| Literature DB >> 34207093 |
Chelsea Salyer1, Ashlyn Lipnicky2, Meredith Bagwell-Gray3, Jennifer Lorvick4, Karen Cropsey5, Megha Ramaswamy2.
Abstract
Criminal-legal involved women experience significant barriers to preventive cervical care, and consequently there is a higher incidence of cervical cancer in this population. The purpose of this study is to identify variables that may facilitate abnormal Pap follow-up among criminal-legal involved women living in community settings. The study included n = 510 women with criminal-legal histories, from three U.S. cities-Birmingham, AL; Kansas City, KS/MO; Oakland, CA. Participants completed a 288-item survey, with questions related to demographics, social advantages, provider communication, and reasons for missing follow-up care. There were n = 58 women who reported abnormal Pap testing, and n = 40 (69%) received follow-up care. Most women received either repeat Pap/HPV testing (n = 15, 38%), or colposcopy and/or biopsy (n = 14, 35%). Women who did not follow-up (n = 15, 26%) cited that they forgot (n = 8, 53%), were uninsured (n = 3, 20%), or were reincarcerated (n = 3, 20%). In a multivariate analysis, both having a primary care provider (OR 4.6, 95% CI 1.3-16.0) and receiving specific provider communication about follow-up (OR 3.8, 95% CI 1.1-13.2) were independent predictors for abnormal Pap follow-up. Interventions that offer linkages to providers in the community or ensure abnormal Pap care plans are communicated effectively may mitigate the disparate incidence of cervical cancer among criminal-legal involved women.Entities:
Keywords: abnormal Pap follow-up; cervical cancer disparities; criminal-legal involved women
Mesh:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34207093 PMCID: PMC8296431 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph18126556
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Criminal-legal system involved women who reported abnormal results at time of last Pap test according to study site.
| Variable | Total | Kansas City | Birmingham | Oakland | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Abnormal Pap ( | 58 (100%) | 18 (31.0) | 24 (41.4) | 16 (27.6) | 0.0032 |
| Timing of last Pap test | 0.9032 | ||||
| <3 years ago | 36 (62.0) | 9 (50.0) | 16 (66.7) | 11 (68.8) | |
| 3–5 years ago | 5 (8.6) | 1 (5.6) | 2 (8.3) | 2 (12.5) | |
| >5 years ago | 14 (24.1) | 5 (27.8) | 6 (25.0) | 3 (18.8) | |
| Unknown/prefer not to answer | 3 (5.2) | 3 (16.7) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | |
| Reason for Pap test | 0.1283 | ||||
| Well-woman or routine care | 28 (48.3) | 9 (50.0) | 9 (37.5) | 10 (62.5) | |
| Having problem/symptom | 13 (22.4) | 7 (38.9) | 5 (20.8) | 1 (6.3) | |
| Last Pap abnormal | 7 (12.1) | 1 (5.6) | 3 (12.5) | 3 (18.8) | |
| Screening at jail/prison | 10 (17.2) | 1 (5.6) | 7 (29.2) | 2 (12.5) | |
| Pap location | 0.0559 | ||||
| Doctor’s office/clinic | 18 (31.0) | 9 (50.0) | 8 (33.3) | 1 (6.3) | |
| Community clinic/health dept | 23 (39.7) | 5 (27.8) | 9 (37.5) | 9 (56.3) | |
| Jail/prison | 10 (17.2) | 1 (5.6) | 5 (20.8) | 4 (25.0) | |
| Unknown/prefer not to answer | 7 (12.0) | 3 (16.7) | 2 (8.3) | 2 (12.5) | |
| Received follow-up | 40 (69.0) | 12 (66.7) | 14 (58.3) | 14 (87.5) | 0.1437 |
Abnormal Pap follow-up among criminal-legal involved women.
| Variable | Total |
|---|---|
| Types of care among women who completed follow-up 1 ( | |
| Repeat Pap or HPV co-test | 15 (37.5) |
| Colposcopy and/or biopsy | 14 (35.0) |
| LEEP or ablative procedure | 3 (7.5) |
| Hysterectomy | 3 (7.5) |
| Unknown/prefer not to answer | 5 (12.5) |
| Reasons for no care among women who did not follow up 1 ( | |
| Forgot | 5 (33.3) |
| No transportation | 1 (6.7) |
| No health insurance | 3 (20.0) |
| Could not afford it | 2 (13.3) |
| Reincarceration | 3 (20.0) |
| My drug/alcohol abuse got in the way | 1 (6.7) |
| Has not yet occurred | 3 (20.0) |
1 Participants were able to select multiple responses to this question.
Variables associated with abnormal Pap follow-up among criminal-legal involved women.
| Variable | Follow-Up | No Follow-Up | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| ||||
| Mean Age | 42.8 ± 10.6 | 37.7 ± 7.1 | 0.0358 | |
| Lifetime years incarcerated, mean (SD) | 3.0 ± 3.8 | 4.6 ± 5.9 | 0.2993 | |
| More than high school education | 9 (22.5) | 7 (46.6) | 0.1511 | |
| Full-time work | 6 (15.0) | 7 (46.6) | 0.0493 | |
| Stable housing | 27 (67.5) | 15 (100.0) | 0.3961 | |
| Health insurance | 21 (52.5) | 6 (40.0) | 0.1494 | |
| Primary care provider | 27 (67.5) | 5 (33.3) | 0.0049 | |
|
| ||||
| Efficacy of provider communication 1 | 1.4 ± 1.1 | 1.8 ± 0.3 | 0.1830 | |
| Participant’s recollection of provider communication following abnormal Pap result 2 | ||||
| I was told nothing | 1 (2.5) | 2 (13.3) | 0.2248 | |
| I was given specific information about HPV, cell changes, or cancer | 18 (45.0) | 6 (40.0) | 0.4039 | |
| I was given specific information about the follow-up plan | 23 (57.5) | 5 (33.3) | 0.0361 | |
| I was told I need a repeat Pap | 11 (27.5) | 2 (13.3) | 0.1661 | |
| I was told I need a colposcopy/biopsy | 17 (42.5) | 3 (20.0) | 0.0555 | |
| I don’t know/remember | 3 (7.5) | 3 (20.0) | 0.3619 | |
1 Lower score indicates more effective provider communication, 2 participants were able to select multiple responses to this question.
Independent predictors for abnormal Pap follow-up 1.
| Independent Variables | Odds Ratio (95% CI) | |
|---|---|---|
| Full-time work | 0.34 (0.09, 1.28) | 0.1112 |
| Primary care provider | 4.57 (1.30, 16.01) | 0.0177 |
| Specific information about follow-up care | 3.78 (1.08, 13.21) | 0.0381 |
1 Controlled for age.