Cited by 14Cutaneous Melanoma Detection and ManagementGlobal Cancer Incidence and ScreeningPatient-Provider Communication in Healthcare

Patients at elevated risk of melanoma: Individual predictors of non-compliance to GP referral for a dermatologist consultation

Rat, Cédric, Quereux, Gaelle, Monegier du Sorbier, Marine, Gaultier, Aurélie, Bonnaud-Antignac, Angélique, Khammari, Amir, Dreno, Brigitte, Nguyen, Jean Michel·2014·Preventive Medicine

Abstract

Objective The aim of this study is to assess whether patients at elevated risk of melanoma attended a dermatologist consultation after a General Practitioner referral and to determine individual predictors of non-compliance.Method This survey included 1506 high-risk French patients (selected using the Self-Assessment Melanoma Risk Score) referred to a dermatologist between April and October 2011. Compliance was evaluated from January to April 2012, based on attendance at a dermatologist consultation (or scheduling an appointment). Demographic data and factors mapping the Health Belief Model were tested as correlates using a multivariate logistic regression.Results Compliance with referral was 58.4%. The top seven factors associated with non-compliance were as follows: GP advice to consult was unclear (OR=13.22; [7.66-23.56]); no previous participation in cancer screenings, including smear tests (OR=5.03; [2.23-11.83]) and prostate screening (OR=2.04; [1.06-3.97]); lack of knowledge that melanoma was a type of cancer (OR=1.94; [1.29-2.92]); and reporting no time to make an appointment (OR=2.08; [1.82-2.38]), forgetting to make an appointment (OR=1.26; [1.08-1.46]), long delays in accessing an appointment (OR=1.25; [1.12-1.41]), not being afraid of detecting something abnormal (OR=1.54; [1.35-1.78]), no need to consult a dermatologist to feel secure (OR=1.28; [1.09-1.51]).Conclusion Physicians should be aware of the factors predicting patient compliance with referrals for dermatologist consultations; better General Practitioner counseling might enhance compliance in high-risk populations.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ypmed.2014.03.029

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rat, C., Quereux, G., Monegier du Sorbier, M., Gaultier, A., Bonnaud-Antignac, A., Khammari, A., Dreno, B., & Nguyen, J. M.
Affiliations
  • Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Nantes (FR)
  • Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique (FR)
Corresponding author
Rat, Cédric
Venue
Preventive Medicine
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2014-07
Volume
64
Pages
48-53
ISSN
0091-7435 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2057759812
Cited by
14
References
34
Citations by year
2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 3 · 2015: 3
FWCI
0.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Preventive Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • French National Institute of Health and Medical Research
  • French Institute for Public Health Research
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cutaneous Melanoma Detection and Management
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Global Cancer Incidence and Screening
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Patient-Provider Communication in Healthcare
Keywords
melanoma, high-risk patients, referral compliance, dermatology consultation, general practitioner referral, Health Belief Model, cancer screening participation
MeSH terms
Adult, Counseling, Dermatology, Educational Status, Female, France, Humans, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Male, Melanoma, Middle Aged, Occupations, Patient Compliance, Physician-Patient Relations, Practice Patterns, Physicians', Pilot Projects, Referral and Consultation, Time Factors, Risk Assessment, Early Detection of Cancer, General Practitioners

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review