Factors Influencing Primary Care Practitioners’ Cancer Screening Recommendations for Older Adults: a Systematic Review
Journal of General Internal Medicine, ISSN: 1525-1497, Vol: 38, Issue: 13, Page: 2998-3020
2023
- 2Citations
- 23Captures
Metric Options: CountsSelecting the 1-year or 3-year option will change the metrics count to percentiles, illustrating how an article or review compares to other articles or reviews within the selected time period in the same journal. Selecting the 1-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year. Selecting the 3-year option compares the metrics against other articles/reviews that were also published in the same calendar year plus the two years prior.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Example: if you select the 1-year option for an article published in 2019 and a metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019. If you select the 3-year option for the same article published in 2019 and the metric category shows 90%, that means that the article or review is performing better than 90% of the other articles/reviews published in that journal in 2019, 2018 and 2017.
Citation Benchmarking is provided by Scopus and SciVal and is different from the metrics context provided by PlumX Metrics.
Review Description
Background: Primary care practitioners (PCPs) play a key role in cancer screening decisions for older adults (≥ 65 years), but recommendations vary by cancer type and jurisdiction. Purpose: To examine the factors influencing PCPs’ recommendations for breast, cervical, prostate, and colorectal cancer screening for older adults. Data Sources: MEDLINE, Pre-Medline, EMBASE, PsycINFO, and CINAHL, searched from 1 January 2000 to July 2021, and citation searching in July 2022. Study Selection: Assessed factors influencing PCPs’ breast, prostate, colorectal, or cervical cancer screening decisions for older adults’ (defined either as ≥ 65 years or < 10-year life expectancy). Data Extraction: Two authors independently conducted data extraction and quality appraisal. Decisions were crosschecked and discussed where necessary. Data Synthesis: From 1926 records, 30 studies met inclusion criteria. Twenty were quantitative, nine were qualitative, and one used a mixed method design. Twenty-nine were conducted in the USA, and one in the UK. Factors were synthesized into six categories: patient demographic characteristics, patient health characteristics, patient and clinician psycho-social factors, clinician characteristics, and health system factors. Patient preference was most reported as influential across both quantitative and qualitative studies. Age, health status, and life expectancy were also commonly influential, but PCPs held nuanced views about life expectancy. Weighing benefits/harms was also commonly reported with variation across cancer screening types. Other factors included patient screening history, clinician attitudes/personal experiences, patient/provider relationship, guidelines, reminders, and time. Limitations: We could not conduct a meta-analysis due to variability in study designs and measurement. The vast majority of included studies were conducted in the USA. Conclusions: Although PCPs play a role in individualizing cancer screening for older adults, multi-level interventions are needed to improve these decisions. Decision support should continue to be developed and implemented to support informed choice for older adults and assist PCPs to consistently provide evidence-based recommendations. Registration: PROSPERO CRD42021268219. Funding Source: NHMRC APP1113532.
Bibliographic Details
http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?partnerID=HzOxMe3b&scp=85158042039&origin=inward; http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11606-023-08213-4; http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/37142822; https://link.springer.com/10.1007/s11606-023-08213-4; https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11606-023-08213-4; https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11606-023-08213-4
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Provide Feedback
Have ideas for a new metric? Would you like to see something else here?Let us know