Literature DB >> 19884621

Specialty differences in primary care physician reports of papanicolaou test screening practices: a national survey, 2006 to 2007.

K Robin Yabroff1, Mona Saraiya, Helen I Meissner, David A Haggstrom, Louise Wideroff, Gigi Yuan, Zahava Berkowitz, William W Davis, Vicki B Benard, Steven S Coughlin.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Cervical cancer screening guidelines were substantially revised in 2002 and 2003. Little information is available about primary care physicians' current Papanicolaou (Pap) test screening practices, including initiation, frequency, and stopping.
OBJECTIVE: To assess current Pap test screening practices in the United States.
DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey.
SETTING: Nationally representative sample of physicians during 2006 to 2007. PARTICIPANTS: 1212 primary care physicians. MEASUREMENTS: The survey included questions about physician and practice characteristics and recommendations for Pap screening presented as clinical vignettes describing women by age and by sexual and screening histories. A composite measure-guideline-consistent recommendations-was created by using responses to vignettes in which major guidelines were uniform.
RESULTS: Most physicians reported providing Pap tests to their eligible patients (91.0% [95% CI, 89.0% to 92.6%]). Among Pap test providers (n = 1114), screening practices, including number of tests ordered or performed, use of patient reminder systems, and cytology method used, varied by physician specialty (P < 0.001). Although most Pap test providers reported that screening guidelines were very influential in their clinical practice, few had guideline-consistent recommendations for starting and stopping Pap screening across multiple vignettes (22.3% [CI, 19.9% to 25.0%]). Guideline-consistent recommendations varied by specialty (obstetrics/gynecology, 16.4%; internal medicine, 27.5%; and family or general practice, 21.1%). Compared with obstetricians/gynecologists, internal medicine specialists and family or general practice specialists were more likely to have guideline-consistent screening recommendations (odds ratio, 1.98 [CI, 1.22 to 3.23] and 1.45 [CI, 0.99 to 2.13], respectively) in multivariate analysis. LIMITATION: Physician self-report may reflect idealized rather than actual practice.
CONCLUSION: Primary care physicians' recommendations for Pap test screening are not consistent with screening guidelines, reflecting overuse of screening. Implementation of effective interventions that focus on potentially modifiable physician and practice factors is needed to improve screening practice. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: National Cancer Institute, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19884621     DOI: 10.7326/0003-4819-151-9-200911030-00005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Intern Med        ISSN: 0003-4819            Impact factor:   25.391


  42 in total

1.  Use of electronic health record data to evaluate overuse of cervical cancer screening.

Authors:  Jason S Mathias; Dana Gossett; David W Baker
Journal:  J Am Med Inform Assoc       Date:  2012-01-19       Impact factor: 4.497

2.  Screening: HPV testing for cervical cancer: the good, the bad, and the ugly.

Authors:  Philip E Castle
Journal:  Nat Rev Clin Oncol       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 66.675

3.  Low awareness of and referral to National Cancer Information Resources among physicians.

Authors:  Lila Finney Rutten; Kia Davis; Linda Squiers; Kelly D Blake
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2010-06-25       Impact factor: 13.506

Review 4.  Human papillomavirus and cervical cancer: biomarkers for improved prevention efforts.

Authors:  Vikrant V Sahasrabuddhe; Patricia Luhn; Nicolas Wentzensen
Journal:  Future Microbiol       Date:  2011-09       Impact factor: 3.165

5.  Performance of implementing guideline-driven cervical cancer screening measures in an inner-city hospital system.

Authors:  Daryl L Wieland; Laura L Reimers; Eijean Wu; Lisa M Nathan; Tammy Gruenberg; Maria Abadi; Mark H Einstein
Journal:  J Low Genit Tract Dis       Date:  2011-10       Impact factor: 1.925

6.  Overview of the CDC Cervical Cancer (Cx3) Study: an educational intervention of HPV testing for cervical cancer screening.

Authors:  Vicki B Benard; Mona Saraiya; April Greek; Nikki A Hawkins; Katherine B Roland; Diane Manninen; Donatus U Ekwueme; Jacqueline W Miller; Elizabeth R Unger
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2013-12-31       Impact factor: 2.681

7.  Sexual orientation disparities in Papanicolaou test use among US women: the role of sexual and reproductive health services.

Authors:  Madina Agénor; Nancy Krieger; S Bryn Austin; Sebastien Haneuse; Barbara R Gottlieb
Journal:  Am J Public Health       Date:  2013-12-12       Impact factor: 9.308

8.  Patient knowledge and beliefs as barriers to extending cervical cancer screening intervals in Federally Qualified Health Centers.

Authors:  Nikki A Hawkins; Vicki B Benard; April Greek; Katherine B Roland; Diane Manninen; Mona Saraiya
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2013-09-05       Impact factor: 4.018

9.  Cervical carcinoma rates among young females in the United States.

Authors:  Vicki B Benard; Meg Watson; Philip E Castle; Mona Saraiya
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2012-11       Impact factor: 7.661

10.  Type-specific HPV and Pap test results among low-income, underserved women: providing insights into management strategies.

Authors:  Mona Saraiya; Vicki B Benard; April A Greek; Martin Steinau; Sonya Patel; L Stewart Massad; George F Sawaya; Elizabeth R Unger
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2014-05-06       Impact factor: 8.661

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.