RISK PREVALENCE AND SCREENING FOR CANCER BY GENERAL-PRACTITIONERS

Citation
A. Heywood et al., RISK PREVALENCE AND SCREENING FOR CANCER BY GENERAL-PRACTITIONERS, Preventive medicine, 23(2), 1994, pp. 152-159
Citations number
48
Categorie Soggetti
Public, Environmental & Occupation Heath","Medicine, General & Internal
Journal title
ISSN journal
00917435
Volume
23
Issue
2
Year of publication
1994
Pages
152 - 159
Database
ISI
SICI code
0091-7435(1994)23:2<152:RPASFC>2.0.ZU;2-M
Abstract
Background. This study presents cancer risk prevalence and screening r ates of patients attending general practitioners. Conditions addressed include smoking, skin cancer, Pap smears, clinical breast examination s, and mammography. Methods. A cross-sectional study of 7,160 patients 18-75 years presenting to 230 general practitioners in a metropolitan and country region in Queensland, Australia, was used. Risk prevalenc e was assessed from patients' self-report of risk behaviors and screen ing prior to the consultation. Details of preventive care provided in the consultation were based on doctors' self-report at the conclusion of the consultation. Results. Twenty-seven percent of men and 23% of w omen smoked, rates being highest in the younger age groups. Using nati onal guidelines, prior screening had not occurred as recommended for m en and women as follows: skin cancer screening - 66% of men, 70% of wo men; cervical cancer screening - 27%; clinical breast examination - 45 %; mammography - 75%. These patients were thus categorized as ''at ris k,'' and screening rates for these patients in the consultation were a s follows: smokers - 34%; skin cancer - 5%; cervical cancer - 16%; mam mography - 4%; clinical breast examination - 8%. Conclusions. Signific ant numbers of patients presenting to general practitioners were at ri sk of developing cancer, according to national guidelines. Of these, o nly small proportions of all groups had a preventive intervention by t heir GP at the consultation identified in this study. While GPs genera lly see their role in prevention as important, these results raise que stions for future cancer prevention policies and training of GPs. (C) 1994 Academic Press, Inc.