Accuracy of ovarian and colon cancer risk assessments by U.S. physicians.

BACKGROUND: Studies have shown a mismatch between published cancer screening and genetic counseling referral recommendations and physician-reported screening and referral practices. Inaccurate cancer risk assessment is one potential cause of this mismatch. OBJECTIVE: To assess U.S. physicians' ability to accurately determine a woman's colon and ovarian cancer risk level. DESIGN, PARTICIPANTS: Cross-sectional survey of U.S. family physicians, general internists, and obstetrician-gynecologists. A twelve-page questionnaire with a vignette of a woman's annual examination included a question about the patient's level of colon and ovarian cancer risk. The final study sample included 1,555 physicians weighted to represent practicing U.S. physicians nationally. MAIN MEASURE: Accuracy of physicians' ovarian and colon cancer risk assessments. KEY RESULTS: Overall, most physicians accurately assessed women's risk of ovarian (57.0%, CI 54.3, 59.6) and colon cancer (62.0%, CI 59.4, 64.6). However, 27.1% (CI 23.0, 31.6) of physicians overestimated the ovarian cancer risk among women at the same risk as the general population, and 65.1% (CI 60.2, 69.7) underestimated ovarian cancer risk among women at much higher risk than the general population. Physicians overestimated colon more than ovarian cancer risk (38.0%, CI 35.4, 40.6 vs. 27.1%, CI 23.0, 31.6) for women at the same risk as the general population. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians' misestimation of patient ovarian and colon cancer risk may put average risk patients in jeopardy of unnecessary screening and higher risk patients in jeopardy of missed opportunities for prevention or early detection of cancers.

Vignette-based study of ovarian cancer screening: do U.S. physicians report adhering to evidence-based recommendations?

BACKGROUND: No professional society or group recommends routine ovarian cancer screening, yet physicians' enthusiasm for several cancer screening tests before benefit has been proven suggests that some women may be exposed to potential harms. OBJECTIVE: To provide nationally representative estimates of physicians' reported nonadherence to recommendations against ovarian cancer screening. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey of physicians offering women's primary care. The 12-page questionnaire contained a woman's annual examination vignette and questions about offers or orders for transvaginal ultrasonography (TVU) and cancer antigen 125 (CA-125). SETTING: United States. PARTICIPANTS: 3200 physicians randomly sampled equally from the 2008 American Medical Association Physician Masterfile lists of family physicians, general internists, and obstetrician-gynecologists; 61.7% responded. After exclusions, 1088 respondents were included; their responses were weighted to represent the specialty distribution of practicing U.S. physicians nationally. MEASUREMENTS: Reported nonadherence to screening recommendations (defined as sometimes or almost always ordering screening TVU or CA-125 or both). RESULTS: Twenty-eight percent (95% CI, 24.5% to 32.9%) of physicians reported nonadherence to screening recommendations for women at low risk for ovarian cancer; 65.4% (CI, 61.1% to 69.4%) did so for women at medium risk for ovarian cancer. Six percent (CI, 4.4% to 8.9%) reported routinely ordering or offering ovarian cancer screening for low-risk women, as did 24.0% (CI, 20.5% to 28.0%) for medium-risk women (P ≤ 0.001). Thirty-three percent believed TVU or CA-125 was an effective screening test. In adjusted analysis, actual and physician-perceived patient risk, patient request for ovarian cancer screening, and physician belief that TVU or CA-125 was an effective screening test were the strongest predictors of physician-reported nonadherence to published recommendations. LIMITATION: The results are limited by their reliance on survey methods; there may be respondent-nonrespondent bias. CONCLUSION: One in 3 physicians believed that ovarian cancer screening was effective, despite evidence to the contrary. Substantial proportions of physicians reported routinely offering or ordering ovarian cancer screening, thereby exposing women to the documented risks of these tests. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Cancer Institute.

Involvement of gynecologic oncologists in the treatment of patients with a suspicious ovarian mass.

OBJECTIVE: To identify the factors associated with inclusion of a gynecologic oncologist in managing the care of a woman with suspected ovarian cancer. METHODS: A vignette-based survey was mailed to 3,200 physicians aged 64 and younger who were randomly sampled from family physician, general internist, and obstetrician-gynecologist (ob-gyn) lists from the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile. The vignette described a 57-year-old woman with pain, bloating, and a suspicious right adnexal mass with ascites. Using multivariable analysis we evaluated patient, physician, and practice characteristics associated with a self-reported referral or inclusion of a gynecologic oncologist in the patient's care. RESULTS: The response rate was 61.7%. After exclusions we included 569 ob-gyns, 591 family physicians, and 414 general internists. Gynecologic oncologist referral and consultation was self reported by 39.3% of family physicians and 51.0% of general internists (P=.01). Among ob-gyns, 33.7% indicated they would perform surgery and 66.3% recommended consultation or referral. Factors associated with not referring and consulting included patients having Medicaid insurance (family physicians), providers' weekly average number of patients being more than 91 (family physicians and general internists), male sex (family physicians), a rural practice location (general internists), and solo practice (general internists). Factors associated with primary surgical management for ob-gyns were small and remote rural practice locations and Census division. CONCLUSION: When presented with a patient with a suspicious ovarian mass, the majority of primary care physicians do not self-report direct referral to a gynecologic oncologist. This may contribute to the high rates of noncomprehensive surgery for ovarian cancer patients in the United States. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: II.

Reported referral for genetic counseling or BRCA 1/2 testing among United States physicians: a vignette-based study.

BACKGROUND: Genetic counseling and testing is recommended for women at high but not average risk of ovarian cancer. National estimates of physician adherence to genetic counseling and testing recommendations are lacking. METHODS: Using a vignette-based study, we surveyed 3200 United States family physicians, general internists, and obstetrician/gynecologists and received 1878 (62%) responses. The questionnaire included an annual examination vignette asking about genetic counseling and testing. The vignette varied patient age, race, insurance status, and ovarian cancer risk. Estimates of physician adherence to genetic counseling and testing recommendations were weighted to the United States primary care physician population. Multivariable logistic regression identified independent patient and physician predictors of adherence. RESULTS: For average-risk women, 71% of physicians self-reported adhering to recommendations against genetic counseling or testing. In multivariable modeling, predictors of adherence against referral/testing included black versus white race (relative risk [RR], 1.16; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.03-1.31), Medicaid versus private insurance (RR, 1.15; 95% CI, 1.02-1.29), and rural versus urban location. Among high-risk women, 41% of physicians self-reported adhering to recommendations to refer for genetic counseling or testing. Predictors of adherence for referral/testing were younger patient age [35 vs 51 years [RR, 1.78; 95% CI, 1.41-2.24]), physician sex (female vs male [RR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.07-1.64]), and obstetrician/gynecologist versus family medicine specialty (RR, 1.64; 95% CI, 1.31-2.05). For both average-risk and high-risk women, physician-estimated ovarian cancer risk was the most powerful predictor of recommendation adherence. CONCLUSION: Physicians reported that they would refer many average-risk women and would not refer many high-risk women for genetic counseling/testing. Intervention efforts, including promotion of accurate risk assessment, are needed.

How are symptoms of ovarian cancer managed? A study of primary care physicians.

BACKGROUND: A study was undertaken to identify the diagnostic approaches that primary care physicians and gynecologists undertake in women with symptoms associated with ovarian cancer. METHODS: A vignette-based survey was mailed to 3200 primary care physicians from the American Medical Association Physician Masterfile. The vignette described a 55-year-old woman with symptoms associated with ovarian cancer, although ovarian cancer was never mentioned. The authors evaluated patient, physician, and practice characteristics associated with a workup that could detect ovarian cancer. RESULTS: The survey response rate was 61.7%. After exclusions, 1532 physicians were included. Overall, 89.5% of physicians reported that they would recommend testing that can detect ovarian cancer (71.2% ultrasound; 25.4% pelvic computed tomography; 26.5% CA125). In adjusted analysis, the only patient factor associated with ovarian cancer testing was symptom type, genitourinary versus gastrointestinal (risk ratio, 1.07; 95% confidence interval, 1.03-1.11). Physician and practice characteristics associated with recommending of ovarian cancer testing included specialty (gynecologists > family physicians and internists); type of practice (group > solo); clinical teaching (yes > no); and within Census division, location of practice, with all Central (East, West, North, and South) and Atlantic (Middle and South) areas having a lower likelihood than New England. CONCLUSIONS: On the basis of a vignette in which a woman reported symptoms associated with ovarian cancer, the majority of primary care physicians and gynecologists would not recommend CA125, but would recommend imaging of the pelvis. Gynecologists, physicians involved with clinical teaching, and those in group practices were significantly more likely to recommend testing that could lead to an ovarian cancer diagnosis.

Predictors of comprehensive surgical treatment in patients with ovarian cancer.

BACKGROUND: Providing appropriate surgical treatment for women with ovarian cancer is one of the most effective ways to improve ovarian cancer outcomes. In this study, the authors identified factors that were associated with a measure of comprehensive surgery, so that interventions may be targeted appropriately to improve surgical care. METHODS: Using Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project hospital discharge data from 1999 to 2002 for 9 states, the authors identified 10,432 admissions of women who had an International Classification of Disease, 9th Revision (ICD-9) primary diagnosis of ovarian cancer and who had undergone oophorectomy. Based on National Institutes of Health Consensus Panel recommendations, surgeries were categorized as comprehensive by using ICD-9 diagnosis and procedure codes. Logistic regression analysis using data from 5 states with a full set of variables (n = 6854 patients)was used to identify factors that were associated with the receipt of comprehensive surgical care. RESULTS: Overall, 66.9% of admissions (range, 46.3-80.8% of admissions) received comprehensive surgery. Factors that were associated independently with comprehensive surgical care included age (ages 21-50 years vs ages 71-80 years or > or = 81 years), race (Caucasian vs African American or Hispanic), payer (private insurance vs Medicaid), cancer stage (advanced vs early), annual surgeon volume (low/medium [2-9 surgeries per year] or high [>10 surgeries per year] vs very low [1 surgery per year]), and surgeon specialty (gynecologic oncologists vs obstetrician gynecologists or general surgeons). Among nonteaching hospitals, medium-volume hospitals (10-19 ovarian cancer surgeries per year) and high-volume hospitals (> or = 20 surgeries per year) had significantly higher comprehensive surgery rates than low-volume facilities (1-9 surgeries per year). Volume did not influence comprehensive surgery rates in teaching hospitals. CONCLUSIONS: Many women with ovarian cancer, especially those in poor, elderly, or minority groups, are not receiving recommended comprehensive surgery. Efforts should be made to ensure that all women with ovarian cancer, especially those in vulnerable populations, have the opportunity to receive care from centers or surgeons with higher comprehensive surgery rates.

Ovarian cancer: patterns of surgical care across the United States.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the primary surgical procedures and procedures for intraoperative and postoperative complications, and factors associated with these procedures, in women with ovarian cancer. METHODS: Using hospital discharge data from nine states, obtained from the Heath Care Cost and Utilization Project from 1999 to 2002, we evaluated 10,432 women with a primary diagnosis of ovarian cancer who underwent at least an oophorectomy for additional procedural ICD-9 codes during their initial hospitalization. RESULTS: Surgical procedures performed in addition to oophorectomy included: omentectomy/debulking 81.9%, hysterectomy 73.4%, lymph node dissection 41.4%, appendectomy 23.8%, bowel procedures 19.8%, laparoscopy 5.6%, diaphragmatic procedures 4.9%, colostomy 3.5%, and splenectomy 1.2%. Transfusions were given to 15.5% of patients. Intraoperative and postoperative procedures for complications were coded in 7.4% of patients, including repair of surgical injury 3.5%, procedures for cardiopulmonary complications 2.8%, reoperation 1.1%, and infection treatment 0.3%. In early stage disease 21.4% of women received no additional staging procedures and 46.8% did not have nodal sampling. In bivariate analysis of crude rates, factors associated with lymph node dissection were patient age, race, payer, teaching hospital status, hospital and surgeon volume, and surgeon specialty, p<.01. for all observations. Colostomies were performed by general surgeons in 23.1% of cases, by gynecologic oncologists in 2.7% of cases, and by obstetrician/gynecologists in no cases, p<.001. Complications were associated with age, payer, median household income, and stage, p<.001 for all observations. Complication rates were similar for low- and high-volume hospitals and surgeons. However, in higher volume settings, significantly more patients received debulking procedures, lymph node dissections, and additional surgical procedures, p<.001 for all observations. CONCLUSIONS: A significant percentage of women with ovarian cancer did not receive recommended surgical procedures. Almost 50% of women with early stage disease were not adequately staged and in women with advanced disease, the percentage who had additional surgical procedures such as bowel resections was much lower than in institutions that report high optimal cytoreduction rates.

Modeling the mental health workforce in Washington State: using state licensing data to examine provider supply in rural and urban areas.

CONTEXT: Ensuring an adequate mental health provider supply in rural and urban areas requires accessible methods of identifying provider types, practice locations, and practice productivity. PURPOSE: To identify mental health shortage areas using existing licensing and survey data. METHODS: The 1998-1999 Washington State Department of Health files on credentialed health professionals linked with results of a licensure renewal survey, 1990 US Census data, and the results of the 1990-1992 National Comorbidity Survey were used to calculate supply and requirements for mental health services in 2 types of geographic units in Washington state-61 rural and urban core health service areas and 13 larger mental health regions. Both the number of 9 types of mental health professionals and their full-time equivalents (FTEs) per 100,000 population measured supply in the health service areas and mental health regions. FINDINGS: Notable shortages of mental health providers existed throughout the state, especially in rural areas. Urban areas had 3 times the psychiatrist FTEs per 100,000 and more than 1.5 times the nonpsychiatrist mental health provider FTEs per 100,000 as rural areas. More than 80% of rural health service areas had at least 10% fewer psychiatrist FTEs and nonpsychiatrist mental health provider FTEs than the state ratio (10.4 FTEs per 100,000 and 306.5 FTEs per 100,000, respectively). Ten of the 13 mental health regions were more than 10% below the state ratio of psychiatrist FTEs per 100,000. CONCLUSIONS: States gathering a minimum database at licensure renewal can identify area-specific mental health care shortages for use in program planning.

Rural definitions for health policy and research.

The term "rural" suggests many things to many people, such as agricultural landscapes, isolation, small towns, and low population density.However, defining "rural" for health policy and research purposes requires researchers and policy analysts to specify which aspects of rurality are most relevant to the topic at hand and then select an appropriate definition. Rural and urban taxonomies often do not discuss important demographic, cultural, and economic differences across rural places-differences that have major implications for policy and research. Factors such as geographic scale and region also must be considered. Several useful rural taxonomies are discussed and compared in this article. Careful attention to the definition of "rural" is required for effectively targeting policy and research aimed at improving the health of rural Americans.

Attitudes of family physicians in Washington state toward physician-assisted suicide.

CONTEXT: The topic of physician-assisted suicide is difficult and controversial. With recent laws allowing physicians to assist in a terminally ill patient's suicide under certain circumstances, the debate concerning the appropriate and ethical role for physicians has intensified. PURPOSE: This paper utilizes data from a 1997 survey of family physicians (FPs) in Washington State to test two hypotheses: (1) older respondents will indicate greater opposition to physician-assisted suicide than their younger colleagues, and (2) male and rural physicians will have more negative attitudes toward physician-assisted suicide than their female and urban counterparts. METHODS: A questionnaire administered to all active FPs obtained a 68% response rate, with 1074 respondents found to be eligible in this study. A ZIP code system based on generalist Health Service Areas was used to designate those practicing in rural versus urban areas. FINDINGS: One-fourth of the respondents overall indicated support for physician-assisted suicide. When asked whether this practice should be legalized, 39% said yes, 44% said no, and 18% indicated that they did not know. Fifty-eight percent of the study sample reported that they would not include physician-assisted suicide in their practices even if it were legal. Responses disaggregated by age-groups closely paralleled the group overall. There was a significant pattern of opposition on the part of rural male respondents compared to urban female respondents. Even among those reporting support for physician-assisted suicide, many expressed reluctance about including it in their practices. CONCLUSIONS: These findings highlight the systematic differences in FP attitudes toward one aspect of health care by gender, rural-urban practice location, and other factors.

Rural health care providers in the United States.

One of the most recalcitrant problems of the rural health landscape is the uneven distribution and relative shortage of medical care providers. Despite considerable efforts by federal and state governments over the past three decades to address these problems, rural provider distribution and shortage issues have persisted. The purpose of this article is to identify the challenges for rural health research and policy regarding health provider supply in the first decade of the 21st century. While the emphasis in this article is on physicians, workforce concerns pertaining to nurses, nurse practitioners, and physician assistants are briefly described. Physician supply, geographic and specialty distribution, age, gender, quality of care, recruitment and retention, training, productivity and income, reimbursement and managed care, federal and state ameliorative programs, safety net, and telehealth are discussed. Also highlighted are issues concerning rural health care workforce research, methods, and data as well as a series of policy-relevant questions. Solutions to rural health personnel problems can only be successfully addressed through multifaceted approaches. No vision of the future of rural health can come to fruition if it does not promote stable, rewarding, and fulfilling professional and personal lives for rural health care providers.