Literature DB >> 28178049

Single Health System Adherence to 2012 Cervical Cancer Screening Guidelines at Extremes of Age and Posthysterectomy.

Deanna Teoh1, Rachel Isaksson Vogel, Gretchen Hultman, Minnu Monu, Levi Downs, Melissa A Geller, Chap Le, Genevieve Melton-Meaux, Shalini Kulasingam.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the proportion of guideline nonadherent Pap tests in women aged younger than 21 years and older than 65 years and posthysterectomy in a single large health system. Secondary objectives were to describe temporal trends and patient and health care provider characteristics associated with screening in these groups.
METHODS: A retrospective cross-sectional chart review was performed at Fairview Health Services and University of Minnesota Physicians. Reasons for testing and patient and health care provider information were collected. Tests were designated as indicated or nonindicated per the 2012 cervical cancer screening guidelines. Point estimates and descriptive statistics were calculated. Patient and health care provider characteristics were compared between indicated and nonindicated groups using χ and Wilcoxon rank-sum tests.
RESULTS: A total of 3,920 Pap tests were performed between September 9, 2012, and August 31, 2014. A total of 257 (51%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 46.1-54.9%) of tests in the younger than 21 years group, 536 (40%; 95% CI 37.7-43.1%) in the older than 65 years group, and 605 (29%; 95% CI 27.1-31.0%) in the posthysterectomy group were not indicated. White race in the older than 65 years group was the only patient characteristic associated with receipt of a nonindicated Pap test (P=.007). Health care provider characteristics associated with nonindicated Pap tests varied by screening group. Temporal trends showed a decrease in the proportion of nonindicated tests in the younger than 21 years group but an increase in the posthysterectomy group.
CONCLUSION: For women aged younger than 21 years and older than 65 years and posthysterectomy, 35% of Pap tests performed in our health system were not guideline-adherent. There were no patient or health care provider characteristics associated with guideline nonadherent screening across all groups.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28178049      PMCID: PMC5322246          DOI: 10.1097/AOG.0000000000001895

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Obstet Gynecol        ISSN: 0029-7844            Impact factor:   7.661


  13 in total

Review 1.  American Cancer Society guideline for the early detection of cervical neoplasia and cancer.

Authors:  Debbie Saslow; Carolyn D Runowicz; Diane Solomon; Anna-Barbara Moscicki; Robert A Smith; Harmon J Eyre; Carmel Cohen
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2002 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 508.702

2.  American Cancer Society, American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology, and American Society for Clinical Pathology screening guidelines for the prevention and early detection of cervical cancer.

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:  Am J Clin Pathol       Date:  2012-04       Impact factor: 2.493

3.  Cervical cancer screening rates in the United States and the potential impact of implementation of screening guidelines.

Authors:  Diane Solomon; Nancy Breen; Timothy McNeel
Journal:  CA Cancer J Clin       Date:  2007 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 508.702

4.  ACOG Practice Bulletin Number 131: Screening for cervical cancer.

Authors: 
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2012-11       Impact factor: 7.661

5.  2012 updated consensus guidelines for the management of abnormal cervical cancer screening tests and cancer precursors.

Authors:  L Stewart Massad; Mark H Einstein; Warner K Huh; Hormuzd A Katki; Walter K Kinney; Mark Schiffman; Diane Solomon; Nicolas Wentzensen; Herschel W Lawson
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2013-04       Impact factor: 7.661

Review 6.  Practice Bulletin No. 168: Cervical Cancer Screening and Prevention.

Authors: 
Journal:  Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2016-10       Impact factor: 7.661

7.  Cervical cancer screening in women vaccinated against human papillomavirus infection: Recommendations from a consensus conference.

Authors:  Paolo Giorgi Rossi; Francesca Carozzi; Antonio Federici; Guglielmo Ronco; Marco Zappa; Silvia Franceschi
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2016-11-25       Impact factor: 4.018

8.  Compliance with cervical cancer screening and human papillomavirus testing guidelines among insured young women.

Authors:  Jacqueline M Hirth; Alai Tan; Gregg S Wilkinson; Abbey B Berenson
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2013-05-30       Impact factor: 8.661

9.  Discontent and Confusion: Primary Care Providers' Opinions and Understanding of Current Cervical Cancer Screening Recommendations.

Authors:  Emily Boone; LaVonna Lewis; Michael Karp
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2015-11-05       Impact factor: 2.681

10.  Overuse of papanicolaou testing among older women and among women without a cervix.

Authors:  Deanna Kepka; Nancy Breen; Jessica B King; Vicki B Benard; Mona Saraiya
Journal:  JAMA Intern Med       Date:  2014-02-01       Impact factor: 21.873

View more
  8 in total

1.  Excess Cost of Cervical Cancer Screening Beyond Recommended Screening Ages or After Hysterectomy in a Single Institution.

Authors:  Deanna Teoh; Gretchen Hultman; McKenzie DeKam; Rachel Isaksson Vogel; Levi S Downs; Melissa A Geller; Chap Le; Genevieve Melton; Shalini Kulasingam
Journal:  J Low Genit Tract Dis       Date:  2018-07       Impact factor: 1.925

2.  Trends Over Time in Pap and Pap-HPV Cotesting for Cervical Cancer Screening.

Authors:  Kathy L MacLaughlin; Robert M Jacobson; Carmen Radecki Breitkopf; Patrick M Wilson; Debra J Jacobson; Chun Fan; Jennifer L St Sauver; Lila J Finney Rutten
Journal:  J Womens Health (Larchmt)       Date:  2019-01-07       Impact factor: 2.681

3.  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

4.  Ending Cervical Cancer Screening in Low-Risk Women After Age 65: Understanding Barriers to Adherence With Evidence-Based Guidelines Among Primary Care Providers.

Authors:  Emily Boone; Michael Karp; LaVonna Lewis
Journal:  Health Serv Res Manag Epidemiol       Date:  2018-03-16

5.  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

6.  Cervical Cancer Screening in Patients with Total Hysterectomy in a Diagnostic Center at Mexico City.

Authors:  Carlos Manuel Ortiz-Mendoza
Journal:  Int J Prev Med       Date:  2022-02-23

7.  Unindicated cervical cancer screening in adolescent females within a large healthcare system in the United States.

Authors:  Hillary Hosier; Sangini S Sheth; Carlos R Oliveira; Lauren E Perley; Alla Vash-Margita
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2021-07-10       Impact factor: 8.661

8.  Assessing Physician Adherence to Guidelines for Cervical Cancer Screening and Management of Abnormal Screening Results.

Authors:  Caroline J Min; L Stewart Massad; Rebecca Dick; Matthew A Powell; Lindsay M Kuroki
Journal:  J Low Genit Tract Dis       Date:  2020-10       Impact factor: 3.842

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.