Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Rural physicians' understanding of the state-of-the-art in breast, colon and rectum cancer treatment

  • Published:
Cancer Causes & Control Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Objectives: This study measured the impact of an educational intervention aimed at heightening rural physicians' awareness of state-of-the-art breast and colorectal cancer therapies.

Methods: Pre- and post-intervention mailed surveys were administered to all primary-care physicians and referring physicians in the seven-county intervention region in North Carolina (NC) and a comparison region in South Carolina (SC).

Results: The survey revealed few significant changes in physicians' perspectives that could be attributed to the intervention. Physicians erroneously stated that lumpectomy without follow-up radiation was acceptable for treating breast cancer (55%), failed to indicate that adjuvant therapy was an accepted practice for treating Stage I breast cancer (67%), failed to acknowledge chemotherapy as experimental for Dukes' B colon cancer patients (70%), and failed to recognize a combination of surgery, chemotherapy, and radiation as a standard treatment for rectal cancer (25%).

Conclusions: The low levels of awareness of National Cancer Institute guidelines were reflected in low breast-sparing surgery rates for women living in the intervention region. Stronger consensus on appropriate cancer treatments is needed throughout the medical community in order to reduce undesired variation in rural, community-based cancer care.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Greenwald P, Sondik EJ, eds (1986) Cancer Control Objectives for the Nation, 1985–2000. NCI Monogr 2: 1-105.

  2. Osteen RT, Cady B, Chmiel JS et al. (1994) 1991 National survey of carcinoma of the breast by the Commission on Cancer. J Am Coll Surg 178: 213-219.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Studnicki J, Schapira DV, Bradham DD, Clark RA, Jarrett A (1993) Response to the National Cancer Institute Alert. Cancer 72: 2986-2992.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Hynes DM (1994) The quality of breast cancer care in local communities: implications for health care reform. Med Care 32: 328-340.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Hand RH, Sener S, Imperato J, Chmiel JS, Sylvester JA, Fremgen A (1992) Hospital variables associated with quality of care for breast cancer patients. JAMA 266: 3429-3432.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Ermann D (1990) Rural health care: the future of the hospital. Med Care Rev 47: 33-73.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Keeler EB, Rubenstein LV, Kahn KL, et al. (1992) Hospital characteristics and quality of care JAMA 268: 1709-1714.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Howe HL, Katterhagen JG, Yates, J, Lehnherr M (1992) Urban-rural differences in the management of breast cancer. Cancer Causes Control 3: 533-539.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Curtiss CP (1993) Trends and issues for cancer care in rural communities. Rural Nursing 28: 241-251.

    Google Scholar 

  10. McFall SL, Warnecke RB, Kaluzny AD, Ford L (1994) Physician and practice characteristics associated with judgments about breast cancer treatment. Med Care 32: 106-117.

    Google Scholar 

  11. McFall SL, Warnecke RB, Kaluzny AD, Ford L (1996) Practice setting and physician influences on judgments of colon cancer treatments by community physicians. Health Serv Res 31: 5-18.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Cooper MR, Ricketts TC (1998) Reaching Cancer for Cancer Care (REACH) Project Evaluation Report, 1998. Winston-Salem NC: Wake Forest University Comprehensive Cancer Center. April.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Kaluzny AD, Warnecke R, Gillings D (1992) Assessment of the implementation and impact of the community clinical oncology program, Phase II. Vol. 1. Overview, Findings, and Recommendations. Chapel Hill, NC: Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Belanger D, Moore M, Tannock I (1991) How American oncologists treat breast cancer: an assessment of the influence of clinical trials. J Clin Oncol 9: 7-16.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Greer Al (1977) Advances in the study of diffusion of innovation in health care organizations, Milbank Memorial Fund Quarterly 55: 505-532.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Kosecoff J, Kanouse DE, Rogers WH, McCloskey L, Winslow CM, Brook RH (1987) Effects of the National Institutes of Health Consensus Development Program on physician practices. JAMA 258: 2708-2713.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Olivotto IA, Coldman AJ, Hislop TG, et al. (1997) Compliance with practice guidelines for node-negative breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 15: 216-222.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Mittman BS, Tonesk X, Jacobson PD (1992) Implementing clinical practice guidelines: social influence strategies and practitioner behavior change. Qual Rev Bull 18: 413-422.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Kanouse DE, Jacoby I (1988) When does information change practitioners' behavior? Int J Technol Assess Health Care 4: 27-33.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Ford LG (1989) Therapy: state-of-the-art assessment of quality. Cancer 64: 219-222.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Greer AL (1988) The state of the art versus the state of the science. The diffusion of new medical technologies into practice. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 4: 5-26.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Grady KE, Wallston BS (1988) Research in Health Care Settings. Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, University of North Carolina-, Chapel Hill, NC, 27599, USA

    Theresa A. Hatzell, Thomas C. Ricketts & Sarah E. Tropman

  2. Department of Public Health Sciences, Wake Forest University School of Medicine, Winston-Salem, NC, USA

    Electra D. Paskett

  3. Comprehensive Cancer Center of Wake Forest University, USA

    M. Robert Cooper

Authors
  1. Theresa A. Hatzell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Thomas C. Ricketts
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sarah E. Tropman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  4. Electra D. Paskett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  5. M. Robert Cooper
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

(S.E.T. is currently with the MD Anderson Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Texas Medical College, USA)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hatzell, T.A., Ricketts, T.C., Tropman, S.E. et al. Rural physicians' understanding of the state-of-the-art in breast, colon and rectum cancer treatment. Cancer Causes Control 10, 261–267 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008996227202

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008996227202