physicians to delay pap testing until age 21. Internists (41%) were less likely than both family medicine (60%, p=0.009) and gynecology (68%, p=0.03) physicians to follow guidelines for women over age 30 (p=0.003). Overall 22% percent of physicians followed guidelines for women ages 21-29 years, with no significant differences between specialties. Differences remained significant in multivariable models. Conclusions: Despite consensus among national organizations as to optimal regimens for cervical cancer screening, a significant proportion of providers, especially in internal medicine, do not adhere to ACOG's 2009 guidelines. The lack of comprehensive guideline implementation suggests that adherence to new 2012 guidelines, which advocate for less frequent screening, will likely be suboptimal and discrepant by specialty. © Copyright 2014, Mary Ann Liebert, Inc. 2014.

Loading Center for Research Health Equity and Promotion collaborators
Loading Center for Research Health Equity and Promotion collaborators