Do you recommend cancer screening to your patients? A cross-sectional study of Norwegian doctors
- PMID: 31473617
- PMCID: PMC6720551
- DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2019-029739
Do you recommend cancer screening to your patients? A cross-sectional study of Norwegian doctors
Abstract
Objective: Guidelines for cancer screening have been debated and are followed to varying degrees. We wanted to study whether and why doctors recommend disease-specific cancer screening to their patients.
Design: Our cross-sectional survey used a postal questionnaire. The data were examined with descriptive methods and binary logistic regression.
Setting: We surveyed doctors working in all health services.
Participants: Our participants comprised a representative sample of Norwegian doctors in 2014/2015.
Primary and secondary outcome measures: The primary outcome is whether doctors reported recommending their patients get screening for cancers of the breast, colorectum, lung, prostate, cervix and ovaries. We examined doctors' characteristics predicting adherence to the guidelines, including gender, age, and work in specialist or general practice. The secondary outcomes are reasons given for recommending or not recommending screening for breast and prostate cancer.
Results: Our response rate was 75% (1158 of 1545). 94% recommended screening for cervical cancer, 89% for breast cancer (both established as national programmes), 42% for colorectal cancer (upcoming national programme), 41% for prostate cancer, 21% for ovarian cancer and 17% for lung cancer (not recommended by health authorities). General practitioners (GPs) adhered to guidelines more than other doctors. Early detection was the most frequent reason for recommending screening; false positives and needless intervention were the most frequent reasons for not recommending it.
Conclusions: A large majority of doctors claimed that they recommended cancer screening in accordance with national guidelines. Among doctors recommending screening contrary to the guidelines, GPs did so to a lesser degree than other specialties. Different expectations of doctors' roles could be a possible explanation for the variations in practice and justifications. The effectiveness of governing instruments, such as guidelines, incentives or reporting measures, can depend on which professional role(s) a doctor is loyal to, and policymakers should be aware of these different roles in clinical governance.
Keywords: Cancer screening; Doctors' roles; Gatekeeping; Norway.
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Conflict of interest statement
Competing interests: None declared.
Figures
Similar articles
-
Differences among primary care physicians' adherence to 2009 ACOG guidelines for cervical cancer screening.J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2014 May;23(5):397-403. doi: 10.1089/jwh.2013.4475. Epub 2013 Dec 31. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2014. PMID: 24380500
-
Physician adherence to U.S. Preventive Services Task Force mammography guidelines.Womens Health Issues. 2014 May-Jun;24(3):e313-9. doi: 10.1016/j.whi.2014.03.003. Womens Health Issues. 2014. PMID: 24794545
-
Adherence to guidelines on antibiotic treatment for respiratory tract infections in various categories of physicians: a retrospective cross-sectional study of data from electronic patient records.BMJ Open. 2015 Jul 15;5(7):e008096. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-008096. BMJ Open. 2015. PMID: 26179648 Free PMC article.
-
Family doctors' knowledge and self-reported care of type 2 diabetes patients in comparison to the clinical practice guideline: cross-sectional study.BMC Fam Pract. 2006 Jun 16;7:36. doi: 10.1186/1471-2296-7-36. BMC Fam Pract. 2006. PMID: 16776847 Free PMC article.
-
Evidence for prevention and screening: recommendations in adults.Swiss Med Wkly. 2002 Jul 13;132(27-28):363-73. doi: 10.4414/smw.2002.09920. Swiss Med Wkly. 2002. PMID: 12428190 Review.
Cited by
-
Screening asymptomatic men for prostate cancer: A comparison of international guidelines on prostate-specific antigen testing.J Med Screen. 2022 Dec;29(4):268-271. doi: 10.1177/09691413221119238. Epub 2022 Sep 4. J Med Screen. 2022. PMID: 36062629 Free PMC article.
-
Cancer Screening: Present Recommendations, the Development of Multi-Cancer Early Development Tests, and the Prospect of Universal Cancer Screening.Cancers (Basel). 2024 Mar 18;16(6):1191. doi: 10.3390/cancers16061191. Cancers (Basel). 2024. PMID: 38539525 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Barriers and attitudes towards cervical cancer screening in primary healthcare in Poland - doctors' perspective.BMC Fam Pract. 2021 Dec 30;22(1):260. doi: 10.1186/s12875-021-01612-8. BMC Fam Pract. 2021. PMID: 34969373 Free PMC article.
-
Motivators of Inappropriate Ovarian Cancer Screening: A Survey of Women and Their Clinicians.JNCI Cancer Spectr. 2020 Dec 8;5(1):pkaa110. doi: 10.1093/jncics/pkaa110. eCollection 2021 Feb. JNCI Cancer Spectr. 2020. PMID: 33554034 Free PMC article.
-
Practices of Cancer Screening for Average-Risk Cancer Patients Among Primary Healthcare Center Physicians in Al-Qassim Region, Saudi Arabia.Cureus. 2023 Jan 16;15(1):e33829. doi: 10.7759/cureus.33829. eCollection 2023 Jan. Cureus. 2023. PMID: 36819377 Free PMC article.
References
-
- Norway, T.R.C.o Research-based evaluation of the Norwegian breast cancer screening program, 2015. Final report.
-
- Sætnan AR. To screen or not to screen? science discourse in two health policy controversies, as seen through three approaches to the citation evidence. Scientometrics 2000;48:307–44. 10.1023/A:1005636420708 - DOI
MeSH terms
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources