Individual prostate cancer screening: Practice survey with general practitioner of Lubumbashi, Democratic Republic of Congo

P. Mbey, D. Moningo, Augustin Kibonge Mukala, Patrick Zihalirwa Ciza, Igor Mujinga Wa Mujinga, M. Ilunga, Gabriel Waratch Unen Wakunga, O. Mukuku, W. Arung
{"title":"Individual prostate cancer screening: Practice survey with general practitioner of Lubumbashi, Democratic Republic of Congo","authors":"P. Mbey, D. Moningo, Augustin Kibonge Mukala, Patrick Zihalirwa Ciza, Igor Mujinga Wa Mujinga, M. Ilunga, Gabriel Waratch Unen Wakunga, O. Mukuku, W. Arung","doi":"10.25082/CCR.2021.01.004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: To analyze the practices of general practitioners (GPs) in terms of recommendations on individual screening for prostate cancer (PCa). Methods: An anonymous cross-sectional survey using a pre-established questionnaire was conducted among 193 GPs in the city of Lubumbashi from May 1st to July 31st, 2020. The questionnaire included three parts: identity criteria of GPs, screening practice and the opinion of GPs on the recommendations. Results: The participation rate was 79%. Eighty-two-point nine percent of respondents said they offered screening for PCa; 42.5% of them said they offered this screening to all men within a certain age limit, ranging between 50 to 75 years in 38.8% of the cases. Only 12.5% of GPs provided complete prior information to their patients. Thirty-six-point three percent of GPs reported combining digital rectal examination with total PSA testing, but in the presence of an abnormality, 60.6% reported that they referred their patients directly to the urologist without ordering other additional investigations (first or second line). Finally, 32.7% of GPs found that the recommendations disseminated were appropriate for their practice. Conclusion: Individual screening for PCa is widely proposed; but there are differences between the practices reported by GPs and official recommendations of learned societies. Our study highlights the need to popularize the recommendations of learned societies to GPs.","PeriodicalId":72728,"journal":{"name":"Current cancer reports","volume":"1 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current cancer reports","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.25082/CCR.2021.01.004","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: To analyze the practices of general practitioners (GPs) in terms of recommendations on individual screening for prostate cancer (PCa). Methods: An anonymous cross-sectional survey using a pre-established questionnaire was conducted among 193 GPs in the city of Lubumbashi from May 1st to July 31st, 2020. The questionnaire included three parts: identity criteria of GPs, screening practice and the opinion of GPs on the recommendations. Results: The participation rate was 79%. Eighty-two-point nine percent of respondents said they offered screening for PCa; 42.5% of them said they offered this screening to all men within a certain age limit, ranging between 50 to 75 years in 38.8% of the cases. Only 12.5% of GPs provided complete prior information to their patients. Thirty-six-point three percent of GPs reported combining digital rectal examination with total PSA testing, but in the presence of an abnormality, 60.6% reported that they referred their patients directly to the urologist without ordering other additional investigations (first or second line). Finally, 32.7% of GPs found that the recommendations disseminated were appropriate for their practice. Conclusion: Individual screening for PCa is widely proposed; but there are differences between the practices reported by GPs and official recommendations of learned societies. Our study highlights the need to popularize the recommendations of learned societies to GPs.
个人前列腺癌筛查:对刚果民主共和国卢本巴希全科医生的实践调查
目的:分析全科医生推荐前列腺癌个体筛查的做法。方法:于2020年5月1日至7月31日对卢本巴希市193名全科医生进行匿名横断面调查。问卷包括三个部分:全科医生的识别标准、筛查实践和全科医生对建议的意见。结果:参评率为79%。82%的受访者表示,他们提供前列腺癌筛查;其中42.5%的人表示,他们向所有年龄在一定范围内的男性提供这种筛查,其中38.8%的病例年龄在50至75岁之间。只有12.5%的全科医生向患者提供完整的先验信息。36.3%的全科医生报告将直肠指检与总PSA检测相结合,但在存在异常的情况下,60.6%的全科医生报告说,他们将患者直接转介给泌尿科医生,而没有要求其他额外的检查(一线或二线)。最后,32.7%的全科医生认为传播的建议适合他们的实践。结论:前列腺癌的个体筛查被广泛提倡;但全科医生报告的做法与学术团体的官方建议之间存在差异。我们的研究强调了向全科医生推广学术团体的建议的必要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信