Fields, Heather E

Background: Understanding the accuracy of a woman's perceived breast cancer risk can enhance shared decision-making about breast cancer screening through provider and patient discussion. We aim to report and compare women's perceived lifetime breast cancer risk to calculated lifetime breast cancer risk. Methods: Women presenting to Mayo Clinic in Arizona and Minnesota in July 2016 completed a survey assessing their perceived breast cancer risk. Lifetime Gail risk scores were calculated from questions pertaining to health history and were then compared with perceived breast cancer risk. Results: A total of 550 predominantly white, married, and well-educated (≥college) women completed surveys. Using lifetime Gail risk scores, 5.6% were classified as high risk (>20% lifetime risk), 7.7% were classified as intermediate risk (15%–20%), and 86.6% were classified as average risk (<15%). Of the 27 women who were classified as high risk, 18 (66.7%) underestimated their risk and of the 37 women who were intermediate risk, 12 (32.4%) underestimated risk. Women more likely to underestimate their risk had a reported history of an abnormal mammogram and at least one or more relative with a history of breast cancer. Surveyed women tended to overestimate risk 4.3 (130/30) times as often as they underestimated risk. Conclusion: In a group of predominantly white, educated, and married cohort of women, there was a large portion of women in the elevated risk groups who underestimated risk. Specific aspects of medical history were associated with underestimation including a history of abnormal mammogram and family history of breast cancer. Overall, in our sample, more women overestimated than underestimated risk.

The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommend human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) screening for all persons aged 13 to 64 years who present to a health care provider. We sought to improve adherence to the CDC guidelines on the Internal Medicine Resident Hospital Service. We surveyed residents about the CDC guidelines, sent email reminders, provided education, and engaged them in friendly competition. Credit for guideline adherence was awarded if an offer of HIV screening was documented at admission, if a screening test was performed, or if a notation in the resident sign out sheet indicated why screening was not performed. We examined HIV screening of a postintervention group of patients admitted between August 8, 2012, and June 30, 2013, and compared them to a preintervention group admitted between August 1, 2011, and June 30, 2012. Postintervention offers of HIV screening increased significantly (7.9% [44/559] vs 55.5% [300/541]; P<.001), as did documentation of residents' contemplation of screening (8.9% [50/559] vs 67.5% [365/541]; P<.001). A significantly higher proportion of HIV screening tests was ordered postintervention (7.7% [43/559] vs 44.4% [240/541]; P<.001). Monthly HIV screening documentation ranged from 0% (0/53) to 17% (9/53) preintervention, whereas it ranged from 30.6% (11/36) to 100% (62/62) postintervention. HIV screening adherence can be improved through resident education, friendly competition, and system reminders. Barriers to achieving sustained adherence to the CDC guidelines include a heterogeneous patient population and provider discomfort with the subject.