Limits...
Inclusion of populations at risk of advanced melanoma in an opportunistic targeted screening project involving general practitioners

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

ABSTRACT

Objective: The study objective was to measure the rates of inclusion of populations at risk of advanced melanoma in a pilot targeted screening project involving general practitioners.

Design: This cross-sectional database study compared the inclusion rates of patients who signed inclusion in a targeted screening project with those of patients who did not, during a period in which both groups of patients consulted investigators.

Setting: Data were extracted from the national healthcare insurance records in western France from 11 April to 30 October 2011.

Patients: Patients, older than 18, considered for the data extraction had consulted one of the 78 participating GPs during the study period, and were affiliated with the national healthcare insurance.

Main outcome measures: Inclusion in the screening was the main outcome measure. Patients at risk of advanced melanoma were characterized by male gender, age over 50, low income, rural residence, farmer, and presence of chronic disease.

Results: A total of 57,279 patients consulted GPs during the inclusion period and 2711 (4.73%) were included in the targeted screening. Populations at risk of advanced melanoma were less included: men (OR = 0.67; 95%CI [0.61–0.73]; p < 0.001), older than 50 (OR = 0.67; 95%CI [0.60–0.74]; p < 0.001), low income (OR = 0.65; 95%CI [0.55–0.77]; p < 0.001), farmer (OR = 0.23; 95%CI [0.17–0.30]; p < 0.001) and presence of a chronic disease (OR = 0.87; 95%CI [0.77–0.98]; p < 0.028).

Conclusion: This study demonstrated inequalities in the inclusion of patients in a melanoma screening. Patients at risk of advanced cancer were screened less often. Further studies should focus on GPs ability to identify and screen these patients.

Key points: Advanced melanoma is more frequently diagnosed in men, older patients and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations, which leads to survival inequalities.

Key points: • Despite the involvement of general practitioners, the implementation of targeted melanoma screening did not avoid inclusion inequalities.

Key points: • Men, older patients, patients suffering from chronic diseases, and low-income patients were less likely to benefit from screening.

Key points: • The display of a conventional or an alarmist poster in the waiting room did not statistically reduce these inclusion inequalities.

Key points: • The display of a conventional or an alarmist poster in the waiting room did not statistically reduce these inclusion inequalities.

No MeSH data available.


Conventional versus alarmist posters randomly displayed in the GP waiting rooms.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC5036019&req=5

Figure 0002: Conventional versus alarmist posters randomly displayed in the GP waiting rooms.

Mentions: Two different posters were randomly provided to GPs (Figure 2). The size of both posters was 110 cm ×150 cm. The alarmist poster showed a large picture of a patient’s back with a melanoma, a picture in a medallion of the body of a patient with metastases, and the following sentences “More than 1700 French citizens die of melanoma every year. However, when melanoma is diagnosed early, this cancer can be cured without complications. Diagnosis is necessary! Participate in the COPARIME study!” The conventional poster showed the smiling faces of four patients and the following sentences: “Naevus or melanoma, how to make the difference? Learn how to perform a skin examination and when to consult a doctor.”


Inclusion of populations at risk of advanced melanoma in an opportunistic targeted screening project involving general practitioners
Conventional versus alarmist posters randomly displayed in the GP waiting rooms.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC5036019&req=5

Figure 0002: Conventional versus alarmist posters randomly displayed in the GP waiting rooms.
Mentions: Two different posters were randomly provided to GPs (Figure 2). The size of both posters was 110 cm ×150 cm. The alarmist poster showed a large picture of a patient’s back with a melanoma, a picture in a medallion of the body of a patient with metastases, and the following sentences “More than 1700 French citizens die of melanoma every year. However, when melanoma is diagnosed early, this cancer can be cured without complications. Diagnosis is necessary! Participate in the COPARIME study!” The conventional poster showed the smiling faces of four patients and the following sentences: “Naevus or melanoma, how to make the difference? Learn how to perform a skin examination and when to consult a doctor.”

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

ABSTRACT

Objective: The study objective was to measure the rates of inclusion of populations at risk of advanced melanoma in a pilot targeted screening project involving general practitioners.

Design: This cross-sectional database study compared the inclusion rates of patients who signed inclusion in a targeted screening project with those of patients who did not, during a period in which both groups of patients consulted investigators.

Setting: Data were extracted from the national healthcare insurance records in western France from 11 April to 30 October 2011.

Patients: Patients, older than 18, considered for the data extraction had consulted one of the 78 participating GPs during the study period, and were affiliated with the national healthcare insurance.

Main outcome measures: Inclusion in the screening was the main outcome measure. Patients at risk of advanced melanoma were characterized by male gender, age over 50, low income, rural residence, farmer, and presence of chronic disease.

Results: A total of 57,279 patients consulted GPs during the inclusion period and 2711 (4.73%) were included in the targeted screening. Populations at risk of advanced melanoma were less included: men (OR = 0.67; 95%CI [0.61–0.73]; p < 0.001), older than 50 (OR = 0.67; 95%CI [0.60–0.74]; p < 0.001), low income (OR = 0.65; 95%CI [0.55–0.77]; p < 0.001), farmer (OR = 0.23; 95%CI [0.17–0.30]; p < 0.001) and presence of a chronic disease (OR = 0.87; 95%CI [0.77–0.98]; p < 0.028).

Conclusion: This study demonstrated inequalities in the inclusion of patients in a melanoma screening. Patients at risk of advanced cancer were screened less often. Further studies should focus on GPs ability to identify and screen these patients.

Key points: Advanced melanoma is more frequently diagnosed in men, older patients and socioeconomically disadvantaged populations, which leads to survival inequalities.

Key points: • Despite the involvement of general practitioners, the implementation of targeted melanoma screening did not avoid inclusion inequalities.

Key points: • Men, older patients, patients suffering from chronic diseases, and low-income patients were less likely to benefit from screening.

Key points: • The display of a conventional or an alarmist poster in the waiting room did not statistically reduce these inclusion inequalities.

Key points: • The display of a conventional or an alarmist poster in the waiting room did not statistically reduce these inclusion inequalities.

No MeSH data available.