Heike Thiel de Bocanegra1,2, Sandy K Navarro1, Narissa J Nonzee3, Sitaram Vangala4, Xinkai Zhou4, Charlene Chang5, Anna-Barbara Moscicki5. 1. Bixby Center for Global Reproductive Health, Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology, and Reproductive Sciences, University of California, San Francisco, CA. 2. Family Planning Research Program, Department of Obstetrics & Gynecology, University of California, Irvine, CA. 3. Center for Cancer Prevention and Control Research and Department of Health Policy and Management, Fielding School of Public Health and Jonsson Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of California, Los Angeles, CA. 4. Division of General Internal Medicine and Health Services Research, Department of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, CA. 5. Department of Pediatrics, David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, Los Angeles, CA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Guidelines recommend 3-year cervical cancer screening intervals to avoid unnecessary invasive procedures; however, regular testing remains critical. We evaluated trends in cervical cancer screening among low-income women receiving family planning-related services and their association with patient and provider characteristics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using claims and enrollment data from California's publicly funded family planning program, we identified 540,026 women with a clinician visit at 216 sites between 2011 and 2015. We calculated guideline adherent cervical cancer testing rates for 6-month periods among women aged 21 to 24, 25 to 29, and 30 to 64 years. We also calculated guideline adherent chlamydia testing for women aged 21 to 24 years. RESULTS: Having a 3-year cervical cancer screening test declined for all age groups. The odds of cervical cancer screening declined for women aged 21 to 24 years by an estimated 11% every 6 months (odds ratio [OR] = 0.90, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.89-0.90), a significantly greater decline than for the other age groups. Among women aged 21 to 29 years, the decrease was significantly larger for Latina (ratio of ORs = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.95-0.96) and Spanish-speaking (ratio of ORs = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.95-0.96) women compared with non-Latina and non-Spanish-speaking women. A smaller decline was seen for chlamydia screening. CONCLUSIONS: Changes in screening interval guidelines are associated with overall decreased screening. This trend was strongest among women aged 21 to 24 years, even as they continued to be screened appropriately for chlamydia, suggesting many missed opportunities. Efforts to reduce unnecessary cervical cancer screening should be monitored to maintain appropriate screening rates to avoid advanced-stage diagnoses and higher health care costs.
OBJECTIVE: Guidelines recommend 3-year cervical cancer screening intervals to avoid unnecessary invasive procedures; however, regular testing remains critical. We evaluated trends in cervical cancer screening among low-income women receiving family planning-related services and their association with patient and provider characteristics. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Using claims and enrollment data from California's publicly funded family planning program, we identified 540,026 women with a clinician visit at 216 sites between 2011 and 2015. We calculated guideline adherent cervical cancer testing rates for 6-month periods among women aged 21 to 24, 25 to 29, and 30 to 64 years. We also calculated guideline adherent chlamydia testing for women aged 21 to 24 years. RESULTS: Having a 3-year cervical cancer screening test declined for all age groups. The odds of cervical cancer screening declined for women aged 21 to 24 years by an estimated 11% every 6 months (odds ratio [OR] = 0.90, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.89-0.90), a significantly greater decline than for the other age groups. Among women aged 21 to 29 years, the decrease was significantly larger for Latina (ratio of ORs = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.95-0.96) and Spanish-speaking (ratio of ORs = 0.95, 95% CI = 0.95-0.96) women compared with non-Latina and non-Spanish-speaking women. A smaller decline was seen for chlamydia screening. CONCLUSIONS: Changes in screening interval guidelines are associated with overall decreased screening. This trend was strongest among women aged 21 to 24 years, even as they continued to be screened appropriately for chlamydia, suggesting many missed opportunities. Efforts to reduce unnecessary cervical cancer screening should be monitored to maintain appropriate screening rates to avoid advanced-stage diagnoses and higher health care costs.
Authors: Marjorie Kagawa-Singer; Nadereh Pourat; Nancy Breen; Steven Coughlin; Teresa Abend McLean; Timothy S McNeel; Ninez A Ponce Journal: Med Care Res Rev Date: 2007-09-05 Impact factor: 3.929
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: 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
Authors: Maria Kyrgiou; Anita Mitra; Marc Arbyn; Sofia Melina Stasinou; Pierre Martin-Hirsch; Phillip Bennett; Evangelos Paraskevaidis Journal: BMJ Date: 2014-10-28
Authors: Arica White; Trevor D Thompson; Mary C White; Susan A Sabatino; Janet de Moor; Paul V Doria-Rose; Ann M Geiger; Lisa C Richardson Journal: MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep Date: 2017-03-03 Impact factor: 17.586
Authors: Anna-Barbara Moscicki; Rebecca B Perkins; Marion Saville; Julia M L Brotherton Journal: J Low Genit Tract Dis Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 1.925