JABFM
HOME HELP CONTACT US SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Freely available
Right arrow Rapid Responses: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when Rapid Responses are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Nutting, P. A.
Right arrow Articles by Stewart, L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Nutting, P. A.
Right arrow Articles by Stewart, L.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Complore   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?

The Journal of the American Board of Family Practice, Vol 14, Issue 5 352-361, Copyright © 2001 by American Board of Family Practice

ARTICLES

Competing demands in the office visit: what influences mammography recommendations?

P. A. Nutting, M. Baier, J. J. Werner, G. Cutter, C. Conry and L. Stewart
Department of Family Medicine, University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, Denver, USA.

BACKGROUND: The multiple competing demands of the busy office visit have been shown to interfere with delivery of preventive services. In this study we used physician recommendations for screening mammography to examine the relative importance of physician, patient, and visit characteristics in determining on which patient visits this preventive service will be provided. METHODS: Physicians in the Ambulatory Sentinel Practice Network (ASPN) completed a questionnaire describing their knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about screening mammography. They also described the content of a series of nonacute care visits with women aged 40 to 75 years with regard to making a recommendation when the patient was due for screening mammography. The data were linked, and univariate and multivariate logistic regression methods were used to examine the relative importance of physician, patient, and visit characteristics on making a recommendation for mammography. RESULTS: Ninety-three physicians reported making a recommendation for screening mammography on 53.1% of nonacute visits. When modeling physician, patient, and visit characteristics separately, 70% of the variability in the model is explained by physician characteristics only, 63% by patient characteristics only, and 73% by visit characteristics only. A combined model using all characteristics explained 85% of the variability. CONCLUSIONS: Although characteristics of physicians and patients can predict frequency of recommendations for mammography, the specific characteristics of the visit are equally important. Efforts to improve delivery of preventive services in primary care that emphasize physician education and performance feedback are unlikely to increase rates of mammography recommendation. Effective strategies must consider the multiple competing demands faced by patients and physicians during each office visit and seek ways for assisting them in setting rational priorities for services.
Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Complore Complore   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 ANN INTERN MEDHome page
L. E. Boulware, S. Marinopoulos, K. A. Phillips, C. W. Hwang, K. Maynor, D. Merenstein, R. F. Wilson, G. J. Barnes, E. B. Bass, N. R. Powe, et al.
Systematic Review: The Value of the Periodic Health Evaluation
Ann Intern Med, February 20, 2007; 146(4): 289 - 300.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Ann Fam MedHome page
S. J. Spann, P. A. Nutting, J. M. Galliher, K. A. Peterson, V. N. Pavlik, L. M. Dickinson, and R. J. Volk
Management of Type 2 Diabetes in the Primary Care Setting: A Practice-Based Research Network Study
Ann. Fam. Med, January 1, 2006; 4(1): 23 - 31.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Ann Fam MedHome page
J. J. Fenton, M. Von Korff, E. H.B. Lin, P. Ciechanowski, and B. A. Young
Quality of Preventive Care for Diabetes: Effects of Visit Frequency and Competing Demands
Ann. Fam. Med, January 1, 2006; 4(1): 32 - 39.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Ann Fam MedHome page
M. L. Parchman, R. L. Romero, and J. A. Pugh
Encounters by Patients With Type 2 Diabetes--Complex and Demanding: An Observational Study
Ann. Fam. Med, January 1, 2006; 4(1): 40 - 45.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Arch Intern MedHome page
L. L. Lipscombe, J. E. Hux, and G. L. Booth
Reduced Screening Mammography Among Women With Diabetes
Arch Intern Med, October 10, 2005; 165(18): 2090 - 2095.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev.Home page
S. S. Coughlin, E. S. Breslau, T. Thompson, and V. B. Benard
Physician Recommendation for Papanicolaou Testing Among U.S. Women, 2000
Cancer Epidemiol. Biomarkers Prev., May 1, 2005; 14(5): 1143 - 1148.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 BMJHome page
M. Cifuentes and L. A Green
Obesity trial: knowledge without systems
BMJ, February 28, 2004; 328(7438): E272 - E274.
[Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP CONTACT US SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 2001 by the American Board of Family Medicine.