Pickles Kristen, Carter Stacy M, Rychetnik Lucie
Centre for Values, Ethics and the Law in Medicine, Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
Centre for Values, Ethics and the Law in Medicine, Sydney School of Public Health, University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia School of Medicine, University of Notre Dame, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
BMJ Open. 2015 Mar 17;5(3):e006367. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006367.
(1) To explain general practitioners' (GPs') approaches to prostate-specific antigen (PSA) testing and overdiagnosis; (2) to explain how GPs reason about their PSA testing routines and (3) to explain how these routines influence GPs' personal experience as clinicians.
Primary care practices in Australia including men's health clinics and rural practices with variable access to urology services.
32 urban and rural GPs within Australia. We included GPs of varying ages, gender (11 female), clinical experience and patient populations. All GPs interested in participating in the study were included.
Data were analysed using grounded theory methods to determine how and why GPs provide (or do not provide) PSA testing to their asymptomatic male patients.
We observed patterned variation in GP practice, and identified four heuristics to describe GP preference for, and approaches to, PSA testing and overdiagnosis: (1) GPs who prioritised avoiding underdiagnosis, (2) GPs who weighed underdiagnosis and overdiagnosis case by case, (3) GPs who prioritised avoiding overdiagnosis and (4) GPs who did not engage with overdiagnosis at all. The heuristics guided GPs' Routine Practice (usual testing, communication and responses to patient request). The heuristics also reflected GPs' different Practice Rationales (drawing on experience, medicolegal obligations, guidelines and evidence) and produced different Practice Outcomes (GPs' experiences of the consequences of their PSA testing decisions). Some of these heuristics were more responsive to patient preferences than others.
Variation in GPs' PSA testing practices is strongly related to their approach to overdiagnosis and underdiagnosis of prostate cancer. Men receive very different care depending on their GP's reasoning and practice preferences. Future policy to address overdiagnosis will be more likely to succeed if it responds to these patterned variations.
(1)解释全科医生(GPs)进行前列腺特异性抗原(PSA)检测及过度诊断的方法;(2)解释全科医生如何对其PSA检测流程进行推理;(3)解释这些流程如何影响全科医生作为临床医生的个人体验。
澳大利亚的基层医疗诊所,包括男性健康诊所及获得泌尿外科服务机会各异的农村诊所。
澳大利亚的32名城乡全科医生。我们纳入了不同年龄、性别(11名女性)、临床经验及患者群体的全科医生。所有有兴趣参与研究的全科医生均被纳入。
采用扎根理论方法分析数据,以确定全科医生对无症状男性患者进行(或不进行)PSA检测的方式及原因。
我们观察到全科医生的诊疗存在模式化差异,并确定了四种启发法来描述全科医生对PSA检测及过度诊断的偏好和方法:(1)优先避免漏诊的全科医生;(2)逐例权衡漏诊和过度诊断的全科医生;(3)优先避免过度诊断的全科医生;(4)完全不考虑过度诊断的全科医生。这些启发法指导着全科医生的常规诊疗(常规检测、沟通及对患者请求的回应)。这些启发法还反映了全科医生不同的诊疗依据(借鉴经验、法医学义务、指南及证据),并产生了不同的诊疗结果(全科医生对其PSA检测决策后果的体验)。其中一些启发法比其他启发法对患者偏好的反应更灵敏。
全科医生PSA检测实践的差异与其对前列腺癌过度诊断和漏诊的处理方法密切相关。男性接受的治疗因全科医生的推理和诊疗偏好而有很大不同。未来解决过度诊断问题的政策若能应对这些模式化差异,则更有可能取得成功。