↓ Skip to main content

Dove Medical Press

Opinions, practice patterns, and perceived barriers to lung cancer screening among attending and resident primary care physicians

Overview of attention for article published in Risk Management and Healthcare Policy, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
15 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
24 Mendeley
Title
Opinions, practice patterns, and perceived barriers to lung cancer screening among attending and resident primary care physicians
Published in
Risk Management and Healthcare Policy, January 2018
DOI 10.2147/rmhp.s143152
Pubmed ID
Authors

Louise M Henderson, Laura M Jones, Mary W Marsh, Alison T Brenner, Adam O Goldstein, Thad S Benefield, Mikael Anne Greenwood-Hickman, Paul L Molina, M Patricia Rivera, Daniel S Reuland

Abstract

The US Preventive Services Task Force recommended annual lung cancer screening with low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) for high-risk patients in December 2013. We compared lung cancer screening-related opinions and practices among attending and resident primary care physicians (PCPs). In 2015, we conducted a 23-item survey among physicians at a large academic medical center. We surveyed 100 resident PCPs (30% response rate) and 86 attending PCPs (49% response rate) in Family Medicine and Internal Medicine. The questions focused on physicians' opinions, knowledge of recommendations, self-reported practice patterns, and barriers to lung cancer screening. In 2015 and 2016, we compared responses among attending versus resident PCPs using chi-square/Fisher's exact tests and 2-samples t-tests. Compared with resident PCPs, attending PCPs were older (mean age =47 vs 30 years) and more likely to be male (54% vs 37%). Over half of both groups concurred that inconsistent recommendations make deciding whether or not to screen difficult. A substantial proportion in both groups indicated that they were undecided about the benefit of lung cancer screening for patients (43% attending PCPs and 55% resident PCPs). The majority of attending and resident PCPs agreed that barriers to screening included limited time during patient visits (62% and 78%, respectively), cost to patients (74% and 83%, respectively), potential for complications (53% and 70%, respectively), and a high false-positive rate (67% and 73%, respectively). There was no evidence to suggest that attending and resident PCPs had differing opinions about lung cancer screening. For population-based implementation of lung cancer screening, physicians and trainees will need resources and time to address the benefits and harms with their patients.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 24 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 24 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 21%
Student > Master 4 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 2 8%
Student > Postgraduate 2 8%
Professor > Associate Professor 1 4%
Other 1 4%
Unknown 9 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 7 29%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 13%
Social Sciences 2 8%
Engineering 1 4%
Unknown 11 46%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 January 2018.
All research outputs
#14,964,325
of 23,016,919 outputs
Outputs from Risk Management and Healthcare Policy
#311
of 622 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#255,746
of 442,354 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Risk Management and Healthcare Policy
#4
of 4 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,016,919 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 622 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 9.0. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 442,354 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 4 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one.