OBJECTIVE: To examine the effects of the updated 2012 cervical cancer screening guidelines on the rates of sexually transmitted infection (STI) screening in primary care. DESIGN: Retrospective chart review. SETTING: Five academic family practice units at St Michael's Hospital in Toronto, Ont. PARTICIPANTS: Female patients, aged 19 to 25, who had at least 1 visit with a physician at 1 of the 5 academic family practice units during a 12-month period before (May 1, 2011, to April 30, 2012) or after (November 1, 2012, to October 31, 2013) the release of the updated guidelines. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number of women who received Papanicolaou tests or underwent STI screening; rates of STI screening performed during a Pap test or a periodic health examination; screening rates for HIV, syphilis, and hepatitis C; and the methods used for STI screening before and after the release of the updated guidelines. Results Before the release of the 2012 guidelines, 42 of 100 women had Pap tests and 40 of 100 women underwent STI screening. After the release of the guidelines, 17 of 100 women had Pap tests and 20 of 100 women received STI screening. Female patients were less likely to undergo STI screening under the 2012 guidelines compared with the 2005 guidelines (odds ratio 0.38, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.74; P = .003). CONCLUSION: Implementation of the 2012 cervical cancer screening guidelines was associated with lower rates of STI screening in the primary care setting. Primary care physicians should screen at-risk women for STIs at any clinically appropriate encounter and consider using noninvasive self-sampling methods.
OBJECTIVE: To examine the effects of the updated 2012 cervical cancer screening guidelines on the rates of sexually transmitted infection (STI) screening in primary care. DESIGN: Retrospective chart review. SETTING: Five academic family practice units at St Michael's Hospital in Toronto, Ont. PARTICIPANTS: Female patients, aged 19 to 25, who had at least 1 visit with a physician at 1 of the 5 academic family practice units during a 12-month period before (May 1, 2011, to April 30, 2012) or after (November 1, 2012, to October 31, 2013) the release of the updated guidelines. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Number of women who received Papanicolaou tests or underwent STI screening; rates of STI screening performed during a Pap test or a periodic health examination; screening rates for HIV, syphilis, and hepatitis C; and the methods used for STI screening before and after the release of the updated guidelines. Results Before the release of the 2012 guidelines, 42 of 100 women had Pap tests and 40 of 100 women underwent STI screening. After the release of the guidelines, 17 of 100 women had Pap tests and 20 of 100 women received STI screening. Female patients were less likely to undergo STI screening under the 2012 guidelines compared with the 2005 guidelines (odds ratio 0.38, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.74; P = .003). CONCLUSION: Implementation of the 2012 cervical cancer screening guidelines was associated with lower rates of STI screening in the primary care setting. Primary care physicians should screen at-risk women for STIs at any clinically appropriate encounter and consider using noninvasive self-sampling methods.
Authors: Joan Murphy; Erin B Kennedy; Sheila Dunn; C Meg McLachlin; Michael Fung Kee Fung; Danusia Gzik; Michael Shier; Lawrence Paszat Journal: J Obstet Gynaecol Can Date: 2012-05
Authors: James Dickinson; Eva Tsakonas; Sarah Conner Gorber; Gabriela Lewin; Elizabeth Shaw; Harminder Singh; Michel Joffres; Richard Birtwhistle; Marcello Tonelli; Verna Mai; Meg McLachlin Journal: CMAJ Date: 2013-01-07 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Tara Kiran; Alexander Kopp; Rahim Moineddin; J Charles Victor; Robert J Campbell; Baiju R Shah; Richard H Glazier Journal: CMAJ Date: 2013-01-07 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: Max A Chernesky; Edward W Hook; David H Martin; Jeannine Lane; Randy Johnson; Jeanne A Jordan; Deanna Fuller; Dean E Willis; Paul M Fine; William M Janda; Julius Schachter Journal: Sex Transm Dis Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 2.830
Authors: David N Juurlink; Muhammad M Mamdani; Douglas S Lee; Alexander Kopp; Peter C Austin; Andreas Laupacis; Donald A Redelmeier Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-08-05 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Michelle S Naimer; Jeffrey C Kwong; Deepit Bhatia; Rahim Moineddin; Michael Whelan; Michael A Campitelli; Liane Macdonald; Aisha Lofters; Ashleigh Tuite; Tali Bogler; Joanne A Permaul; Warren J McIsaac Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2017-07 Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Annarosa Del Mistro; Helena Frayle; Martina Rizzi; Gianpiero Fantin; Antonio Ferro; Paolo Matteo Angeletti; Paolo Giorgi Rossi; Emma Altobelli Journal: PLoS One Date: 2017-03-06 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Aisha K Lofters; Amy Mark; Monica Taljaard; Michael E Green; Richard H Glazier; Simone Dahrouge Journal: BMC Fam Pract Date: 2018-08-29 Impact factor: 2.497