Literature DB >> 28694268

The Effect of Changes in Cervical Cancer Screening Guidelines on Chlamydia Testing.

Michelle S Naimer1,2, Jeffrey C Kwong1,3,4,5,6, Deepit Bhatia3, Rahim Moineddin7,3,6, Michael Whelan4, Michael A Campitelli3, Liane Macdonald4,6, Aisha Lofters7,3,8,6, Ashleigh Tuite6, Tali Bogler7,9, Joanne A Permaul2, Warren J McIsaac7,2.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: Many chlamydia infections are identified through screening, which is frequently offered to females concomitantly with cervical cancer screening. Recent cervical cancer screening guidelines recommend screening less frequently and starting later. We sought to evaluate the impact of the May 2012 Ontario, Canada, cervical cancer screening guideline change on Papanicolaou (Pap) and chlamydia trachomatis (chlamydia) testing and incidence.
METHODS: We extracted population-based physician billing claims data to identify Pap and chlamydia tests and public health surveillance data to identify chlamydia cases. We used interrupted time series analysis of quarterly data spanning 2 years before and after the guideline change and fitted segmented linear regression or rational functions to the outcomes using autoregressive integrated moving average models. Outcomes were stratified by sex and age group.
RESULTS: Two years after the guideline change, we observed reduced chlamydia testing in females, with the greatest relative reduction (25.5%) among those aged 15 to 19 years. We also observed decreases in reported chlamydia incidence for females aged 15 to 19 years and 20 to 24 years (relative reductions of 16.8% and 14.4%, respectively). Chlamydia incidence remained the same for males, despite increased chlamydia testing.
CONCLUSIONS: Recent cervical cancer screening guideline changes in Ontario were associated with reduced chlamydia testing and reported new cases of chlamydia in females. Females aged 15 to 19 years, who are at high risk for chlamydia if sexually active, and who no longer warrant cervical cancer screening, were disproportionately affected. Females should be tested for chlamydia based on risk, regardless of need for Pap testing.
© 2017 Annals of Family Medicine, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  cervical cancer; chlamydia; clinical practice guidelines; screening

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28694268      PMCID: PMC5505451          DOI: 10.1370/afm.2097

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Ann Fam Med        ISSN: 1544-1709            Impact factor:   5.166


  12 in total

1.  Recommendations on screening for cervical cancer.

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

2.  Missed connections: Unintended consequences of updated cervical cancer screening guidelines on screening rates for sexually transmitted infections.

Authors:  Tali Bogler; Allison Farber; Nathan Stall; Sheila Wijayasinghe; Morgan Slater; Charlie Guiang; Richard H Glazier
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2015-10       Impact factor: 3.275

3.  Screening for Gonorrhea, Chlamydia, and Hepatitis B.

Authors:  Audrey Tanksley; Adam S Cifu
Journal:  JAMA       Date:  2016 Mar 22-29       Impact factor: 56.272

4.  Low rates of cervical cancer screening among urban immigrants: a population-based study in Ontario, Canada.

Authors:  Aisha K Lofters; Rahim Moineddin; Stephen W Hwang; Richard H Glazier
Journal:  Med Care       Date:  2010-07       Impact factor: 2.983

5.  CDC Grand Rounds: Chlamydia prevention: challenges and strategies for reducing disease burden and sequelae.

Authors: 
Journal:  MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep       Date:  2011-04-01       Impact factor: 17.586

6.  Impact of Cervical Cancer Screening Guidelines on Screening for Chlamydia.

Authors:  Allison Ursu; Ananda Sen; Mack Ruffin
Journal:  Ann Fam Med       Date:  2015 Jul-Aug       Impact factor: 5.166

7.  The laboratory diagnosis of Chlamydia trachomatis infections.

Authors:  Max A Chernesky
Journal:  Can J Infect Dis Med Microbiol       Date:  2005-01       Impact factor: 2.471

8.  Comparing first-void urine specimens, self-collected vaginal swabs, and endocervical specimens to detect Chlamydia trachomatis and Neisseria gonorrhoeae by a nucleic acid amplification test.

Authors:  Mary-Ann Shafer; Jeanne Moncada; Cherrie B Boyer; Kelli Betsinger; Scott D Flinn; Julius Schachter
Journal:  J Clin Microbiol       Date:  2003-09       Impact factor: 5.948

Review 9.  Efficacy of interventions to increase the uptake of chlamydia screening in primary care: a systematic review.

Authors:  Rebecca J Guy; Hammad Ali; Bette Liu; Simone Poznanski; James Ward; Basil Donovan; John Kaldor; Jane Hocking
Journal:  BMC Infect Dis       Date:  2011-08-05       Impact factor: 3.090

10.  Modest rise in chlamydia and gonorrhoea testing did not increase case detection in a clinical HIV cohort in Ontario, Canada.

Authors:  Ann N Burchell; Ramandip Grewal; Vanessa G Allen; Sandra L Gardner; Veronika Moravan; Ahmed M Bayoumi; Rupert Kaul; Frank McGee; Margaret Peggy E Millson; Robert S Remis; Janet Raboud; Tony Mazzulli; Sean B Rourke
Journal:  Sex Transm Infect       Date:  2014-09-01       Impact factor: 3.519

View more
  9 in total

1.  Evaluating Screening Participation, Follow-up, and Outcomes for Breast, Cervical, and Colorectal Cancer in the PROSPR Consortium.

Authors:  William E Barlow; Elisabeth F Beaber; Berta M Geller; Aruna Kamineni; Yingye Zheng; Jennifer S Haas; Chun R Chao; Carolyn M Rutter; Ann G Zauber; Brian L Sprague; Ethan A Halm; Donald L Weaver; Jessica Chubak; V Paul Doria-Rose; Sarah Kobrin; Tracy Onega; Virginia P Quinn; Marilyn M Schapira; Anna N A Tosteson; Douglas A Corley; Celette Sugg Skinner; Mitchell D Schnall; Katrina Armstrong; Cosette M Wheeler; Michael J Silverberg; Bijal A Balasubramanian; Chyke A Doubeni; Dale McLerran; Jasmin A Tiro
Journal:  J Natl Cancer Inst       Date:  2020-03-01       Impact factor: 13.506

2. 

Authors:  Elliot Lass; Lucshman Raveendran
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2019-11       Impact factor: 3.275

3.  Educational implications of changing the guidelines for the digital rectal examination.

Authors:  Elliot Lass; Lucshman Raveendran
Journal:  Can Fam Physician       Date:  2019-11       Impact factor: 3.275

4.  Strategies to reach marginalized women for cervical cancer screening: A qualitative study of stakeholder perspectives.

Authors:  B Wood; A Lofters; M Vahabi
Journal:  Curr Oncol       Date:  2018-02-28       Impact factor: 3.677

5.  Gonorrhea and Chlamydia Testing and Case Rates Among Women Veterans in the Veterans Health Administration.

Authors:  Shimrit Keddem; Marissa Maier; Carolyn Gardella; Joleen Borgerding; Elliott Lowy; Maggie Chartier; Sally Haskell; Ronald G Hauser; Lauren A Beste
Journal:  J Gen Intern Med       Date:  2022-08-30       Impact factor: 6.473

6.  Trends in Cervical Cancer Screening in California's Family Planning Program.

Authors:  Heike Thiel de Bocanegra; Sandy K Navarro; Narissa J Nonzee; Sitaram Vangala; Xinkai Zhou; Charlene Chang; Anna-Barbara Moscicki
Journal:  J Low Genit Tract Dis       Date:  2018-07       Impact factor: 1.925

7.  MultiCenter Interrupted Time Series Analysis: Incorporating Within and Between-Center Heterogeneity.

Authors:  Joycelyne E Ewusie; Lehana Thabane; Joseph Beyene; Sharon E Straus; Jemila S Hamid
Journal:  Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2020-06-17       Impact factor: 4.790

8.  Screening for chlamydia and/or gonorrhea in primary health care: systematic reviews on effectiveness and patient preferences.

Authors:  Jennifer Pillay; Aireen Wingert; Tara MacGregor; Michelle Gates; Ben Vandermeer; Lisa Hartling
Journal:  Syst Rev       Date:  2021-04-19

9.  Why Are Rates of Reported Chlamydia Changing in the United States? Insights From the National Job Training Program.

Authors:  Jill Diesel; Kristen Kreisel; Emily R Learner; Elizabeth Torrone; Thomas Peterman
Journal:  Sex Transm Dis       Date:  2021-03-01       Impact factor: 3.868

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.