This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Love, R. R. Articles by Davis, J. E. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Love, R. R. Articles by Davis, J. E.

Cancer Prevention Services and Physician Consensus in Primary Care Group Practices

Departments of ¹ Family Medicine and Practice, and ² Medicine, School of Medicine, and ³ School of Nursing, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin; ⁴ School of Nursing, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin; and ⁵ University of Wisconsin Comprehensive Cancer Center, Madison, Wisconsin

Requests for reprints: Richard R. Love, 256 WARF, 610 Walnut Street, Madison, WI 53726-2397. Phone: (608) 263-7066; Fax: (608) 263-4497. E-mail: rrlove{at}facstaff.wisc.edu

Background: We conducted a randomized clinical trial of interventions to achieve physician consensus, practice changes, and patient activation designed to help primary care group practices enhance the delivery of cancer prevention and screening services. Methods: In each of 42 primary care practices in 1991 to 1994, we studied approximately 60 patients per physician who were between the ages 53 and 64. Data sources included patient and physician questionnaires, medical record audits of consenting patients for evidence of 11 cancer prevention services during the previous 3 years, and telephone interviews with key practice personnel. Results: None of the interventions was associated with significant changes in frequency of services or procedures received or provided. Increased frequencies of services overall and of specific activities were associated with HMO membership or insurance coverage for six screening procedures. Patient reports of clinic staff recommendations to have each of six screening procedures were specifically associated with higher frequencies of services (P = 0.001). Conclusions: Demonstration of intervention impact may have been limited because the rates of prevention services were significantly higher in this study than have been reported elsewhere. These results might be explained by selection biases inherent in studying patients with a regular provider, overall practice trends for changes in provision of the studied services, and the study methods.

Key Words: cancer prevention • screening • primary care