Literature DB >> 15230935

Adoption of liquid-based cervical cancer screening tests by family physicians and gynecologists.

Karen M Rappaport1, Christopher B Forrest, Neil A Holtzman.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To examine reasons for the adoption of liquid-based cervical cancer screening tests. DATA SOURCES/STUDY
SETTING: A mailed survey of 250 family physicians and 250 gynecologists in Maryland in 2000. Additional data were obtained from the AMA Master File of Physicians. STUDY
DESIGN: Key outcome variables in this cross-sectional survey were early adoption of a liquid-based test by the end of 1997 and overall adoption by the time of the survey. Adoption was viewed in terms of a supply and demand theoretical framework with marketing influencing physician and patient demand as well as supply by insurance companies and laboratories. DATA COLLECTION: Random samples of family physicians and gynecologists were selected from the AMA Master File of Physicians. The overall response rate was 61.9 percent. PRINCIPAL
FINDINGS: By 2000, 96 percent of gynecologists and 75 percent of family physicians in Maryland were using liquid-based cervical cancer screening tests, most commonly the ThinPrep Pap Test. Gynecologists were more likely than family physicians to have been early adopters (34 percent versus 5 percent, p<.01). Part of this variation in adoption was due to aggressive marketing to gynecologists, who were more likely than family physicians to receive information in the mail from the test manufacturer (89 percent versus 56 percent, p<.01) and to have been informed by the manufacturer that a patient had inquired about physicians' use of the test (22 percent versus 8 percent, p<.01).
CONCLUSIONS: The rapid diffusion of liquid-based cervical cancer screening tests occurred despite general agreement that the Pap smear has been one of the most successful cancer prevention interventions ever. Commercial marketing campaigns appear to contribute to the more rapid rate of diffusion of technology among specialists compared with generalists.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15230935      PMCID: PMC1361045          DOI: 10.1111/j.1475-6773.2004.00265.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Health Serv Res        ISSN: 0017-9124            Impact factor:   3.402


  17 in total

Review 1.  Knowledge, patterns of care, and outcomes of care for generalists and specialists.

Authors:  L R Harrold; T S Field; J H Gurwitz
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1999-08       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 2.  Direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising: trends, impact, and implications.

Authors:  M S Wilkes; R A Bell; R L Kravitz
Journal:  Health Aff (Millwood)       Date:  2000 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 6.301

3.  What's the relative risk? A method of correcting the odds ratio in cohort studies of common outcomes.

Authors:  J Zhang; K F Yu
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1998-11-18       Impact factor: 56.272

Review 4.  Screening for cervical cancer.

Authors:  D M Eddy
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  1990-08-01       Impact factor: 25.391

5.  Direct-to-consumer prescription drug advertising and the public.

Authors:  R A Bell; R L Kravitz; M S Wilkes
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  1999-11       Impact factor: 5.128

6.  Innovation in high risk drug therapy.

Authors:  M Y Peay; E R Peay
Journal:  Soc Sci Med       Date:  1994-07       Impact factor: 4.634

7.  Prostate-specific antigen for prostate cancer screening. Do physician characteristics affect its use?

Authors:  K L Edlefsen; M T Mandelson; M W McIntosh; M R Andersen; E H Wagner; N Urban
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  1999-07       Impact factor: 5.043

8.  Cultural and economic factors that (mis)shape antibiotic use: the nonpharmacologic basis of therapeutics.

Authors:  J Avorn; D H Solomon
Journal:  Ann Intern Med       Date:  2000-07-18       Impact factor: 25.391

9.  Prostate cancer screening--a physician survey in Missouri.

Authors:  D A Lawson; E J Simoes; D Sharp; T Murayi; R Hagan; R C Brownson; J Wilkerson
Journal:  J Community Health       Date:  1998-10

10.  Cost-effectiveness of 3 methods to enhance the sensitivity of Papanicolaou testing.

Authors:  A D Brown; A M Garber
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  1999-01-27       Impact factor: 56.272

View more
  5 in total

1.  Association between physician specialty and uptake of new medical technologies: HPV tests in Florida Medicaid.

Authors:  Rebecca Anhang Price
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2010-06-26       Impact factor: 5.128

Review 2.  Primary HPV screening for cervical cancer prevention: results from European trials.

Authors:  Elsebeth Lynge; Matejka Rebolj
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2009-11-10       Impact factor: 66.675

3.  Surveillance for hepatocellular carcinoma in a Medicaid cirrhotic population.

Authors:  Lena B Palmer; Michael D Kappelman; Robert S Sandler; Paul H Hayashi
Journal:  J Clin Gastroenterol       Date:  2013-09       Impact factor: 3.062

4.  The timing of introduction of pharmaceutical innovations in seven European countries.

Authors:  Ragnar Westerling; Marcus Westin; Martin McKee; Rasmus Hoffmann; Iris Plug; Grégoire Rey; Eric Jougla; Katrin Lang; Kersti Pärna; José L Alfonso; Johan P Mackenbach
Journal:  J Eval Clin Pract       Date:  2014-04-22       Impact factor: 2.431

5.  Field sales force model to increase adoption of a novel tuberculosis diagnostic test among private providers: evidence from India.

Authors:  Sarang Deo; Pankaj Jindal; Manisha Sabharwal; Aparna Parulkar; Ritu Singh; Rigveda Kadam; Harkesh Dabas; Puneet Dewan
Journal:  BMJ Glob Health       Date:  2020-12
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.