Cancer screening and prevention practices of inner-city physicians

The segregation of physician networks providing care to black and white patients with heart disease: Concepts, measures, and empirical evaluation

Black-White disparities in cardiac care may be related to physician referral network segregation. We developed and tested new geographic physician network segregation measures. We used Medicare claims to identify Black and White Medicare heart disease patients and map physician networks for 169 hospital referral regions (HRRs) with over 1000 Black patients. We constructed two network segregation indexes ranging from 0 (integration) to 100 (total segregation): Dissimilarity (the unevenness of Black and White patient distribution across physicians [Dn]) and Absolute Clustering (the propensity of Black patients' physicians to have closer ties with each other than with other physicians [ACLn]). We employed conditional logit models to estimate the probability of using the best (lowest mortality) geographically available hospital for Black and White patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery in 126 markets with sufficient sample size at increasing levels of network segregation and for low vs. high HRR Black patient population. Physician network segregation was lower than residential segregation (Dissimilarity 21.9 vs. 48.7, and Absolute Clustering 4.8 vs. 32.4) and positively correlated with residential segregation (p < .001). Network segregation effects differed by race and HRR Black patient population. For White patients, higher network segregation was associated with a higher probability of using the best available hospitals in HRRs with few black patients but unchanged (ACLn) or lower (Dn) probability of best hospital use in HRRs with many Black patients. For Black patients, higher network segregation was not associated with a substantial change in the probability of best hospital use regardless of the HRR Black patient population size. Measuring physician network segregation is feasible and associated with nuanced effects on Black-White differences in high-quality hospital use for heart disease. Further work is needed to understand underlying mechanisms and potential uses in health equity policy.

Provider Contributions to Disparities in Mental Health Care

OBJECTIVE

Disparities in diagnosis of mental health problems and in access to treatment among racial-ethnic groups are apparent across different behavioral conditions, particularly in the quality of treatment for depression. This study aimed to determine how much disparities differ across providers.

METHODS

Bayesian mixed-effects models were used to estimate whether disparities in patient adherence to antidepressant medication (N=331,776) or psychotherapy (N=275,095) were associated with specific providers. Models also tested whether providers who achieved greater adherence to treatment, on average, among non-Hispanic white patients than among patients from racial-ethnic minority groups attained lower disparities and whether the percentage of patients from racial-ethnic minority groups in a provider caseload was associated with disparities.

RESULTS

Disparities in adherence to both antidepressant medication and psychotherapy were associated with the provider. Provider performance with non-Hispanic white patients was negatively correlated with provider-specific disparities in adherence to psychotherapy but not to antidepressants. A higher proportion of patients from racial-ethnic minority groups in a provider's caseload was associated with lower adherence among non-Hispanic white patients, lower disparities in adherence to psychotherapy, and greater disparities in adherence to antidepressant medication.

CONCLUSIONS

Adherence to depression treatment among a provider's patients from racial-ethnic minority groups was related to adherence among that provider's non-Hispanic white patients, but evidence also suggested provider-specific disparities. Efforts among providers to decrease disparities might focus on improving the general skill of providers who treat more patients from racial-ethnic minority groups as well as offering culturally based training to providers with notable disparities.

Designing a valid randomized pragmatic primary care implementation trial: the my own health report (MOHR) project

BACKGROUND

There is a pressing need for greater attention to patient-centered health behavior and psychosocial issues in primary care, and for practical tools, study designs and results of clinical and policy relevance. Our goal is to design a scientifically rigorous and valid pragmatic trial to test whether primary care practices can systematically implement the collection of patient-reported information and provide patients needed advice, goal setting, and counseling in response.

METHODS

This manuscript reports on the iterative design of the My Own Health Report (MOHR) study, a cluster randomized delayed intervention trial. Nine pairs of diverse primary care practices will be randomized to early or delayed intervention four months later. The intervention consists of fielding the MOHR assessment--addresses 10 domains of health behaviors and psychosocial issues--and subsequent provision of needed counseling and support for patients presenting for wellness or chronic care. As a pragmatic participatory trial, stakeholder groups including practice partners and patients have been engaged throughout the study design to account for local resources and characteristics. Participatory tasks include identifying MOHR assessment content, refining the study design, providing input on outcomes measures, and designing the implementation workflow. Study outcomes include the intervention reach (percent of patients offered and completing the MOHR assessment), effectiveness (patients reporting being asked about topics, setting change goals, and receiving assistance in early versus delayed intervention practices), contextual factors influencing outcomes, and intervention costs.

DISCUSSION

The MOHR study shows how a participatory design can be used to promote the consistent collection and use of patient-reported health behavior and psychosocial assessments in a broad range of primary care settings. While pragmatic in nature, the study design will allow valid comparisons to answer the posed research question, and findings will be broadly generalizable to a range of primary care settings. Per the pragmatic explanatory continuum indicator summary (PRECIS) framework, the study design is substantially more pragmatic than other published trials. The methods and findings should be of interest to researchers, practitioners, and policy makers attempting to make healthcare more patient-centered and relevant.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01825746.

The human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine and cervical cancer: uptake and next steps

Infection with a high-risk type of the human papillomavirus (HPV) is a major contributing factor in the vast majority of cervical cancers. Dissemination of the HPV vaccine is critical in reducing the risk of the disease. This descriptive review of HPV vaccine uptake in papers published between 2006 and 2011 focuses on studies conducted in girls and young women. In the United States, rates of immunization as per the protocol for teens (age 13-17 years) range from 6% to 75% and those for young women (age 18-26 years) range from 4% to 79%, although the samples and data collection methods vary. The epidemiology of HPV, the mechanisms of action, protocols for vaccine immunization, rates of uptake, and barriers to vaccination at the policy, provider, and patient levels are reviewed. Various intervention techniques are described, and policy-level programs, such as legislation supporting mandates, subsidized public education, and cost-reduction initiatives, are also explored. Increased distribution of the HPV vaccine in school-based clinics, evidencebased scripts for provider counseling of young patients and their parents, concurrent immunizations to adolescents, prevention visits, greater patient education and outreach, and the dissemination of academic detailing can help to boost vaccine uptake, particularly in underresourced communities. Population-based surveillance is necessary for robust estimates of uptake over time. Additional research is needed to comprehensively examine socio-demographic, psychosocial, and sociocultural factors that predict vaccine uptake according to the protocol. Increased study of the vaccine's long-term effectiveness, in both males and females and among extended age groups, is warranted.

Cancer screening practices among physicians serving Chinese immigrants

Chinese immigrants in the United States are broadly affected by cancer health disparities. We examined the cancer screening attitudes and practices of physicians serving Chinese immigrants in the New York City (NYC) area by mailing a cancer screening survey, based on current guidelines, to a random sample of physicians serving this population. Fifty three physicians (44%) completed the survey. Seventy-two percent reported following the guidelines for breast cancer, 35% for cervical cancer screening, and 45% for all colorectal cancer screening tests. Sixty-eight percent of physicians were satisfied with their current rates of cancer screening with their Chinese immigrant patient population. Physicians serving the Chinese community in NYC follow cancer screening guidelines inadequately. Cancer screening rates in this population could likely be increased by interventions that target physicians and improve awareness of guidelines and recommended best practices.

Cancer screening in Greece. Guideline awareness and prescription behavior among Hellenic physicians

BACKGROUND

Primary cancer prevention is offered by the Greek health care system to the population on an opportunistic basis. This means that screening depends on advice from primary care providers and on individuals' request for screening, since a centralized invitational register is lacking. In planning preventive services, an accurate identification of baseline levels of performance for preventive activities is fundamental, so that realistic goals can be set.

METHODS

366 primary care physicians (39.3% response rate) from nine Greek provinces were surveyed by means of a self-reporting questionnaire of prescription habits. Physicians' screening behaviors and screening recommendations were analyzed for both cost-effective and non-recommended tests during usual check-up visits and targeted cancer screening activities were analyzed.

RESULTS

A wide variety of recommendation habits were observed among primary care physicians. With the exception of PAP test, cost-effective tests were advised at sub-optimal rates, with colorectal cancer screening being much less than desirable. Moreover, non-recommended tests were frequently advised.

CONCLUSION

Screening tests are performed sporadically and an overall understanding of primary care prevention is lacking. More focused educational interventions must be implemented if primary care is to make an impact on cancer mortality.

Socioeconomic status and surgical mortality in the elderly

BACKGROUND

Although racial disparities in the quality of surgical care are well described, the impact of socioeconomic status on operative mortality is relatively unexplored.

METHODS

We used Medicare data to identify all patients undergoing 1 of 6 common, high risk surgical procedures between 1999 and 2003. We constructed a summary measure of socioeconomic status for each US ZIP code using data from the 2000 US Census linked to the patient's ZIP code of residence. We assessed the effects of socioeconomic status on operative mortality rates while controlling for other patient characteristics and then examined the extent to which disparities in operative mortality could be attributed to differences in hospital factors.

RESULTS

Socioeconomic status was a significant predictor of operative mortality for all 6 procedures in crude analyses and in those adjusted for patient characteristics. Comparing the lowest quintile of socioeconomic status to the highest, the adjusted odds ratios (OR) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) ranged from OR = 1.17; 95% CI: 1.10-1.25 for colectomy to OR = 1.39; 95% CI: 1.18-1.65 for gastrectomy. After further adjustment for hospital factors, the odds ratio associated with socioeconomic status for coronary artery bypass (OR = 1.14; 95% CI: 1.09-1.19), aortic valve replacement (OR = 1.13; 95% CI: 1.04-1.23), and mitral valve replacement (OR = 1.11; 95% CI: 1.00-1.23) were diminished, and those for lung resection (OR = 0.93; 95% CI: 0.81-1.07), colectomy (OR = 1.04; 95% CI: 0.98-1.12), and gastrectomy (OR = 1.11; 95% CI: 0.90-1.38) were reduced and also were no longer statistically significant. Within hospitals, there were only small differences in adjusted operative mortality by patient socioeconomic status.

CONCLUSIONS

Patients with lower socioeconomic status have higher rates of adjusted operative mortality than patients with higher socioeconomic status across a wide range of surgical procedures. These disparities in surgical outcomes are largely attributable to differences between the hospitals where patients of higher and lower socioeconomic status tend to receive surgical treatment.

Socioeconomic and racial/ethnic differences in the discussion of cancer screening: "between-" versus "within-" physician differences

OBJECTIVE

To determine the extent to which socioeconomic and racial/ethnic differences in cancer screening discussion between a patient and his/her primary care physician are due to "within-physician" differences (the fact that patients were treated differently by the same physicians) versus "between-physician" differences (that they were treated by a different group of physicians).

DATA SOURCES

We use data from the baseline patient and physician surveys of two community trials from the Communication in Medical Care (CMC) research series. The two studies combined provide an analysis sample of 5,978 patients ages 50-80 nested within 191 primary care physicians who practiced throughout Southern California.

STUDY DESIGN

Our main outcomes of interest are whether the physician has ever talked to the patient about fecal occult blood test (FOBT; for colorectal cancer screening), mammogram (for breast cancer screening, female patients only) and the prostate-specific antigen test (PSA, male patients only). We consider five racial/ethnic groups: non-Hispanic white, non-Hispanic black, Hispanic, Asian, and other race/ethnicity. We measure socioeconomic status by both income and education. For each type of cancer screening discussion, we first estimate a probit model that includes patient characteristics as the only covariates to assess the overall differences. We then add physician fixed effects to derive estimates of "within-" versus "between-" physician differences.

PRINCIPAL FINDINGS

There was a strong education gradient in the discussion of all three types of cancer screening and most of the education differences arose within physicians. Disparities by income were less consistent across different screening methods, but seemed to have arisen mainly because of "between-physician" differences. Asians were much less likely, compared with whites, to have received discussion about FOBT and PSA and these differences were mainly "within-physician" differences. Black female patients, however, were much more likely, compared with whites treated by the same physicians, to have discussed mammogram with their physicians.

CONCLUSIONS

Differences in cancer screening discussion along the different dimensions of patient SES may have arisen because of very different mechanisms and therefore call for a combination of interventions. Physicians need to be aware of the persistent disparities by patient education in clinical communication regarding cancer screening and tailor their efforts to the needs of low-education patients. Quality-improvement efforts targeted at physicians practicing in low-income communities may also be effective in addressing disparities in cancer screening communication by patient income.

Predictors of colorectal cancer screening in diverse primary care practices

BACKGROUND

To explain why rates of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening including fecal occult blood testing (FOBT), flexible sigmoidoscopy (FS), colonoscopy (CS), and barium enema (BE), are low, this study assessed determinants of CRC screening from medical records.

METHODS

Data were abstracted from patients aged > or =64 years selected from each clinician from 30 diverse primary care practices (n = 981). Measurements included the rates of annual FOBT, ever receiving FOBT, ever receiving FS/CS/BE under a combination variable, endoscopy/barium enema (EBE).

RESULTS

Over five years, 8% had received annual FOBT, 53% had ever received FOBT and 22% had ever received EBE. Annual FOBT was negatively associated with female gender, odds ratio (OR) = .23; 95% confidence interval = .12-.44 and positively associated with routinely receiving influenza vaccine, OR = 2.55 (1.45-4.47); and more office visits: 3 to <5 visits/year, OR = 2.78 (1.41-5.51), and > or =5 visits/year, OR = 3.35 (1.52-7.42). Ever receiving EBE was negatively associated with age > or =75 years, OR = .66 (.46-.95); being widowed, OR = .59 (.38-.92); and positively associated with more office visits: 3 to <5 visits/year, OR = 1.83 (1.18-2.82) and > or =5 visits/year, OR = 2.01 (1.14-3.55).

CONCLUSION

Overall CRC screening rates were low, but were related to the number of primary care office visits. FOBT was related to immunization status, suggesting the possible benefit of linking these preventive services.

Prostate cancer screening behavior in men from seven ethnic groups: the fear factor

Rates of prostate cancer screening are known to vary among the major ethnic groups. However, likely variations in screening behavior among ethnic subpopulations and the likely role of psychological characteristics remain understudied. We examined differences in prostate cancer screening among samples of 44 men from each of seven ethnic groups (N = 308; U.S.-born European Americans, U.S.-born African Americans, men from the English-speaking Caribbean, Haitians, Dominicans, Puerto Ricans, and Eastern Europeans) and the associations among trait fear, emotion regulatory characteristics, and screening. As expected, there were differences in the frequency of both digital rectal exam (DRE) and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) tests among the groups, even when demographic factors and access were controlled. Haitian men reported fewer DRE and PSA tests than either U.S.-born European American or Dominican men, and immigrant Eastern European men reported fewer tests than U.S.-born European Americans; consistent with prior research, U.S.-born African Americans differed from U.S.-born European Americans for DRE but not PSA frequency. Second, the addition of trait fear significantly improved model fit, as did the inclusion of a quadratic, inverted U, trait fear term, even where demographics, access, and ethnicity were controlled. Trait fear did not interact with ethnicity, suggesting its effect may operate equally across groups, and adding patterns of information processing and emotion regulation to the model did not improve model fit. Overall, our data suggest that fear is among the key psychological determinants of male screening behavior and would be usefully considered in models designed to increase male screening frequency.

Screening chest radiography: results from a Greek cross-sectional survey

Background

Public health authorities worldwide discourage the use of chest radiography as a screening modality, as the diagnostic performance of chest radiography does not justify its application for screening and may even be harmful, since people with false positive results may experience anxiety and concern. Despite the accumulated evidence, various reports suggest that primary care physicians throughout the world still prescribe chest radiography for screening. We therefore set out to index the use of chest radiography for screening purposes among the healthy adult population and to analyze its relationship with possible trigger factors.

Methods

The study was designed as a cross-sectional survey. Five thousand four hundred and ninety-nine healthy adults, coming from 26 Greek provinces were surveyed for screening practice habits in the nationwide anticancer study. Data were obtained for the use of screening chest radiography. Impact of age, gender, tobacco exposure, family history positive for malignancies and professional-risk for lung diseases was further analyzed.

Results

we found that 20% (n = 1099) of the surveyed individuals underwent chest radiography for screening purposes for at least one time during the previous three years. Among those, 24% do so with a frequency equal or higher than once yearly, and 48% with a frequency equal or higher than every three years. Screening for chest radiography was more commonly adopted among males (OR 1.130, 95% CI 0.988–1.292), pensioners (OR 1.319, CI 1.093–1.593) and individuals with a positive family history for lung cancer (OR 1.251, CI 0.988–1.583). Multivariate analysis confirmed these results.

Conclusion

Despite formal recommendations, chest radiography for screening purposes was a common practice among the analyzed sample of Greek adults. This practice is of questionable value since the positive predictive value of chest radiography is low. The implementation of even a relatively inexpensive imaging study on a national scale would greatly burden health economics and the workload of radiology departments.

Arkansas special populations access network perception versus reality—cancer screening in primary care clinics

The origin of cancer health disparities and mortality in Arkansas is multifactorial. In response to a cooperative agreement with the National Cancer Institute's Center to Reduce Cancer Health Disparities, the Arkansas Special Populations Access Network (ASPAN) was developed to reduce these disparities. ASPAN's partnership with local primary care physicians of the Arkansas Medical, Dental, and Pharmaceutical Association through the Cancer Education Awareness Program is the focus of this article. A quasi-experimental intervention, the Community Cancer Education Awareness Program, was employed that included 1) physician education to increase awareness of risk factors and cancer screening; and 2) patient education to increase screening, and 3) patient-generated screening questionnaires to prompt discussion of cancer risk and screening recommendations between patients and physicians. Two urban and 2 rural clinics were targeted during a 12-month period with interval intervention assessments. Baseline review of records (n = 200) from patients >/=40 were utilized to assess the rate of breast, prostate, and colorectal screenings among clinics. For the patient education intervention, patients (n = 120) were interviewed via a 34-item assessment. Physician awareness of cancer risk factors and screening recommendations significantly increased. Statistically significant increases were seen for prostate (P = .028), breast (P = .036), and colorectal (P < .001) cancer screening across all 4 clinics. Patients' increased likelihood of cancer screenings was associated with knowledge about consumption of animal fat (P < .001), dietary fiber (P < .013), and mammograms (P < .001). Utilizing the physician as the central change agent, the ASPAN provider network successfully enhanced cancer screening awareness of minority physicians and their patients. Cancer 2006. (c) 2006 American Cancer Society.

Prevention practices and cancer screening among general practitioners in Picardy, France

BACKGROUND

Due to their frequent contact with a large proportion of the population, general practitioners (GPs) appear to play a particularly important role in primary and secondary (screening) cancer prevention. The objective of this survey was to describe the attitudes of GPs in relation to the major risk factors of cancer, and the most frequent forms of cancer screening.

METHODS

A questionnaire concerning primary prevention and cancer screening by GPs was sent to all doctors in the Picardy region. In total, 480 GPs agreed to participate in this survey (31%). The questions concerned primary prevention (alcohol, smoking, diet, sun exposure, etc.) and cancer screening (breast, cervix, colorectal, prostate and other cancers). GPs were also questioned about their perception of these preventive actions and the difficulties that they encounter in application of these measures.

RESULTS

The most structured preventive action appears to concern smoking in terms of primary prevention. GPs report greater difficulties in the prevention of alcoholism or dietary advice. A marked diversity of clinical practice was also observed in terms of cancer screening, even for cancers for which clear guidelines have been defined, such as breast, cervical and colorectal cancer.

CONCLUSION

GPs appear to be receptive to cancer prevention, but encounter many difficulties in daily application due to lack of time or poor patient compliance.

Barriers and Facilitators of Colon Cancer Screening Among Patients At Faith-Based Neighborhood Health Centers

We determined the barriers to and facilitators of colorectal cancer (CRC) screening among two faith-based, inner city neighborhood health centers in Southwestern Pennsylvania. Data from a random sample of patients 50 years and older (n = 375) were used to estimate logistic regression equations to compare and contrast the predictors of four different CRC screening protocols: (1) fecal occult blood test (FOBT) < or = 2 years ago, (2) colonoscopy < or = 10 years ago, (3) lower endoscopy (colonoscopy or sigmoidoscopy) < or = 10 years ago, and (4) any of these screening measures. Racial differences (between African Americans or Caucasians) in type of colon cancer screening were not found. Controlling for covariates, logistic regression equations showed that a physician's support of colon cancer screening was positively associated with the receipt of colonoscopy (OR: 19.47, 95% CI: 5.45-69.54), lower endoscopy (OR: 10.96, 95% CI: 3.77-31.88) and any colon cancer screening (OR: 10.12, 95% CI: 3.36-30.46). Patients who see their physicians more frequently were also more likely to be screened for CRC. Unlike other studies, the faith-based environment in which these patients are treated may explain the lack of racial disparity specific to our measures of CRC screening.

Primary care physicians who treat blacks and whites

BACKGROUND

In the United States, black patients generally receive lower-quality health care than white patients. Black patients may receive their care from a subgroup of physicians whose qualifications or resources are inferior to those of the physicians who treat white patients.

METHODS

We performed a cross-sectional analysis of 150,391 visits by black Medicare beneficiaries and white Medicare beneficiaries 65 years of age or older for medical "evaluation and management" who were seen by 4355 primary care physicians who participated in a biannual telephone survey, the 2000-2001 Community Tracking Study Physician Survey.

RESULTS

Most visits by black patients were with a small group of physicians (80 percent of visits were accounted for by 22 percent of physicians) who provided only a small percentage of care to white patients. In a comparison of visits by white patients and black patients, we found that the physicians whom the black patients visited were less likely to be board certified (77.4 percent) than were the physicians visited by the white patients (86.1 percent, P=0.02) and also more likely to report that they were unable to provide high-quality care to all their patients (27.8 percent vs. 19.3 percent, P=0.005). The physicians treating black patients also reported facing greater difficulties in obtaining access for their patients to high-quality subspecialists, high-quality diagnostic imaging, and nonemergency admission to the hospital.

CONCLUSIONS

Black patients and white patients are to a large extent treated by different physicians. The physicians treating black patients may be less well trained clinically and may have less access to important clinical resources than physicians treating white patients. Further research should be conducted to address the extent to which these differences may be responsible for disparities in health care.

To screen or not to screen, when clinical guidelines disagree: primary care physicians' use of the PSA test

BACKGROUND

Clinical guidelines for using the prostate-specific antigen (PSA) test as a population-based screening tool vary considerably. This study qualitatively explored primary care physicians' PSA screening practices and their understanding of the PSA screening controversy.

METHODS

Fourteen telephone focus groups were conducted with 75 primary care physicians practicing in 35 US states. Data were coded around three major topics: PSA screening practices, factors influencing these practices, and familiarity with clinical guidelines.

RESULTS

Two practice patterns emerged. Most participants recommended regular PSA screening beginning around age 50 for asymptomatic men with no known risk factors and at least a 10-year life expectancy. These "routine screeners" attributed their approach to experience that supported the benefit of PSA screening and to patient demand for the test. Other physicians discussed the implications of PSA screening with patients before offering the test, but neither recommended for or against it. The approach of these "nonroutine screeners" was primarily guided by the lack of scientific evidence documenting the benefit of PSA screening.

CONCLUSIONS

The observed practice patterns reflect both sides of the PSA screening controversy. While routine and nonroutine screeners differ in their approach, both reported high rates of PSA screening.

Interventions for patients, providers, and health care organizations

Clinicians and the organizations within which they practice play a major role in enabling patient participation in cancer screening and ensuring quality services. Guided by an ecologic framework, the authors summarize previous literature reviews and exemplary studies of breast, cervical, and colorectal cancer screening intervention studies conducted in health care settings. Lessons learned regarding interventions to maximize the potential of cancer screening are distilled. Four broad lessons learned emphasize that multiple levels of factors-public policy, organizational systems and practice settings, clinicians, and patients-influence cancer screening; that a diverse set of intervention strategies targeted at each of these levels can improve cancer screening rates; that the synergistic effects of multiple strategies often are most effective; and that targeting all components of the screening continuum is important. Recommendations are made for future research and practice, including priorities for intervention research specific to health care settings, the need to take research phases into consideration, the need for studies of health services delivery trends, and methods and measurement issues.

Screening for colorectal cancer on the front line

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to assess knowledge, beliefs, and practices of primary care clinicians regarding colorectal cancer screening.

METHODS

We surveyed 77 primary care providers in six clinics in central Massachusetts to evaluate several factors related to colorectal cancer screening.

RESULTS

Most agreed with guidelines for fecal occult blood test (97%) and sigmoidoscopy (87%), which were reported commonly as usual practice. Although the majority (86%) recommended colonoscopy as a colorectal cancer screening test, it was infrequently reported as usual practice. Also, 36% considered barium enema a colorectal cancer screening option, and it was rarely reported as usual practice. Despite lack of evidence supporting effectiveness, digital rectal examinations and in-office fecal occult blood test were commonly reported as usual practice. However, these were usually reported in combination with a guideline-endorsed testing option. Although only 10% reported that fecal occult blood test/home was frequently refused, 60% reported sigmoidoscopy was. Frequently cited patient barriers to sigmoidoscopy compliance included fear the procedure would hurt and that patients assume symptoms occur if there is a problem. Perceptions of health systems barriers to sigmoidoscopy were less strong.

CONCLUSIONS

Most providers recommended guideline-endorsed colorectal cancer screening. However, patient refusal for sigmoidoscopy was common. Results indicate that multiple levels of intervention, including patient and provider education and systems strategies, may help increase prevalence.

What Dental Diseases Are We Facing in the New Millennium: Some Aspects of the Research Agenda

The next decades will show a shift in the attention given to diseases of the dental hard tissues. Clinical evidence on how to prevent dental caries is now available. More emphasis should be given to optimising the rational use of schemes of prevention. Caries still shows epidemic patterns in many countries while in some developed countries a high prevalence of the disease is limited to a small group. Increased attention is needed for new manifestations of pathology such as dental erosion, and for caries in special high-risk groups. New methods of presenting caries prevalence and incidence data should be implemented to ensure that the diseases of the dental hard tissues continue to have an important place on the political and research agendas.

Cancer education among primary care physicians in an underserved community

INTRODUCTION

Urban minority groups, such as those living in north Manhattan, are generally underserved with regard to cancer prevention and screening practices. Primary care physicians are in a critical position to counsel their patients on these subjects and to order screening tests for their patients.

METHODS

Eighty-four primary care physicians in two intervention communities who received educational visits about cancer screening and prevention were compared with 38 physicians in a nearby community who received no intervention. With pre- and post-test interviews over an 18-month period, the physicians were asked about their attitudes toward, knowledge of (relative to American Cancer Society guidelines), and likelihood of counseling and screening for breast, cervical, colorectal, and prostate cancers.

RESULTS

Comparison of the two surveys of physicians indicated no statistically significant differences in knowledge of cancer prevention or screening. At post-test, however, intervention group physicians identified significantly fewer barriers to practice than control physicians (p<0.05). While overall, the educational visits to inner-city primary care physicians did not appear to significantly alter cancer prevention practices, there was a positive dose-response relationship among the subgroup of participants who received three or more project contacts.

CONCLUSIONS

We uncovered significant changes in attitude due to academic detailing among urban primary care physicians practicing in north Manhattan. A significant pre-test sensitization effect and small numbers may have masked overall changes in cancer prevention and screening behaviors among physicians due to the intervention.