Lifestyle interventions for cancer prevention in primary care: Differences between family physicians and nursing professionals

Rationale, aims, and objectives Prevention offers the most cost‐effective long‐term strategy for cancer control. The objective of this study was to ascertain opinions, attitudes, and professional practices towards cancer prevention among primary care professionals and to assess differences between family physicians (FP) and nursing professionals (NP). Method A cross‐sectional study was performed in 2012 in the Community of Madrid. A random sample of 3586 professionals received an online questionnaire about opinions/attitudes, training, and interventions in cancer prevention. The chi‐square test was used to analyse the association of the profession with all the variables. Factors associated with the usual practice of individual, group, and community interventions were analysed using multivariate logistic regression, with separate models for FP and NP. Results The response rate was 39.4% (N = 1413). Approximately 90% of the participants attributed “sufficient/high” utility to individualized counselling. NP attributed higher utility to group and community interventions than FP (70.1% vs 60.1% and 64.9% vs 57.7%, respectively, P ‐value < 0.01). The usual practice of group and community interventions was more frequent among NP. The practice of group and community interventions was associated with knowledge of resources for prevention, specific training in group interventions, and the utility attributed to these methods. Among FP, the ability to dispense effective health advice and the utility attributed to this advice were associated with the usual practice of the three interventions. Conclusions Group and community interventions are rarely practised, especially among FP. Actions targeting improved ability and knowledge could lead to higher involvement in the promotion of health. It would also be necessary to intervene in the examination of the utility of such interventions.