What Influences Family Physicians' Cancer Screening Decisions When Practice Guidelines Are Unclear or Conflicting?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine (a) the respondents' perceptions of 4 unclear or conflicting cancer screening guidelines: prostate-specific antigen (PSA) for men over 50, mammography for women 40-49, colorectal screening by fecal occult blood testing (FOBT), and colonoscopy for patients over 40; and (b) the influence of various factors on the decision to order these tests. STUDY DESIGN: National Canadian mail survey of randomly selected family physicians. POPULATION: Family physicians in active practice (n=565) selected from rural and urban family medicine sites in 5 provinces representing the main regions in Canada. OUTCOME MEASURED: Agreement with guideline statements, and decision to order screening test in 6 clinical vignettes. RESULTS: Of 565 surveys mailed, 351 (62.1%) were returned. Most respondents agreed with the Canadian Task Force recommendations, and most believed that various guidelines for 3 of the 4 screens were conflicting (PSA 86.6%; mammography 67.5%; FOBT 62.4%). Patient anxiety about cancer, patient expectations of being tested, and a positive family history of cancer increased the odds that the 4 tests would be ordered. A good quality patient-MD relationship decreased the odds of ordering a mammogram. Screening decisions were also significantly influenced by the respondents' beliefs about whether screening was recommended and whether screening could cause more harm than good. A physician's sensitivity to his or her colleagues' practice influenced screening decisions regarding PSA and mammography. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest a conceptual framework for understanding the determinants of screening behavior when guidelines are unclear or conflicting.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.066 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".