Literature DB >> 24380500

Differences among primary care physicians' adherence to 2009 ACOG guidelines for cervical cancer screening.

Jennifer Corbelli1, Sonya Borrero, Rachel Bonnema, Megan McNamara, Kevin Kraemer, Doris Rubio, Irina Karpov, Melissa McNeil.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: In 2009, the American Congress of Obstetrics and Gynecology (ACOG) guidelines for cervical cancer screening changed significantly, to recommend less frequent screening than prior guidelines. The extent to which physicians in different specialties implemented these guidelines in the years following publication is unknown.
METHODS: Cross-sectional survey completed by 316 physicians in internal medicine, family medicine, and gynecology. Survey items assessed respondents' cervical cancer screening practices in women of different ages and medical histories. We used descriptive statistics to generate response distribution for survey items, and logistic regression models to compare responses among specialties.
RESULTS: Our response rate was 55% (316/575). Thirty-four percent of respondents' screening practices were inconsistent with ACOG guidelines for women under age 21, and 49% were inconsistent with guidelines for women over age 30. Internists (50%) were less likely than family medicine (89%, p<0.001) and gynecology (80%, p=0.02) physicians to delay pap testing until age 21. Internists (41%) were less likely than both family medicine (60%, p=0.009) and gynecology (68%, p=0.03) physicians to follow guidelines for women over age 30 (p=0.003). Overall 22% percent of physicians followed guidelines for women ages 21-29 years, with no significant differences between specialties. Differences remained significant in multivariable models.
CONCLUSIONS: Despite consensus among national organizations as to optimal regimens for cervical cancer screening, a significant proportion of providers, especially in internal medicine, do not adhere to ACOG's 2009 guidelines. The lack of comprehensive guideline implementation suggests that adherence to new 2012 guidelines, which advocate for less frequent screening, will likely be suboptimal and discrepant by specialty.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 24380500     DOI: 10.1089/jwh.2013.4475

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)        ISSN: 1540-9996            Impact factor:   2.681


  12 in total

1.  Examining Changes in Prevention Guidelines in Maternal and Child Health: Development of a Teaching Activity.

Authors:  Erika L Thompson; Cheryl A Vamos; Amber Windsor-Hardy; Stacey B Griner; Ellen M Daley
Journal:  Matern Child Health J       Date:  2018-09

2.  Provider Attitudes and Screening Practices Following Changes in Breast and Cervical Cancer Screening Guidelines.

Authors:  Jennifer S Haas; Brian L Sprague; Carrie N Klabunde; Anna N A Tosteson; Jane S Chen; Asaf Bitton; Elisabeth F Beaber; Tracy Onega; Jane J Kim; Charles D MacLean; Kimberly Harris; Phillip Yamartino; Kathleen Howe; Loretta Pearson; Sarah Feldman; Phyllis Brawarsky; Marilyn M Schapira
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 5.128

3.  Mammography Screening Practices in Average-Risk Women Aged 40-49 Years in Primary Care: A Comparison of Physician and Nonphysician Providers in Minnesota.

Authors:  Katherine Martin; Rachel I Vogel; Rebekah H Nagler; Jean F Wyman; Nancy Raymond; Deanna Teoh; Alicia M Allen; Kristine M C Talley; Susan Mason; Anne H Blaes
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2019-07-16       Impact factor: 2.681

Review 4.  Cervical Cancer Screening.

Authors:  George F Sawaya; Megan J Huchko
Journal:  Med Clin North Am       Date:  2017-04-21       Impact factor: 5.456

5.  Are uninsured women in a national screening program having longer intervals between cervical cancer screening tests?

Authors:  Shelton J Bartley; Vicki Benard; Eric Tai; Tanner Rockwell; Kristy Kenney; Lisa C Richardson
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2020-04-01       Impact factor: 4.018

6.  Primary HPV testing recommendations of US providers, 2015.

Authors:  Crystale Purvis Cooper; Mona Saraiya
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2017-12       Impact factor: 4.018

7.  Cancer Prevention in Primary Care: Perception of Importance, Recognition of Risk Factors and Prescribing Behaviors.

Authors:  Goli Samimi; Brandy M Heckman-Stoddard; Christine Holmberg; Bethany Tennant; Bonny Bloodgood Sheppard; Kisha I Coa; Shelley S Kay; Leslie G Ford; Eva Szabo; Lori M Minasian
Journal:  Am J Med       Date:  2019-12-17       Impact factor: 4.965

8.  Comparative effectiveness of two outreach strategies for cervical cancer screening.

Authors:  Erin J Aiello Bowles; Hongyuan Gao; Susan Brandzel; Susan Carol Bradford; Diana S M Buist
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2016-01-25       Impact factor: 4.018

9.  Effect of an Electronic Health Record Decision Support Alert to Decrease Excess Cervical Cancer Screening.

Authors:  Deanna Teoh; Rachel I Vogel; Adam Langer; Jinai Bharucha; Melissa A Geller; Eileen Harwood; Shalini Kulasingam; Genevieve B Melton
Journal:  J Low Genit Tract Dis       Date:  2019-10       Impact factor: 3.842

10.  Granular Quality Reporting for Cervical Cytology Testing.

Authors:  Kavishwar B Wagholikar; Kathy L MacLaughlin; Christopher G Chute; Robert A Greenes; Hongfang Liu; Rajeev Chaudhry
Journal:  AMIA Jt Summits Transl Sci Proc       Date:  2015-03-25
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.