scholarly journals Involvement of Primary Care Physicians in the Decision Making and Care of Patients With Breast Cancer

2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (33) ◽  
pp. 3969-3975 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lauren P. Wallner ◽  
Paul Abrahamse ◽  
Jaspreet K. Uppal ◽  
Christopher R. Friese ◽  
Ann S. Hamilton ◽  
...  

Purpose Collaborative care between cancer specialists and primary care providers (PCPs) may improve the delivery of high-quality cancer care. Yet, patient perspectives about how involved the PCPs were in their breast cancer care and treatment decisions remain unknown. Patients and Methods A weighted random sample of women newly diagnosed with breast cancer in 2013 to 2014, as reported to the SEER registries in Los Angeles, California, and Georgia, were sent a survey approximately 6 months after diagnosis (N = 2,279, 71% response rate). The distributions of patient-perceived PCP quality (six questions about PCP access and awareness of values) and the following three measures of patient-reported PCP involvement were assessed: how informed the respondent felt her PCP was about her breast cancer (engagement); how often the respondent talked with her PCP (communication); and how often the respondent felt the PCP participated in treatment decisions (participation). Adjusted mean scores of patient-reported satisfaction with and deliberation about the surgical treatment decision were then compared across levels of PCP engagement, communication, and participation using multivariable linear regression. Results The majority of women in this sample perceived high PCP quality (63.6%), high PCP breast cancer engagement (66.2%), and high PCP communication (69.1%). More than a third of women (35.4%) reported that their PCP participated in their treatment decisions. Higher PCP engagement was associated with higher decision satisfaction when compared with low PCP engagement (adjusted P = .003). Conclusion Patient perceptions of PCP quality and PCP involvement in breast cancer care during treatment are high for most women, and PCPs often participate in breast cancer treatment decisions. However, PCP involvement did not lead to meaningful improvements in patients’ appraisals of their decision making.

2017 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 127-134 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kevin M. Gorey ◽  
Caroline Hamm ◽  
Isaac N. Luginaah ◽  
Guangyong Zou ◽  
Eric J. Holowaty

Background: Better health care among Canada’s socioeconomically vulnerable versus America’s has not been fully explained. We examined the effects of poverty, health insurance and the supply of primary care physicians on breast cancer care. Methods: We analyzed breast cancer data in Ontario (n = 950) and California (n = 6300) between 1996 and 2000 and followed until 2014. We obtained socioeconomic data from censuses, oversampling the poor. We obtained data on the supply of physicians, primary care and specialists. The optimal care criterion was being diagnosed early with node negative disease and received breast conserving surgery followed by adjuvant radiation therapy. Results: Women in Ontario received more optimal care in communities well supplied by primary care physicians. They were particularly advantaged in the most disadvantaged places: high poverty neighborhoods (rate ratio = 1.65) and communities lacking specialist physicians (rate ratio = 1.33). Canadian advantages were explained by better health insurance coverage and greater primary care access. Conclusions: Policy makers ought to ensure that the newly insured are adequately insured. The Medicaid program should be expanded, as intended, across all 50 states. Strengthening America’s system of primary care will probably be the best way to ensure that the Affordable Care Act’s full benefits are realized.


2010 ◽  
Vol 6 (6) ◽  
pp. 452-463
Author(s):  
Mary Ann Zalewski ◽  
Susan Beikman ◽  
Shannon Ferrari ◽  
Kathleen Slavish ◽  
Margaret Rosenzweig

Author(s):  
Nathaniel Hendrix ◽  
Brett Hauber ◽  
Christoph I Lee ◽  
Aasthaa Bansal ◽  
David L Veenstra

Abstract Background Artificial intelligence (AI) is increasingly being proposed for use in medicine, including breast cancer screening (BCS). Little is known, however, about referring primary care providers’ (PCPs’) preferences for this technology. Methods We identified the most important attributes of AI BCS for ordering PCPs using qualitative interviews: sensitivity, specificity, radiologist involvement, understandability of AI decision-making, supporting evidence, and diversity of training data. We invited US-based PCPs to participate in an internet-based experiment designed to force participants to trade off among the attributes of hypothetical AI BCS products. Responses were analyzed with random parameters logit and latent class models to assess how different attributes affect the choice to recommend AI-enhanced screening. Results Ninety-one PCPs participated. Sensitivity was most important, and most PCPs viewed radiologist participation in mammography interpretation as important. Other important attributes were specificity, understandability of AI decision-making, and diversity of data. We identified 3 classes of respondents: “Sensitivity First” (41%) found sensitivity to be more than twice as important as other attributes; “Against AI Autonomy” (24%) wanted radiologists to confirm every image; “Uncertain Trade-Offs” (35%) viewed most attributes as having similar importance. A majority (76%) accepted the use of AI in a “triage” role that would allow it to filter out likely negatives without radiologist confirmation. Conclusions and Relevance Sensitivity was the most important attribute overall, but other key attributes should be addressed to produce clinically acceptable products. We also found that most PCPs accept the use of AI to make determinations about likely negative mammograms without radiologist confirmation.


2008 ◽  
Vol 26 (33) ◽  
pp. 5386-5392 ◽  
Author(s):  
Arti Hurria ◽  
F. Lennie Wong ◽  
Doojduen Villaluna ◽  
Smita Bhatia ◽  
Cathie T. Chung ◽  
...  

Purpose To determine the impact of age and health status on adjuvant treatment recommendations for older patients with breast cancer from the perspective of medical oncologists and primary care physicians with geriatric expertise. Patients and Methods One hundred fifty-one oncologists and 158 primary care physicians with geriatric expertise participated in an online survey. The survey described hypothetical patients of varying ages (70, 75, 80, and 85 years) and health status (good, average, and poor) who had node-positive, hormone receptor–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER-2)/neu–negative; and hormone receptor–negative, HER-2/neu–positive breast cancers. The effects of patient age and health status on the survey participants’ adjuvant treatment recommendations were examined using generalized estimation equation methods. Results The majority of both oncologists and primary care physicians recommended some form of adjuvant therapy for patients of all ages (70, 75, 80, and 85 years) and health status. Both oncologists and primary care providers were less likely to recommend adjuvant treatment as a patient's age increased or health status declined (P < .0001). There were no significant differences in treatment recommendations among primary care physicians and oncologists for patients with hormone receptor–negative, HER-2/neu–positive tumors (P = .54). However, primary care providers were more likely than oncologists to recommend no adjuvant treatment for patients age 75 years or older with hormone receptor–positive, HER-2/neu–negative tumors (P < .01). Conclusion Age and health status influence oncologists’ and primary care providers’ adjuvant treatment recommendations. Evidence-based guidelines for breast cancer treatment in older adults taking into account age and health status are needed.


2016 ◽  
Vol 34 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 101-101
Author(s):  
Lauren P. Wallner ◽  
Paul Abrahamse ◽  
Christopher Ryan Friese ◽  
Steven J. Katz ◽  
Sarah T. Hawley

101 Background: Collaborative care between cancer specialists and primary care providers (PCP) ensures high quality cancer care. Yet, little is known about patient’s perspectives about the level of PCP engagement in and communication about breast cancer (BC) care during treatment. Methods: A weighted random sample of newly diagnosed breast cancer patients in the Georgia and Los Angeles SEER registries were surveyed approximately 6 months after diagnosis (expected final N = 2600, 70% current response rate). PCP BC engagement and communication were defined using 2 outcome measures (categorized as less (never/rarely) vs. more (sometimes/often/always)): how informed the respondent’s PCP was about BC treatment and how often respondents talked with their PCP about their BC care visits. Overall PCP quality was assessed by averaging patient responses (5 categories, never to always) to 5 questions: ease of access to PCP (3 questions) and PCP’s awareness of patient values (2 questions) and categorized as high ( ≥ 4), moderate (3) and low ( < 3). The associations between patient factors and PCP quality with BC engagement and communication were evaluated using multivariable logistic regression. Results: In a preliminary sample (N = 2054), the majority of women reported high PCP quality (63%), high PCP BC engagement (65%) and communication (68%). (Table) Women who reported less PCP BC engagement were more likely to report low PCP quality (OR: 15.7, 95%CI: 9.5, 25.9;) and chemotherapy use (OR: 1.3, 95%CI: 1.1, 1.6), adjusting for age, race, insurance, comorbidities and PCP continuity. The results were similar for PCP communication. Conclusions: Patient perceptions of PCP quality, engagement and communication during BC treatment are high for most women with BC. However, there remains opportunity for improvement in both, as many women report poor engagement and communication despite perceiving high quality primary care. Targeting these patients and their clinicians may be particularly effective in interventions to improve collaborative care in cancer. [Table: see text]


2021 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. 237437352110077
Author(s):  
Daliah Wachs ◽  
Victoria Lorah ◽  
Allison Boynton ◽  
Amanda Hertzler ◽  
Brandon Nichols ◽  
...  

The purpose of this study was to explore patient perceptions of primary care providers and their offices relative to their physician’s philosophy (medical degree [MD] vs doctorate in osteopathic medicine [DO]), specialty (internal medicine vs family medicine), US region, and gender (male vs female). Using the Healthgrades website, the average satisfaction rating for the physician, office parameters, and wait time were collected and analyzed for 1267 physicians. We found female doctors tended to have lower ratings in the Midwest, and staff friendliness of female physicians were rated lower in the northwest. In the northeast, male and female MDs were rated more highly than DOs. Wait times varied regionally, with northeast and northwest regions having the shortest wait times. Overall satisfaction was generally high for most physicians. Regional differences in perception of a physician based on gender or degree may have roots in local culture, including proximity to a DO school, comfort with female physicians, and expectations for waiting times.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document