4.1 Article

Identifying Primary Care Physicians Continuing Education Needs by Examining Clinical Practices, Attitudes, and Barriers to Screening Across Multiple Cancers

期刊

JOURNAL OF CANCER EDUCATION
卷 33, 期 6, 页码 1255-1262

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s13187-017-1240-5

关键词

Cancer; Screening; Primary care physicians; Needs assessment; CME effectiveness

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Population-based cancer screening for cervical, breast, and colorectal cancers improves patient outcomes, yet screening rates remain low for some cancers. Despite studies investigating physician perceptions and practices for screening, many have focused on individual cancers and lack primary care physicians' (PCPs) realities around screening for multiple cancers. We surveyed 887 PCPs in British Columbia (BC) to examine practices, beliefs, barriers, and learning needs towards cancer screening across breast, cervical, colorectal, prostate, as well as hereditary predisposition to cancer. Survey results identified differences in PCPs belief in the benefit of screening for recommended and non-recommended routine cancer screening, PCPs adherence to screening guidelines for some cancers and physician comfort and patient testing requests related to physician gender for gender sensitive tests. Further, across cancers, screening barriers included patients with multiple health concerns (41%), limited time to discuss screening (36%), and lack of physician financial compensation to discuss screening (23%). The study highlighted the need for more physician education on screening programs, referral criteria, follow-up processes, and screening guidelines. Conferences (73%), self-directed (46%), small group workshops (42%), hospital rounds (41%), and online CME/CPD (39%) were highly preferred (4+5) for learning about cancer screening. The results suggest a need to improve awareness and adherence to screening guidelines and recommended practices, as well as to provide educational opportunities which address knowledge and practice gaps for physicians.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.1
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据