Motivators of Inappropriate Ovarian Cancer Screening: A Survey of Women and Their Clinicians

Author:

Macdonald Courtney12ORCID,Mazza Danielle3ORCID,Hickey Martha4ORCID,Hunter Morgan5ORCID,Keogh Louise A6,Investigators kConFab27,Jones Sandra C8,Saunders Christobel9,Nesci Stephanie1,Milne Roger L101112ORCID,McLachlan Sue-Anne1314,Hopper John L10,Friedlander Michael L1516,Emery Jon1718ORCID,Phillips Kelly-Anne1210ORCID

Affiliation:

1. Department of Medical Oncology, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

2. Sir Peter MacCallum Department of Oncology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia

3. Department of General Practice, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia

4. Department of Obstetrics and Gynaecology, University of Melbourne and the Royal Women’s Hospital, Melbourne, Australia

5. Centre for Biostatistics and Clinical Trials, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia

6. Centre for Health Equity, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia

7. The Research Department, Peter MacCallum Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia

8. ACU Engagement, Australian Catholic University, Melbourne, Australia

9. University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia

10. Centre for Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia

11. Cancer Epidemiology Division, Cancer Council Victoria, Melbourne, Australia

12. Precision Medicine, School of Clinical Sciences at Monash Health, Monash University, Clayton, Melbourne, Australia

13. Department of Medicine, St Vincent’s Hospital, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia

14. Department of Medical Oncology, St Vincent’s Hospital, Fitzroy, Melbourne, Australia

15. Prince of Wales Clinical School University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia

16. Department of Medical Oncology, Prince of Wales Hospital, Randwick, NSW, Australia

17. Department of General Practice and Centre for Cancer Research, University of Melbourne, Victorian Comprehensive Cancer Centre, Melbourne, Australia

18. School of Primary, Aboriginal and Rural Health Care, University of Western Australia, Perth, Australia

Abstract

Abstract Background This study examined why women and doctors screen for ovarian cancer (OC) contrary to guidelines. Methods Surveys, based on the Theoretical Domains Framework, were sent to women in the Kathleen Cuningham Foundation Consortium for Research into Familial Breast Cancer and family physicians and gynecologists who organized their screening. Results Of 1264 Kathleen Cuningham Foundation Consortium for Research into Familial Breast Cancer women, 832 (65.8%) responded. In the past 2 years, 126 (15.1%) had screened. Most of these (n = 101, 80.2%) would continue even if their doctor told them it is ineffective. For women, key OC screening motivators operated in the domains of social role and goals (staying healthy for family, 93.9%), emotion and reinforcement (peace of mind, 93.1%), and beliefs about capabilities (tests are easy to have, 91.9%). Of 531 clinicians 252 (47.5%) responded; a minority (family physicians 45.8%, gynecologists 16.7%) thought OC screening was useful. For gynecologists, the main motivators of OC screening operated in the domains of environmental context (lack of other screening options, 27.6%), and emotion (patient peace of mind, 17.2%; difficulty discontinuing screening, 13.8%). For family physicians,, the strongest motivators were in the domains of social influence (women ask for these tests, 20.7%), goals (a chance these tests will detect cancer early, 16.4%), emotion (patient peace of mind, 13.8%), and environmental context (no other OC screening options, 11.2%). Conclusion Reasons for OC screening are mostly patient driven. Clinician knowledge and practice are discordant. Motivators of OC screening encompass several domains, which could be targeted in interventions to reduce inappropriate OC screening.

Funder

Cancer Australia

National Breast Cancer Foundation

Australian National Breast Cancer Foundation

Australian National Health

Medical Research Council

National Institute of Health USA

Queensland Cancer Fund

Cancer Councils of New South Wales

Publisher

Oxford University Press (OUP)

Subject

Cancer Research,Oncology

Cited by 3 articles. 订阅此论文施引文献 订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3