Literature DB >> 24633168

Adherence to cervical cancer screening guidelines by gynecologists in the Pacific Northwest.

Lauren Verrilli1, Rachel L Winer, Constance Mao.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: In 2012, US organizations released updated cervical cancer screening guidelines calling for less frequent screening. We surveyed practicing gynecologists in the Pacific Northwest region to understand their screening practices, gauge their uptake of the new guidelines, and identify reasons why they may not follow the new guidelines.
MATERIAL AND METHODS: Gynecologists from Washington, Oregon, Montana, and Idaho were sent an online survey on behalf of their state's medical association. The survey consisted of 9 questions on sex, practice setting, community size, cervical cancer screening practices, and reasons for not following the 2012 guidelines.
RESULTS: Of 947 gynecologists, 123 (13.0%) completed the survey. Sixty-four respondents (52.0%) reported that they follow or plan to follow the new guidelines. Reasons cited for not following the new guidelines included concern over missed opportunities for women's health education (43 respondents or 72.9%), patients wanting more frequent screening (39 respondents or 66.1%), and concern about missing dysplasia or cancerous lesions (28 respondents or 47.5%). Although the new guidelines call for a 3-year interval between routine Pap tests or a 5-year interval between routine Pap/human papillomavirus cotests, 75 gynecologist respondents (61.0%) still recommended annual or biannual Pap screening for patients younger than 30 years, and 55 respondents (67.9%) recommended rescreening within 3 years for women 30 years and older with negative cotest results.
CONCLUSIONS: While over half of the gynecologist survey respondents reported adherence or planned adherence to the 2012 guidelines, over half also reported using screening schedules that are more frequent than recommended by new guidelines. Concerns highlighted by survey participants provide an opportunity for physician and patient education on the evidence supporting the new guidelines.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24633168     DOI: 10.1097/LGT.0000000000000008

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Low Genit Tract Dis        ISSN: 1089-2591            Impact factor:   1.925


  8 in total

1.  Closing the cervical cancer disparity gap.

Authors:  Patricia J Kelly; Megha Ramaswamy
Journal:  Public Health Nurs       Date:  2017-05       Impact factor: 1.462

2.  Improving Knowledge and Awareness of Human Papillomavirus-Associated Gynecologic Cancers: Results from the National Comprehensive Cancer Control Program/Inside Knowledge Collaboration.

Authors:  Julie S Townsend; Mary Puckett; Cynthia A Gelb; Martin Whiteside; Julia Thorsness; Sherri L Stewart
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2018-08       Impact factor: 2.681

3.  Cervical Cancer Screening Intervals Preferred by U.S. Women.

Authors:  Crystale Purvis Cooper; Mona Saraiya
Journal:  Am J Prev Med       Date:  2018-07-20       Impact factor: 5.043

4.  Provider beliefs associated with cervical cancer screening interval recommendations: A pilot study in Federally Qualified Health Centers.

Authors:  Katherine B Roland; April Greek; Nikki A Hawkins; Lavinia Lin; Vicki B Benard
Journal:  Prev Med Rep       Date:  2015

5.  Impact of Patient Reminders on Papanicolaou Test Completion for High-Risk Patients Identified by a Clinical Decision Support System.

Authors:  Kathy L MacLaughlin; Maya E Kessler; Ravikumar Komandur Elayavilli; Branden C Hickey; Marianne R Scheitel; Kavishwar B Wagholikar; Hongfang Liu; Walter K Kremers; Rajeev Chaudhry
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2018-01-03       Impact factor: 2.681

6.  Overuse of Cervical Cancer Screening Tests Among Women With Average Risk in the United States From 2013 to 2014.

Authors:  Jason D Wright; Ling Chen; Ana I Tergas; Alexander Melamed; Caryn M St Clair; June Y Hou; Fady Khoury-Collado; Allison Gockley; Melissa Accordino; Dawn L Hershman
Journal:  JAMA Netw Open       Date:  2021-04-01

7.  Communication practices about HPV testing among providers in Federally Qualified Health Centers.

Authors:  Lavinia Lin; Vicki B Benard; April Greek; Katherine B Roland; Nikki A Hawkins; Mona Saraiya
Journal:  Prev Med Rep       Date:  2015

8.  The Clinical and Economic Benefits of Co-Testing Versus Primary HPV Testing for Cervical Cancer Screening: A Modeling Analysis.

Authors:  Juan C Felix; Michael J Lacey; Jeffrey D Miller; Gregory M Lenhart; Mark Spitzer; Rucha Kulkarni
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2016-03-29       Impact factor: 2.681

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.