Crystale Purvis Cooper1, Mona Saraiya2, George F Sawaya3. 1. Soltera Center for Cancer Prevention and Control, Tucson, Arizona. 2. Division of Cancer Prevention and Control, National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, CDC, Atlanta, Georgia. Electronic address: yzs2@cdc.gov. 3. Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, Epidemiology and Biostatistics, University of California, San Francisco, California.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Current U.S. cervical cancer screening guidelines recommend a 3- or 5-year screening interval depending on age and screening modality. However, many women continue to be screened annually. The purpose of this study is to investigate U.S. women's self-reported frequency of cervical cancer screening, acceptance of an extended screening interval (once every 3-5 years), and preferred screening options. METHODS: Data from a 2012 web-based survey of U.S. women aged ≥18 years who had not undergone a hysterectomy or been diagnosed with cervical cancer (N=1,380) were analyzed in 2014. Logistic regression models of extended screening interval use, acceptance, and preference were developed. RESULTS: Annual Pap testing was the most widely used (48.5%), accepted (61.0%), and preferred (51.1%) screening option. More than one third of respondents (34.4%) indicated that an extended screening interval would be acceptable, but only 6.3% reported that they were currently screened on an extended interval. Women who preferred an extended screening interval (32.9% of those willing to accept regular screening) were more likely to report no primary care visits during the last 12 months (AOR=2.05, p<0.003), no history of abnormal Pap test results (AOR=1.71, p=0.013), and that their last Pap test was performed by an internist/family practitioner rather than an obstetrician-gynecologist (AOR=2.03, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: U.S. women's acceptance of and preference for an extended cervical cancer screening interval appears to be more widespread than utilization. Strategies to educate women about the reasoning behind recommendations for less-than-annual testing and to foster informed preferences should be devised and evaluated. Published by Elsevier Inc.
INTRODUCTION: Current U.S. cervical cancer screening guidelines recommend a 3- or 5-year screening interval depending on age and screening modality. However, many women continue to be screened annually. The purpose of this study is to investigate U.S. women's self-reported frequency of cervical cancer screening, acceptance of an extended screening interval (once every 3-5 years), and preferred screening options. METHODS: Data from a 2012 web-based survey of U.S. women aged ≥18 years who had not undergone a hysterectomy or been diagnosed with cervical cancer (N=1,380) were analyzed in 2014. Logistic regression models of extended screening interval use, acceptance, and preference were developed. RESULTS: Annual Pap testing was the most widely used (48.5%), accepted (61.0%), and preferred (51.1%) screening option. More than one third of respondents (34.4%) indicated that an extended screening interval would be acceptable, but only 6.3% reported that they were currently screened on an extended interval. Women who preferred an extended screening interval (32.9% of those willing to accept regular screening) were more likely to report no primary care visits during the last 12 months (AOR=2.05, p<0.003), no history of abnormal Pap test results (AOR=1.71, p=0.013), and that their last Pap test was performed by an internist/family practitioner rather than an obstetrician-gynecologist (AOR=2.03, p<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: U.S. women's acceptance of and preference for an extended cervical cancer screening interval appears to be more widespread than utilization. Strategies to educate women about the reasoning behind recommendations for less-than-annual testing and to foster informed preferences should be devised and evaluated. Published by Elsevier Inc.
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
Authors: Debbie Saslow; Diane Solomon; Herschel W Lawson; Maureen Killackey; Shalini L Kulasingam; Joanna Cain; Francisco A R Garcia; Ann T Moriarty; Alan G Waxman; David C Wilbur; Nicolas Wentzensen; Levi S Downs; Mark Spitzer; Anna-Barbara Moscicki; Eduardo L Franco; Mark H Stoler; Mark Schiffman; Philip E Castle; Evan R Myers Journal: CA Cancer J Clin Date: 2012-03-14 Impact factor: 508.702
Authors: Alison J Huang; Eliseo J Pérez-Stable; Sue E Kim; Sabrina T Wong; Celia P Kaplan; Judith M E Walsh; A Yuri Iwaoka-Scott; George F Sawaya Journal: J Gen Intern Med Date: 2008-05-28 Impact factor: 5.128
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
Authors: John S Luque; Yelena N Tarasenko; Hong Li; Caroline B Davila; Rachel N Knight; Rosa E Alcantar Journal: J Racial Ethn Health Disparities Date: 2017-07-12
Authors: Philip E Castle; Cosette M Wheeler; Nicole G Campos; Stephen Sy; Emily A Burger; Jane J Kim Journal: Prev Med Date: 2018-03-14 Impact factor: 4.018
Authors: Philip E Castle; Walter K Kinney; Lu Chen; Jane J Kim; Steven Jenison; Giovanna Rossi; Huining Kang; Jack Cuzick; Cosette M Wheeler Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2021-08-31 Impact factor: 13.506