Colorectal cancer screening practices among obstetrician/gynecologists and nurse practitioners.
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE
Obstetrician/gynecologists (Ob/Gyn) and nurse practitioners (NP) are essential providers of primary and preventive care for their female patients. Therefore, colorectal cancer (CRC) screening should be part of their routine preventive practices. The purpose of our study is to evaluate the CRC screening practices of these providers.
METHODS
A self-administered survey was mailed to a national sample of 1130 Ob/Gyns and NPs to assess providers' demographics, current CRC screening practices, and familiarity with CRC guidelines.
RESULTS
Three hundred thirty-six providers (29.7%) returned our survey (54% Ob/Gyns and 46% NPs). Three fourths of providers routinely performed screening for CRC, compared with 95% for breast and cervical cancer. Routine CRC screening was more common among Ob/Gyns (87.2%) than NPs (61.7%) (p < 0.001). Slightly over half of providers correctly identified the recommended age to begin CRC screening for the average-risk patient, with no significant difference between provider types. Overall, Ob/Gyns scored higher than NPs on a series of questions assessing CRC screening (p < 0.03). Several provider factors were found to be significantly associated with screening practices, including practicing >10 years (p < 0.01), practicing in a multispecialty group (2.62 times more likely), and having an older patient population (p < 0.001).
CONCLUSIONS
Ob/Gyns and NPs underuse CRC screening compared with breast and cervical cancer screening and lack knowledge about appropriate use of CRC screening modalities. Opportunities to further educate Ob/Gyns and NPs should be sought to improve compliance with current CRC screening guidelines.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.