Understanding primary care providers' perceptions of cancer prevention and screening in a predominantly rural healthcare system in the upper Midwest.
Adult
Attitude of Health Personnel
Cross-Sectional Studies
Decision Support Systems, Clinical
Early Detection of Cancer
/ methods
Electronic Health Records
Female
Humans
Male
Middle Aged
Midwestern United States
Neoplasms
/ prevention & control
Physicians, Primary Care
/ psychology
Rural Health Services
Surveys and Questionnaires
Cancer prevention
Cancer screening
Clinical decision support
Electronic medical record
Primary care provider
Journal
BMC health services research
ISSN: 1472-6963
Titre abrégé: BMC Health Serv Res
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101088677
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
30 Dec 2019
30 Dec 2019
Historique:
received:
12
06
2019
accepted:
24
12
2019
entrez:
1
1
2020
pubmed:
1
1
2020
medline:
31
3
2020
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Cancer is the leading cause of death in the United States, with the burden expected to rise in the coming decades, increasing the need for effective cancer prevention and screening options. The United States Preventive Services Task Force has suggested that a shared decision-making process be used when clinicians and patients discuss cancer screening. The electronic medical record (EMR) often provides only reminders or alerts to primary care providers (PCPs) when screenings are due, a strategy with limited efficacy. We administered a cross-sectional electronic survey to PCPs (n = 165, 53% response rate) at 36 Essentia Health primary care clinics participating in a large, National Cancer Institute-funded study on a cancer prevention clinical decision support (CDS) tool. The survey assessed PCP demographics, perceptions of the EMR's ability to help assess and manage patients' cancer risk, and experience and comfort level discussing cancer screening and prevention with patients. In these predominantly rural clinics, only 49% of PCPs thought the EMR was well integrated to help assess and manage cancer risk. Both advanced care practitioners and physicians agreed that cancer screening and informed discussion of cancer risks are important; however, only 53% reported their patients gave cancer screening a high priority relative to other health issues. The impact of EMR-linked CDS delivered to both patients and PCPs may improve cancer screening, but only if it is easy to use and saves PCPs time.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Cancer is the leading cause of death in the United States, with the burden expected to rise in the coming decades, increasing the need for effective cancer prevention and screening options. The United States Preventive Services Task Force has suggested that a shared decision-making process be used when clinicians and patients discuss cancer screening. The electronic medical record (EMR) often provides only reminders or alerts to primary care providers (PCPs) when screenings are due, a strategy with limited efficacy.
METHODS
METHODS
We administered a cross-sectional electronic survey to PCPs (n = 165, 53% response rate) at 36 Essentia Health primary care clinics participating in a large, National Cancer Institute-funded study on a cancer prevention clinical decision support (CDS) tool. The survey assessed PCP demographics, perceptions of the EMR's ability to help assess and manage patients' cancer risk, and experience and comfort level discussing cancer screening and prevention with patients.
RESULTS
RESULTS
In these predominantly rural clinics, only 49% of PCPs thought the EMR was well integrated to help assess and manage cancer risk. Both advanced care practitioners and physicians agreed that cancer screening and informed discussion of cancer risks are important; however, only 53% reported their patients gave cancer screening a high priority relative to other health issues.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
The impact of EMR-linked CDS delivered to both patients and PCPs may improve cancer screening, but only if it is easy to use and saves PCPs time.
Identifiants
pubmed: 31888630
doi: 10.1186/s12913-019-4872-9
pii: 10.1186/s12913-019-4872-9
pmc: PMC6937782
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
1019Subventions
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : R01 CA193396
Pays : United States
Organisme : NCI NIH HHS
ID : R01CA193396
Pays : United States
Références
Am J Prev Med. 2004 Jan;26(1):56-66
pubmed: 14700714
Health Aff (Millwood). 2013 Feb;32(2):276-84
pubmed: 23381520
Patient Educ Couns. 2014 Jan;94(1):76-82
pubmed: 24094919
BMC Health Serv Res. 2019 Jul 31;19(1):534
pubmed: 31366355
Prev Med. 2016 Dec;93:96-105
pubmed: 27687535
BMJ. 2018 Dec 13;363:k4983
pubmed: 30545899
Med Decis Making. 2010 Sep-Oct;30(5 Suppl):53S-64S
pubmed: 20881154
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2016 Sep;23(5):1001-6
pubmed: 26911809
Am J Prev Med. 2001 Feb;20(2):130-4
pubmed: 11165455
Popul Health Manag. 2019 Aug;22(4):315-320
pubmed: 30403555
Ann Intern Med. 2012 Jul 3;157(1):29-43
pubmed: 22751758
Psychother Psychosom. 2008;77(4):219-26
pubmed: 18418028
BMJ. 2013 Feb 14;346:f657
pubmed: 23412440
JAMA. 2005 Mar 9;293(10):1223-38
pubmed: 15755945
Epidemiol Rev. 2017 Jan 1;39(1):1-10
pubmed: 28460082
Ann Fam Med. 2013 Jul-Aug;11(4):306-14
pubmed: 23835816
J Multidiscip Healthc. 2015 May 04;8:209-16
pubmed: 25999731
BMJ. 2005 Apr 2;330(7494):765
pubmed: 15767266
EGEMS (Wash DC). 2019 Apr 03;7(1):9
pubmed: 30972358
CA Cancer J Clin. 2015 Mar;65(2):87-108
pubmed: 25651787
Best Pract Res Clin Anaesthesiol. 2013 Dec;27(4):399-408
pubmed: 24267547
Am J Public Health. 2003 Apr;93(4):635-41
pubmed: 12660210
J Gen Intern Med. 2007 Jul;22(7):901-7
pubmed: 17549576
Am J Mens Health. 2017 Jan;11(1):134-146
pubmed: 26614441