Literature DB >> 29288782

Adherence patterns to extended cervical screening intervals in women undergoing human papillomavirus (HPV) and cytology cotesting.

Katharine A Rendle1, Mark Schiffman2, Li C Cheung3, Walter K Kinney4, Barbara Fetterman5, Nancy E Poitras6, Thomas Lorey7, Philip E Castle8.   

Abstract

Although guidelines have recommended extended interval cervical screening using concurrent human papillomavirus (HPV) and cytology ("cotesting") for over a decade, little is known about its adoption into routine care. Using longitudinal medical record data (2003-2015) from Kaiser Permanente Northern California (KPNC), which adopted triennial cotesting in 2003, we examined adherence to extended interval screening. We analyzed predictors of screening intervals among 491,588 women undergoing routine screening, categorizing interval length into early (<2.5years), adherent (2.5<3.5years), or late (3.5<6.0years). We also examined repeated early screening in a subgroup of 50,691 women. Predictors examined included: cohort year (defined by baseline cotest, 2003-2009), race/ethnicity, and baseline age. Compared to the 2003 cohort, women in the 2009 cohort were significantly less likely to screen early (aOR=0.22, 95% CI=0.21, 0.23) or late (aOR=0.47, 95% CI=0.45, 0.49). African American (AA) and Hispanic women were less adherent overall than Non-Hispanic White women, with increased early [(AA: aOR=1.21, 95%CI=1.17, 1.25) (Hispanic: aOR=1.08, 95%CI=1.06, 1.11)] and late screening [(AA: aOR=1.23, 95%CI=1.19, 1.27) (Hispanic: aOR=1.06, 95%CI=1.03, 1.08)]. Asian women were slightly more likely to screen early (aOR=1.03, 95%CI=1.01, 1.05), and less likely to screen late (aOR=0.92, 95% CI=0.90, 0.94). Women aged 60-64years were most likely to screen early for two consecutive intervals (aOR=2.09, 95%CI=1.91, 2.29). Our study found that widespread and rapid adoption of extended interval cervical cancer screening is possible, at least in this managed care setting. Further research examining multilevel drivers promoting or restricting extended interval screening across diverse healthcare settings is needed.
Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 29288782     DOI: 10.1016/j.ypmed.2017.12.023

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Prev Med        ISSN: 0091-7435            Impact factor:   4.018


  7 in total

1.  Variation in the receipt of human papilloma virus co-testing for cervical screening: Individual, provider, facility and healthcare system characteristics.

Authors:  Jennifer S Haas; David Cheng; Liyang Yu; Steven J Atlas; Cheryl Clark; Sarah Feldman; Michelle I Silver; Aruna Kamineni; Jessica Chubak; Gaia Pocobelli; Jasmin A Tiro; Sarah C Kobrin
Journal:  Prev Med       Date:  2021-11-08       Impact factor: 4.018

2.  Cost-effectiveness analysis of the 2019 American Society for Colposcopy and Cervical Pathology Risk-Based Management Consensus Guidelines for the management of abnormal cervical cancer screening tests and cancer precursors.

Authors:  Vidit N Munshi; Rebecca B Perkins; Stephen Sy; Jane J Kim
Journal:  Am J Obstet Gynecol       Date:  2021-09-20       Impact factor: 10.693

3.  The Improving Risk Informed HPV Screening (IRIS) Study: Design and Baseline Characteristics.

Authors:  Julia C Gage; Tina Raine-Bennett; Mark Schiffman; Megan A Clarke; Li C Cheung; Nancy E Poitras; Nicole E Varnado; Hormuzd A Katki; Philip E Castle; Brian Befano; Malini Chandra; Greg Rydzak; Thomas Lorey; Nicolas Wentzensen
Journal:  Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev       Date:  2021-11-17       Impact factor: 4.090

4.  Trends and Determinants in Uptake of Cervical Cancer Screening in Spain: An Analysis of National Surveys from 2017 and 2020.

Authors:  Silvia Portero de la Cruz; Jesús Cebrino
Journal:  Cancers (Basel)       Date:  2022-05-18       Impact factor: 6.575

5.  Impact of COVID-19-related care disruptions on cervical cancer screening in the United States.

Authors:  Emily A Burger; Erik El Jansen; James Killen; Inge McM de Kok; Megan A Smith; Stephen Sy; Niels Dunnewind; Nicole G Campos; Jennifer S Haas; Sarah Kobrin; Aruna Kamineni; Karen Canfell; Jane J Kim
Journal:  J Med Screen       Date:  2021-03-17       Impact factor: 1.687

6.  Health impacts of COVID-19 disruptions to primary cervical screening by time since last screen: A model-based analysis for current and future disruptions.

Authors:  Emily A Burger; Inge M C M de Kok; James F O'Mahony; Matejka Rebolj; Erik E L Jansen; Daniel D de Bondt; James Killen; Sharon J Hanley; Alejandra Castanon; Jane J Kim; Karen Canfell; Megan A Smith; Mary Caroline Regan
Journal:  medRxiv       Date:  2022-07-25

7.  A model-based analysis of the health impacts of COVID-19 disruptions to primary cervical screening by time since last screen for current and future disruptions.

Authors:  Inge M C M de Kok; James F O'Mahony; Emily A Burger; Matejka Rebolj; Erik E L Jansen; Daniel D de Bondt; James Killen; Sharon J Hanley; Alejandra Castanon; Mary Caroline Regan; Jane J Kim; Karen Canfell; Megan A Smith
Journal:  Elife       Date:  2022-10-12       Impact factor: 8.713

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.